Blog #11 - Ettelbrick

In her article, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick discusses her beliefs regarding same sex marriage. Ettelbrick supports same sex relationships; however she argues that marriage would destroy the identity of gay or lesbian couples by forcing them to conform to society’s norm. She wants to emphasize the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and advocate for societal approval of all relationships despite their marital status. Marriage would undermine the gay rights movement which is trying to get people to recognize and respect the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Ettelbrick argues against same sex marriage because she believes that marriage is about having everyone conform to an appropriate standard. Those people who resist marriage are not considered to be in a legitimate relationship and therefore not worthy of the legal benefits given to married couples. Instead of simply giving homosexual couples the right to marry; Ettelbrick would rather address the underlying issues that allow the government to deny homosexual couples the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. She states that, “Gay and lesbian marriages will not demolish the haves and have-nots. We must not fool ourselves into believing that marriage will make it acceptable to be gay or lesbian. We will be liberated only when we are respected and accepted for our differences and the diversity we provide to this society.” Paula Ettelbrick argues that giving homosexuals the right to marry is an example of false empowerment in which they believe that they are gaining legal power but ultimately they are being forced to conform to society’s norm. Marriage would be upheld as the norm and considered the only acceptable relationship. Ettelbrick believes that the act of allowing homosexuals to marry would be society’s attempt to model every relationship to heterosexual relationships.

I disagree with many of Ettelbrick’s arguments. It seems contradictory that as a lesbian herself, Ettelbrick would not support the marriage of homosexual couples. I understand her arguments against marriage however I believe that all individuals should be given the option to get married. If homosexual marriage was legalized, Ettelbrick could still resist conforming to society by choosing not to marry her partner. In her article Ettelbrick tries to emphasize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. However I don’t believe that same sex and heterosexual couples are so different that each group should receive different legal privileges. I do however agree that the underlying social issues causing the disparity of legal privilege needs to be addressed before gay and lesbian individuals can truly be liberated from social oppression.