Against Same Sex Marriages Essay, Research Paper

NATIONAL JOURNAL OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW

VOL. 1, ISSUE 1

Mary Sylla, editor ([email protected])

A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage

Barbara J. Cox

Professor

California Western School of Law

_________________________________________________________________

Very little since Stonewall, and the break from accepting

the status quo that those riots symbolize, has challenged the

lesbian and gay community as much as the debate we have had over

the past several years on whether seeking the right to marry

should be the focus of our community’s efforts, political

influence, and financial resources. As is often true in most

such political debates, both “sides” to the debate make important

arguments about the impact that the right to marry will have on

each member of our community, on the community as a whole, and on

our place in society.

Arguing against same-sex marriage in her article, Since When

is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, Paula Ettelbrick believes that

it will not liberate lesbians and gay men but will make us more

invisible, force assimilation, and undermine the lesbian and gay

civil rights movement. She also argues that it will not

transform society into respecting and encouraging relationship

choice and family diversity, which are primary goals of that

civil rights movement. Ruth Colker in Marriage echoes

Ettelbrick’s concerns, arguing that rather than expanding the

couples who can marry, we should change the institution of

marriage to eliminate its marriage-dependent benefits, so that

people will choose it for symbolic, rather than legal or

utilitarian, reasons. She also recognizes the class-based

assumptions inherent in the marriage debate, realizing that for

most poor people, marriage offers few economic advantages.

Nitya Duclos examines four reasons advanced for same-sex

marriage (political reform, public legitimation, socioeconomic

benefits, and safeguarding children of lesbian or gay parents) in

her article, Some Complicating Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage.

She concludes that the effects of allowing same-sex marriage will

not be felt uniformly throughout lesbian and gay communities and

questions whether it will exacerbate differences of power and

privilege in those communities.

In a companion piece to Ettelbrick’s, Thomas Stoddard, in

Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry, while recognizing

the oppressive nature of marriage in its traditional form,

believes that lesbians and gay men should be able to choose to

marry and the civil rights movement should seek full recognition

of same-sex marriages. His three reasons for pursuing this right

are the practical advantages associated with marriage-related

benefits, the political reason that marriage is the issue most

likely to end discrimination against lesbians and gay men, and

the philosophical explanation that lesbians and gay men should

have the right to choose to marry and that providing that right

will be the principal means toward eliminating marriage’s sexist

trappings.

Nan Hunter, in Marriage, Law and Gender: A Feminist

Inquiry, argues that legalizing lesbian and gay marriage will

destabilize marriage’s gendered definition by disrupting the link

between gender and marriage. She analyzes both marriage and

domestic partnership against the feminist inquiry of how law

reinforces power imbalances within the family and views same-sex

marriage as a means to subvert gender-based power differentials.

Mary Dunlap finds that same-sex marriage is constructive when

lesbians and gay men are encountering gay-bashing resulting from

Bowers. She examines the values underlying the push for same-

sex marriage (such as equality, autonomy, fairness, privacy, and

diversity) and encourages expansion of the marriage debate

outside legal circles. One way to expand this debate is to read

the interviews of lesbian and gay couples, some of whom have

chosen to have public ceremonies celebrating their commitment and

some of whom have chosen to keep their commitment private.

The debate continues to rage, as seen from the recent

articles contained in the Virginia Law Review’s symposium

issue. Without resolving the debate here, it seems clear that

obtaining the right to marry will drastically impact the lesbian

and gay civil rights movement. My response to the debate is best

expressed in the following short (and personal) essay, explaining

the vital political change that can result from the simple (and

personal) act of same-sex marriage.

=19es, I know that weddings can be “heterosexual rituals” of

the most repressive and repugnant kind. =19es, I know that

weddings historically symbolized the loss of the woman’s self

into that of her husband’s, a denial of her existence completely.

=19es, I know that weddings around the world continue to have that

impact on many women and often lead to lives of virtual slavery.

=19es, I know. Then how could a feminist, out, radical lesbian

like myself get married a year ago last April? Have I simply

joined the flock of lesbians and gay men rushing out to

participate in a meaningless ceremony that symbolizes

heterosexual superiority?

