The reading on which I want to focus for the majority of my post today is the FAQ regarding rights of same sex couples, but I want to preface it with what was my biggest takeaway from the reading concerning compulsory heterosexuality. Rich writes, "I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution - even, or especially, by those individuals who feel they are, in their personal experience, the precursors of a new social relation between the sexes".
I wish it could be universally understood that the desire of same-sex couples to have federally recognized marriages is about much more than being married. There are literally hundreds of rights that a couple can gain once the federal government recognizes them as a married couple, rights that were blatantly denied to same-sex couples until very recently with the overturning of DOMA. Still, states may decide whether or not they want to allow same-sex marriages to occur on their land. This creates problems when you consider that some states are vehemently opposed to this, meaning that the overturning of DOMA won't actually have that many positive benefits for same-sex couples living in those states.
I've always thought it was deranged that being of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual seems to IMPLY that one has experienced depression, feelings of rejection and self hatred, and confusion of identity. Looking back, I find it deranged that I myself experienced those feelings. But when you think about it, it makes sense. The political institution of heterosexuality tells non-heteros from all directions that they are abnormal. Laws are built around the heterosexual couple, and laws are what habituate us to consider things right or wrong. So, while changing the laws to incorporate non-traditional couples into them is not an end all be all solution, it is the necessary first step to breed a new generation in which non-heteros are not told by their country's legislation that they are abnormal.
This brings me to my final point, regarding the argument that civil unions are "just as good as marriage". I can very specifically remember one student from my high school arguing this - "I support gay rights, just not the marriage part. I think they should be able to have civil unions, they're just as good right?" Well, aside from the fact that not as many rights are granted by civil unions due to the fact that they are not federally recognized, there is the overarching implication that same sex couples just aren't good enough for marriage. This is exactly the kind of institution that would continue to teach non-hetero youth that they are abnormal. It is to say, "It's okay to be gay. You can have rights. You just have rights through a different set of laws than straight people, because you are different from them." This is what I think is my biggest argument concerning equality of laws for non-heterosexual people - In order to expunge the self rejection that they feel, you must raise them in a nation in which laws don't say they are different. They must be taught from the beginning that what they are is normal and okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment