Response to Ettelbrick

The Ettelbrick article and the same sex marriage FAQs offered differing opinions on the issue of same sex marriages.  The FAQs were mostly written in the typical same sex rhetoric that crops up in the news or media, and was not very new to me.  While reading through it, it is easy to understand why those who have same sex partners are upset about the lack of equality surrounding marriage.  There are far more rights not afforded to those in same sex partnerships than those who live in the typical heterosexual marriage.  Regarding the differences between a civil union and a marriage, the article was very clear that there really is no way that they are comparable.  The FAQs point to more than 1000 federal benefits and protections offered to those in a legal marriage that makes it outstandingly obvious that a civil union is not enough.  However, I was very surprised by Ettelbrick’s article, although I can understand her point.  She argues that even if the laws regarding same sex marriage were changed overnight, it wouldn’t drastically help out those who are pursuing equal rights.  Her thought is that if gay and lesbian partners are granted legal marriage, then they will lose momentum and their fight for rights will have been in vain.  Ettelbrick is vehemently against assimilation into the culture of those in heterosexual partnerships.  She believes there is a “gay identity and culture” that would be violated and destroyed upon the change allowing same sex marriage (Ettelbrick, 306).

            While I understand where Ettelbrick is coming from, I don’t think that her argument is right.  She recognizes that there are certain gains that would come from the recognition of same sex marriages, but she doesn’t think that they are worth the change due to the detriment it will do to the same sex movement.  In my opinion, the change to allowing same sex marriage would act as a stepping stone to greater rights, not the end of the movement, as she claims.  Ettelbrick also believes that the system needs to change, to not make marriage so powerful in the wording of laws, the granting of insurance, or any other distinction based on legal partnerships.  In her mind, the real issue is that marriage has too much influence on society.  She believes that acceptance of same sex couples will never be complete until they can change society so that the traditional sense of marriage is no longer.  I disagree with Ettelbrick on this point.  I think it is important to have marriage be a powerful institution in our country.  It provides stability, which is extremely beneficial to the raising of children, while also helping preserve the familial unit, which I view as important.  I think she should consider the ability for same sex marriages to occur as a first step on a path to more rights, rather than a pothole on that same path.  While I don’t know for sure, I would have to think that she must be in the minority with her viewpoint.