I think not.

When my partner and I decided to have a commitment ceremony,

we did so to express the love and caring that we feel for one

another, to celebrate that love with our friends and family, and

to express that love openly and with pride. It angers me when

others, who did not participate or do not know either of us,

condemn us as part of a mindless flock accepting a dehumanizing

ceremony. But more it distresses me that they believe their

essentialist vision of weddings explains all — because they have

been to weddings, both straight and queer, they can speak as

experts on their inherent nature.

Perhaps these experts should consider the radical aspect of

lesbian marriage or the transformation that it makes on the

people around us. As feminists, we used to say that “the

personal is political.” Have we lost that vision of how we can

understand and change the world?

My commitment ceremony was not the mere “aping” of the bride

that I supposedly spent my childhood dreaming of becoming. (In

fact, I was a very satisfied tomboy who never once considered

marriage.) My ceremony was an expression of the incredible love

and respect that I have found with my partner. My ceremony came

from a need to speak of that love and respect openly to those who

participate in my world.

Some of the most politically “out” experiences I have ever

had happened during those months of preparing for and having that

ceremony. My sister and I discussed for weeks whether she would

bring her children to the ceremony. Although I had always openly

brought the women I was involved with home with me, I had never

actually sat down with my niece and nephews to discuss those

relationships. My sister was concerned that her eldest son,

particularly, might scorn me, especially at a time when he and

his friends tended toward “faggot” jokes. After I expressed how

important it was for me to have them attend, she tried to talk

with her son about going to this euphemistically-entitled

“ceremony.” He kept asking why my partner and I were having a

“ceremony” and she kept hedging. Finally he just said, “Mom,

Barb’s gay, right?” She said yes, they all came, and things were

fine. Her youngest son sat next to me at dinner after the

ceremony trying to understand how it worked. “=19ou’re married,

right?” “=19es.” “Who’s the husband?” “There is no husband.” “Are

you going to have children?” “No.” “So there’s no husband and no

children but you’re married, right?” “=19es.” “OK,” and he happily

turned back to his dinner.

My partner invited her large Catholic family to the

ceremony. We all know how the Pope feels about us. Despite

that, her mother and most of her siblings, some from several

states away, were able to attend. Her twin brother later told us

that our ceremony led him to question and resolve the discomfort

that had plagued his relationship with his sister for many years.

As a law professor leaving town early for the ceremony, I

told my two classes (one of 95 and one of 20 students) that I was

getting “married” to my partner, who is a woman. (I actually

used “married” because saying I was getting “committed” just

didn’t quite have the right ring to it.) The students in one of

my classes joined together to buy my partner and myself a silver

engraved frame that says “Barb and Peg, Our Wedding.” My

colleagues were all invited to the ceremony and most of them

attended. One of them spoke to me of the discussion they had

within their family explaining to their children that they were

going to a lesbian wedding.

How can anyone view these small victories in coming out and

acceptance as part of flocking to imitate, or worse join, an

oppressive heterosexual institution? Is it not profoundly

transformative to speak so openly about lesbian love and

commitment? The impact was so wide-ranging, not just on my

partner and myself, but on our families, our friends, and even

the clerks in the jewelry stores when we explained we were

looking for wedding rings for both of us. Or on the 200 people

who received my mother’s annual xeroxed Christmas letter with a

paragraph describing the ceremony. Or the clerk in the store who

engraved the frame for my students. Or the young children who

learned that same-sex marriage exists.

=19es, we must be aware of the oppressive history that

weddings symbolize. We must work to ensure that we do not simply

accept whole-cloth an institution that symbolizes the loss and

harm felt by women. But I find it difficult to understand how

two lesbians, standing together openly and proudly, can be seen

as accepting that institution? What is more anti-patriarchal and

rejecting of an institution that carries the patriarchal power

imbalance into most households than clearly stating that women

can commit to one another with no man in sight? With no claim of

dominion or control, but instead of equality and respect. I

understand the fears of those who condemn us for our weddings,

but I believe they fail to look beyond the symbol and cannot see

the radical claim we are making.

********************