Whether You Do or Don't: The Right to Marry

Ettelbrick’s arguments surrounding the idea that gay marriage should not be a priority of the LGBT movement quite frankly took me by surprise. Even though Ettelbrick brings up important reasons for why gay marriage should not be the main agenda of the gay community, I still cannot fully understand why it shouldn’t. Ettelbrick argues that marriage does not necessarily denote liberation, and attaining the right to marriage will not transform our heteronormative society and its ideals on the nuclear “family”. These points I agree with, especially with regards to changing the views of our society, but I am still unconvinced for the most part. I completely disagree that gay marriage would only imply a mainstreaming of lesbians and gays. On the contrary, I strongly believe that by just having the right to marriage is actually a step towards a recognition by our predominantly homophobic society that “family” no longer denotes mother, father, brother, sister and the cute little puppy. Instead, I see it as a means by which the image of the “family” that is considered socially acceptable can actually begin to disintegrate and change to actually reflect our society.

Ettelbrick further argues that only those who are more acceptable to the mainstream because of race, gender and economic status are more likely to want the right to marry-while marginal members of the LGBT community like women, people of color, working class and the poor, are less likely to see marriage as having relevance to struggles for survival. I find Ettelbrick’s latter point to be somewhat contradictory in that it makes more sense for marginal members to want to marry…Doesn’t it seem more logical that if you’re from the working class, marriage is a means through which a more consistent financial support system can be established? If you are from the working class and living from paycheck to paycheck, pooling financial resources actually seems to be an easier option. I’m aware that based on traditional values, it’s marriage for the “wrong” reason, but the larger issue at hand is the fact that the right/ability to marry would still be an option. Being a 20-year-old senior, I can parallel my experience to having friends who are all 21 and make a point of taking advantage of that privilege…I see gay marriage in the same light- -for the drinking age: it doesn’t matter whether you drink or not…it’s simply the "privilege" to be able to do so if you so choose without any restrictions. Similarly for gay marriage, it doesn’t matter whether you want to marry or not, it’s having the choice to do whatever you please that’s important.

Ettelbrick further notes that the gay community will be liberated only when they are respected and accepted for differences and the diversity they provide to society… does this imply that all action towards equality should come to a halt? How can change and progression occur if nothing is being done? In thinking of the LGBT movement, I am constantly reminded of the civil rights movement- if civil rights activists simply decided to wait for change to occur and dominant society to accept us (people of color) and acknowledge us for our differences and the diversity we bring, you bet your bottom dollar that we’d still have separate water fountains and segregated schools.