Response to Ettelbrick

Before reading this article, I hadn't heard of a member of the LGBTQ community argue against same-sex marriage. I see Ettelbrick's argument to be broader. I understand that she wants equality, but that true equality won't be reached by getting the okay from the government to get married. She is saying that marriage would make the community more assimilated. A sort of, you're okay as long as you mimic what we do. I see her point, but I think that it falls down to what you make it. A couple could be married but still not conform in other ways. Her second main objection to same-sex marriage, is more of an argument against marriage in general. It tries to deem relationships as traditional and normal. There becomes a divide between married couples and unmarried couples. 

I'll admit that I have a jaded view on marriage. I know more people that have been divorced than those who have been married to just a single person. It has gotten to the point where marriage is a twisted sort of idea. It is either a social contract or it is for love. I can't really speak to the marriage for love part. I will say that for the marriage as a contract, I have been warned about marriage. I have been told that if I were to get married that I should have a separate bank account, just in case, I should never marry for a green card, and if I were to get divorced, I should have a female attorney. Because of these things, I tend to view marriage as a contract and not as a love thing. I think it is nice if a child is raised by a married couple, but as someone who had divorced parents, I don't think it is necessary. I think it is more important to financially and emotionally support the child, and that certainly can be done without a marriage certificate. I do agree with  the idea that marriage privileges should be extended to non-married couples, but I understand the logistical challenges that such a transition would face.