Response to Imani

I agree with Imani that these reading were eye opening. For a long time I have heard about the disadvantages same sex couples face because they cannot legally marry but these articles introduced some new points I had never considered. There are many stories about loved ones that have lost everything because the state did not recognize their legitimate relationship. I can agree with everything that Naples says about gay marriage and parenting, especially the point she makes about gay couples continuing to have children despite societal resistance. Homosexual couples will continue to have children no matter what the law states, and I think that the law should just accept and recognize that for the children’s best interests. The article that most interested me was Ettelbrick’s article “Since When is Marriage A Path to Liberation.” It was astonishing to read a gay rights activist opposing legalizing gay marriage. I suppose I can understand her point that people should be opposing the institution of marriage altogether and the LGBTQ community can use their unique status as outsiders to voice a louder position, but this only makes sense in theory and, in my opinion, is ineffective in practice. If homosexual couples continue to marginalize themselves, no one in society will be willing to accept them either. Furthermore, by willingly rejecting the idea of marriage, same sex couples will only be denying themselves basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Their homes, bank accounts, and children will remain in jeopardy. I feel that homosexual couples can better fight for their rights once they are on an even playing field as the rest of heterosexual society. Homosexual couples may then decide to deny the institution of marriage, but they should at least have the option to decide one way or the other. Regardless of femenists or gay activists, every homosexual couple, like every heterosexual couple, should individually choose what path is the right one for them.