Article

79827

The fight for gay marriage is one of the most hotly debated topics in current politics. Throughout the numerous debates and the numerous sides one may take, an interesting and highly theoretical debate exists between radical liberals who want to replace the oppressive marriage system with a better alternative and less radical liberals who are in favor of gay marriage but see alternatives to marriage as unequal. To radical liberals, gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction because it enforces the status quo of marriage, and the system should instead be revamped entirely. Mainstream liberals see that the alternatives to marriage that exist do not currently give equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, and see same-sex marriage as the path to equality. We can draw parallels to these view points by looking at the ideals of the homophile movement, which correlate to the fight for gay marriage, and by looking at the ideals of the historical gay liberation
movement, which correlate to the fight for alternatives to marriage. The radical fight for creating an alternative to marriage that includes benefits for non-standard households is appealing, but is it realistic? Though there has yet to be a country to strike down the marriage system completely, both gay marriage and alternatives already exist in both the United States and abroad. By investigating such models, one is better able to determine what has been and will be successful. After examining the systems already in place, a poll of the MIT population along with information from national polls, can be used to determine what changes to the marriage system could be realistic.

The History of Gay Activism: The Homophile Movement and Gay Liberation
Before one can fully understand the arguments about gay marriage and its
alternatives, one must first understand the history of the different LGBT movements in
the United States. Before the radical gay liberation movement of the late 1960’s and 70’s,
there was a more conservative and less widespread homophile movement. The homophile
movement was never a mass movement like liberationist movements, and its aim was to
increase tolerance of homosexuality and to decriminalize it. It began in Europe in the late
1800’s and later spread to the United States. The movement emphasized that
homosexuals were congenial and harmless by nature. The small societies and groups that
made up the homophile movement, including the Mattachine Society and the Daughters
of Bilitis, fought to promote the image of the homosexual as a model citizen, exactly like
everyone else except for a “biological abnormality.” The culture at the time of the
homophile movement in the 1950’s was one of intolerance and oppression of
homosexuals, which made political organization nearly impossible. While many criticize
the homophile movement for being a conservative movement with limited achievement,
homophile organizations set the stage for gay liberation by petitioning governments,
voicing their opinions to political candidates, producing and distributing newsletters, and
conducting statistical surveys on homosexual behavior, despite the dangers that were
associated with being labeled as a homosexual at the time.
Along with other counter-culture revolutions in the 1960’s, came the gay
liberation movement. In June of 1969, police raided a gay and drag bar, the Stonewall
Inn, and were met with resistance that triggered an entire weekend of riots. The Stonewall
riots are often seen as the symbolic start of gay liberation, the spark that incited people to
2act on their increasing dissatisfaction with the conservative and quiet homophile
movement. Gay liberationists took a radical approach of advocating a distinct gay
identity and refusing to conform to the status quo. Unlike the homophiles, they refused to
accept mainstream culture and, like other counter-culture movements in the 1960’s,
fought for change through physical protests such as street battles with the police and
university classroom sit-ins. The gay identity of the gay liberation movement did not
want to be recognized as “normal” by everyone else but instead sought to overthrow the
oppressive social institutions that pathologised homosexuality.
It is clear that historically, gay liberationists had no interest in obliging to the
rules of mainstream society, and the current fight for gay marriage is contradictory to the
ideals of the early movement. The liberationists of the 1970’s would have preferred to
fight for less rigid alternatives to the marriage system. Conversely, the ideals of the
homophile movement are more in line with the fight for gay marriage in its fight for
assimilation and acceptance in main stream culture, while the fight for alternatives would
have been seen as too disruptive to society and ultimately discriminatory.

Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
For the majority of straight liberal people, there seems to be no legitimate reason
to be against gay marriage. Some suggest that allowing same-sex couples to marry would
undermine the traditional definition of marriage and diminish its sanctity. However,
should the label really be so important and restrictive? Why not give gay couples the
same basic rights that straight couples have been receiving for centuries? Mainstream gay
people also seem to have no qualms about gay marriage; it only makes sense for gay and
3straight couples to have equal access to equal benefits. Many use supplemental arguments
such as a separation of church and state in our government; just because religious fanatics
are morally opposed to gay marriage doesn’t mean that our legal system should
discriminate against gay people in civil marriage. With numerous rights and benefits
associated with marriage, it does not seem fair to deny these to gay and lesbian couples.
However, in Michael Warner’s essay, The Trouble With Normal, and in Paula
Ettelbrick’s Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, they both argue that gay
marriage is, in reality, setting the gay liberation movement back. The argument is not that
we should be fighting against gay marriage, but that we should be fighting against
marriage as an oppressive institution.
The assumption that everyone wants to get married is incorrect. Our culture
breeds people to think that they will grow up and get married, but what is so important
about marriage that keeps us in line with this system? It seems that many people do not
look beyond themselves and their partners when they consider why they want to get
married and what it means. In our survey of over 200 people within the MIT community,
many cited similar reasons to get married, such as to represent their love and commitment
to a significant other and to raise a family. However, Warner notes that marriage “is
never a private contract between two persons. It always involves the recognition of a
third party – and not just a voluntary or neutral recognition, but an enforceable
recognition.”
Why is this justification of the state necessary? For many people, the
justification of the state gives married couples legal rights and benefits that non-married
couples do not have. However, one might be skeptical of how closely the state regulates
this supposed declaration of love. The state is funneling people into procreative marriages
Warner, Michael. “Beyond Gay Marriage”, The Trouble With Normal, p. 117.
4by providing benefits, all of which could be given without a contract of marriage. Warner
notes that “health care and tax equality are social justice issues and should be extended to
single people.”
Benefits that involve intimate connections, such as parenting rights and immigration rights do not need to be limited to marriages but instead could be expanded, for example, to domestic partnerships and common law relations. Furthermore, benefits for property sharing “are specific to households rather than romantic couples and could be broadened to cover all cohabiting arrangements.”Marriage appeals to many people because all these benefits can be attained together through marriage. However, as many scholars have noted, the catch is that marriage is a requirement to receive these benefits, and marriage is not necessarily right for everyone. The system of state sanctified marriages could easily be revised to include alternative families and living arrangements. Take a minute to rethink the fight for gay marriage and one will find that it is a fight to support a system that is totally out of line with gay liberation. Paula Ettelbrick, in Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, notes that “steeped in a patriarchal system that looks to ownership, property, and dominance of men over women as its basis, the institution of marriage has long been the focus of radical-feminist revulsion.”4
Marriage is a system that gives basic benefits only to those who follow it, so by encouraging gay marriage, you disadvantage anyone who does not fit into the strict model of marriage. The fight for gay liberation emphasizes that gays and lesbians often do not conform to mainstream society, but that the community should be supported and accepted despite any differences. Ettelbrick explains that if activists continue to argue that “we should be treated as equals because we are really just like married couples and hold the same values to be true, we undermine the very purpose of our movement and begin the dangerous process of silencing our different voices.” Alternate models to marriage already exist in
other countries, as will be discussed in subsequent sections, and have managed to
function acceptably well in those societies. While other countries have progressed toward
a more just system, the United States... to be continued


Previous article:
albert (11 years ago)

Next article:
УСТАЈ СРБИЈО (11 years ago)