Marriage Is About More Than Finances

     Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation? annoyed me. Paula Ettelbrick was viewing in such a way that I found illogical and all around incorrect. I never say someone's opinion is just plain wrong because an opinion cannot be wrong, but I don't know what else to say.
     In the beginning of the article, I thought many of Ettelbrick's points were valid. Marriage does, in fact, rank some relationships as more important than others. By denying gays the right to marry, it claims that homosexual relationships are not as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Obviously, this is a ridiculous thing to do. How can anyone say what relationships are important and valid and which ones are not? I know of plenty of heterosexual relationships that are just a joke, and I know of homosexual relationships that are by far more valid. Hence, the power imbalance created by marriage is unjustified.
     I also agreed with her point that just if gay marriage is legalized, it does no more than give the right; it will not change society's views. However, it annoyed me that Ettelbrick kept saying that it would hinder the goals of the lesbian and gay movement which are the affirmation of gay identity and culture, and the validation of many forms of relationships. I was bothered by her saying this because marriage has nothing to do with gay identity and culture, as far as I can see. She did not explain how it would run counter to this goal. All Ettelbrick said was that it marriage would not recognize differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is why I think Ettelbrick's view of marriage is wrong.
     Ettelbrick is talking about marriage in ways that don't apply to marriage, and in ways that devalue marriage. She talks about the financial incentives to marry as if those are the only reasons to marry. I may be extraordinarily naive or something, but I believe that people get married because they love each other, and they want to build a life together, and marriage ensures that they will be a partnership for life. Ettelbrick doesn't even bring love into her discussion.
     Additionally, it bothered me that Ettelbrick said that gay marriage would "further outlaw all gay and lesbian sex which is not performed in a marital context," and that "the only legitimate gay sex would be that which is cloaked in a regulated by marriage" (p. 307). This idea came out of nowhere and had no explanation. I don't see how or why gay marriage would outlaw gay sex. Marriage doesn't outlaw heterosexual sex, so what is the reasoning for Ettelbrick's fear?
     Lastly, I did not agree with her desire to "spread the privilege around to other relationships" (p. 308). In doing this, it is, once again, devaluing marriage. It is saying that marriage is solely a financial move. She discusses relationships such as two elderly people who are unmarried but live together. Why would this couple get the same financial rights as a married couple? They are essentially just friends. If I live with my friends after graduation in order to have companionship and cut expenses, should I get the same financial benefits as a married couple?
     Ettelbrick did not discuss the right to get married. She discussed something completely different and called it the right to marry.