NewsFlash:Same Sex Marriage-and Divorce

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236384

In the present day Queer movement, same sex marriage remains one of the key struggles that activists battle in the movement-and so is same sex divorce. In the article The Right to Love- and Loss, Eve Conant (1989) claims that while same sex couples are struggling with the right to marry they are also struggling with the right to divorce. In terms of marriage, only a handful of the civil states legally recognize same sex marriage. When divorce comes into play the statistics are about the same or less. While the struggle for same sex marriage is a hardship among same sex couples, same sex divorce presents even more hardships for same sex couples that decide to separate. I argue that same sex marriage-and divorce-is challenged due to the fact that the history behind the traditional marriage intended between a man and a woman is at the root of the many struggles that same sex couples face in marriage and divorce.

Conant (1989) discusses the issue that a lesbian couple in Dallas, Texas is facing in receiving a divorce. Since the state of Texas does not recognize same sex marriage as a legal status, the state will not grant the couple a divorce. Since the couple married in Massachusetts, the state argued that they would have to move back to Massachusetts to receive a divorce. This presented a dilemma because the couple had established themselves in Texas and to move would have been costly and unnecessary. Also, for them to receive a divorce in the state of Massachusetts, they would have to be residents of the state for al least six months (Conant 1989).

Same sex marriage as become one the most politically charged issues within our country. As the opponent side of same sex marriage argues, marriage is traditionally meant for a man and a woman. Looking at history, one cannot deny that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. However, this can, and should, be analyzed and explored to further understand the reasoning and purpose of a traditional marriage being defined between a man and a woman. I propose the question as to why is it traditional for marriage to be between a man and a woman. From what I understand, much of it rests on the socialization of gender roles within our society.

In her article, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick (1989) states that the institution of marriage is “one of the most vulnerable, impenetrable institutions in modern society,” (Ettelbrick 1989: 305). She goes on to claim that marriage is an institution that gives those who marry a powerful status. However, it is important to realize that the institution of marriage is embedded deep within a patriarchal system. Ettelbrick (1989) describes it as a system where men are given power over women and women are the property of men (Ettelbrick 1989: 306). Women are forced into a subservient role as wife and mother while men are granted power and control over them. It is for these reasons that Ettelbrick (1989) challenges the notion that marriage is liberating and denotes that same sex marriage will solve all of the problems that same sex couples face.

Ettelbrick (1989) offers valid points in her argument. For one, marriage is deeply rooted within the patriarchal system. As tradition has it, the man is suppose to propose to the woman and the father of bride is suppose to give her to the husband at the wedding. Ideally, the wife should seek to bear children and then become a stay at home parent, while the husband maintains a job and it titled as the head of the household. Same sex marriage challenges this system established upon gender roles and forces society to rethink the function gender roles play in our society. Based on these notions, I can understand Ettelbrick’s argument that marriage is not liberating after all.

While Ettelbrick (1989) makes a good argument against marriage, I argue that for same sex couples, it can be liberating, whether it be in marriage or divorce. As it stands, same sex couples are denied many of the rights and protections that are established and offered to opposite sex couples. For example, opposite sex couples that are married are given tax incentives, both by the state and federal governments and can file jointly. They can receive their partner’s social security, pension, and have visitation rights for hospital visits. Same sex couples are not offered this protection. Divorce can be just as messy. In a divorce, same sex couples experience hardships when it comes to dividing assets and tax consequences are very high, all because they do not enjoy the protections established under marriage (Conant 2010).
Based on the stated facts, it is hard to completely agree with Ettelbrick (1989). Her view that marriage is nothing more than a product of the heterosexist and patriarch system is understandable and recognizable. It is valid to rally for a move to oppose marriage. Yet, one cannot deny the many protections and rights that same sex couples would gain in a marriage and in divorce.

Another issue that traditional marriage proposes to same sex marriage is child rearing. Many believe that child rearing should be done only in a marriage that is between a man and a woman. Once again, gender roles can be said to play a major role in this ideology. Women are supposed to be the caretakers of children, not men. There are also false beliefs that if same sex couples are allowed to raise children, that the children will turn out “gay” and abnormal. Statistics and studies show that this is not the case and that children raised by same sex couples are just as normal as children raised in a traditional marriage. Same sex marriage challenges the establishment of children rearing between man and woman. As Nancy Naples (2004) states in her article Queer Parenting in the New Millennium, queer parenting challenges the heteronormativity of child rearing by heterosexual couples.

I also think of the two alumnae who came to visit Colgate recently. Yana Kadiysha and Jennifer M. Colon are self identified lesbians and mothers of two young healthy boys. In a Brown Bag, they discussed the challenges and hardships, as well as the triumphs that they faced as lesbian mothers in America. Throughout their talk, it was clear that they were breaking down the many barriers of heteronormativity and traditional marriage. However, they were more focused on whether or not the young two year old needed his diaper changed.

As the struggle for same sex marriage-and divorce rights continues, it will be interesting to see how the traditional marriage is challenged and disfigured. While I do agree that marriage is a hetero-normative institution, it cannot be denied that it offers great status and privilege to couples. Instead of denying the institution all together, I believe that the movement should work to reform it through challenging the traditional heteronormativity. It is clear that the institution has its inherent flaws. However, as established earlier, there is much to be gained.