For today's readings the Paula Ettelbrick article discusses the institution of marriage and how gaining rights is not the same as gaining justice. I want to focus on one of the several problems I found with this article. She says “Justice will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this spcoety despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships" (Ettelbrick). You can’t force people to support you. You don’t have to support the institution of marriage and those who participate in that institution don’t have to support you and agree with your choices, but you do deserve the same entitlements and privileges of marriage that heterosexual married people enjoy. This quote of hers and my reaction to it then made me think that I am playing into working “within the system” as opposed to outside the system, and while I don’t know which one is correct, it was a thought that crossed my mind, making the problem even more complicated.
In the Naples Article "Queer Parenting in the New Millenium," I thought it is telling that these women partners did not receive more opposition from the Catholic Hospital where they are going to give birth to twins. Catholics have very strongly rooted anti same sex marriage views and for them to have encountered the least amount of problems at this hospital is indicative of slowly changing views and a growing acceptance of same sex parenting. Similarly, I’m shocked that in Norway, which is essentially a welfare state and incredibly tolerant of homosexuality gave a questioning look to this couple.
On a related note, I couldn't help but think back to Yoshino's lecture and whether marriage for homosexuals is covering or passing. I suppose it could be both, but I would like to think that homosexuals, like heterosexuals are marrying for the same reason, love.
Personally, I think it would be hard at this point in time with the socially constructed views that we have and with the minority of homosexual parents, to have that child have to explain at school to their friends that they have same sex parents. Sadly, I think that if the media and Hollywood, such as Ellen and Portia, had children, it could be come trendy which would make it appear "more normal and acceptable." And along that thought, I think that is sadly where the power lies, with those who are celebrities or incredibly wealthy or powerful. People like Ellen and Portia have a great deal of influence in America. That being said, I don't think same sex couples should be forced to wait for that to happen because that is silly. So while I would think it would be very hard for that child at this point in time, same sex couples should definitely by no means be denied that right, and they aren't which I was pleased to see. My question is who are we looking out for in that situation? The hypothetical unborn child? Or the same sex parents?
Ettelbrick writes that the LGBT community should not focus on legalizing gay marriage because the institution of marriage itself is patriarchal and oppressive. Her argument relies upon circular logic because she criticizes marriage for prioritizing certain relationships (heterosexual) over others (homosexual). Obviously, if gays were allowed to marry, this hierarchy would cease to exist. I disagree that gay marriage would run counter to the LGBT movement’s ideal of embracing all forms of relationships. The legal allowance of gay marriage in no way forces anyone to choose that path. The individuals who want legal recognition in the form of marriage should be married, and those who would feel constrained and forced to conform should be free to remain unmarried. Without the option to marry, individuals cannot express their identities.
ReplyDeleteI think Ettelbrick makes broad generalizations that over extend her own identity as a lesbian woman to the entirety of gay women. She says that “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society…As a lesbian woman, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women… (Ettelbrick 306). I think that she makes the gay community seem more innately separate and “other” than the mainstream heterosexual community. I think marriage doesn’t necessarily force gays “to claim [they] are just like heterosexual couples [and] have the same goal sand purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly” (Ettelbrick 307). There are a lot of gays who probably do have values and goals that align with the “mainstream” and they should be allowed to marry alongside everyone else.
Another flaw in her piece was her criticism that all gays should not strive for marriage because the institution overlooks and fails to benefit marginalized members of society. I think the problems of health care and lack of benefits for poor people and people of color stem from other societal problems, not from marriage itself. Those problems should be fixed at their root causes. Just because marriage itself does not benefit the overlooked members of society doesn’t mean that the wealthy white gays should not be able to marry. Granted, I am coming from a position in which all the gay people I know are wealthy and white. But the fact that one of my best friends will doesn’t have the right to have a wedding is unjust. Marriage isn’t the right course of action for everyone, and it does overlook some members. But equality in marriage is a step towards greater equality for women, marginalized people, and people of color.
I wanted to touch upon one of the comments that Emily made in her post. She stated “Sadly, I think that if the media and Hollywood, such as Ellen and Portia, had children, it could be come trendy which would make it appear "more normal and acceptable." I agree that if Ellen and Portia had children, lesbian motherhood might become more accepted, but when looking at them as a couple, I wonder if it would be as great of a stride as we might think. I think one of the reasons that Ellen and Portia are so accepted and liked in our society is their ability to fit somewhat nicely into our heterosexual views of what a couple should look like. This is clearly shown in their wedding photos. Ellen fits into the “male” gendered role by wearing a suit and having a short haircut. Portia fits into the “female” gendered role with her traditional wedding dress. Now, when it comes to their personalities and relationship, I don’t think that anyone in the media can truly say who is closest to the traditional male or female role, but from physical appearances alone, it is safe to say who looks like the male (Ellen) and female (Portia) in the relationship. So perhaps the reason why they are a popular couple is because they are easily labeled, and heterosexual people can relate to their relationship on some level. Another not-so-radical aspect of Ellen and Portia is the fact that they are both beautiful, white and have blonde hair. Again, this does not stray far from our cultural ideals. So whereas I think that having popular celebrity lesbian couples in the media is good for cultural awareness, when it comes to Ellen and Portia, I think we need to look a little harder at why they are really accepted. When we do, I think it will be evident that they fit into our cultural norms more than we first thought.
ReplyDeleteI really like the point that Emily made about the fact that people do not have to support the institution of marriage and the insitution of marriage in turn does not have to support you, but I think that there is still the issue that the institution of marriage is supported by the federal government and while someone may choose to not support them, the fact that the institution of marriage does not support them has a negative affect on their lives. I remember during safety zone training, we were given a list of privileges that are essentially "heterosexual privileges". They are things that we don't see as anything that is "given" to us, but are inherent to the heterosexual relationship and not to the homosexual relationship. I think it's important to see this as more of a human rights issue, but our federal government has set up those rights to go hand in hand with the institution of marriage.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Emma's comment, "I think one of the reasons that Ellen and Portia are so accepted and liked in our society is their ability to fit somewhat nicely into our heterosexual views of what a couple should look like." This goes along with something we have already touched on in our class, and an idea that continues to get reinforced for me personally, the more I learn in this class. Society has huge issues accepting things that are different. Yet, in an effort to accept "different" things better, it is easy to support Ellen and Portia. In addition to the things Emma already pointed out, such as Ellen's suit and short haircut, and Portia's beautiful long hair and wedding dress, I think Ellen's well known comedic personality makes it easier to accept her sexuality. Since Ellen is popular for her sense of humor, television show, and now her role as a judge on American Idol, I think people identify her as a "comic" before they see her as a lesbian. As a result, she has the ability to win over her crowd before they find out she may not fit in to the "normal" category. Maybe this is just a personal/uneducated view, but if Ellen made a big deal about her sexuality, I think society would have more trouble accepting her as a comedian. Consider the stigma attached to the beautiful couple of Ellen and Portia compared with Rosie O'Donnell and her partner. All in all, Ellen's charming personality, good looks and beautiful, feminine partner make her easier for society to handle.
ReplyDelete