Marriage may not be a path to liberation, but it should still be an option.

Paula Ettelbrick raises some really good points in her essay, "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?". However, I cannot agree with her main argument that gay marriage is not something that people should advocate for. Ettelbrick places a great deal of pressure on gay marriage. She says that gay marriage will not result in the acceptance of gay men and lesbians and work against the main goals of the LGBTQ movement. Society knows that gay marriage will not solve all the inequalities that exist between homosexual and heterosexual people nor will it solve many other problems. Ettelbrick expects too much from gay marriage. Ettelbrick writes, "...gay marriage will not topple the system that allows only the privileged few to gain decent health care. Nor will it close the privilege gap between those who are married and those who are not." Is gay marriage supposed to tackle those issues of healthcare though? The purpose of gay marriage isn't centered around solving all of the many societal issues that Ettelbrick brings up. The fact is that marriage should be made available to all people. It exists in society, and as long as it exists, everyone should have access to it. It does not matter whether or not marriage is a good thing. What matters is that heterosexual people have the OPTION of getting married, so all people should have the option to get married. It's not fair for Ettelbrick to make the decision for every homosexual person that marriage is not something to want or advocate for. It's okay for her to suggest that people should not want to get married but depriving people of the right is a little too much. To me, gay marriage is not necessarily about acceptance. It's about equality. If gay men and women cannot get married, then no one should be able to get married because in the end we're all people. I do agree that there should be alternatives to marriage, but that's exactly what they should be: alternatives. People should have other options, but marriage should still be an option that is available to everyone. One should not be forced into one of the alternatives is that is not what he or she wants.

Random thought: This kind of relates to what Josh was asking about in class. What if the world's homosexual and heterosexual roles reversed? I was wondering about this in relation to patriarchy. What if women were in charge? Would men be fighting for their rights? It's interesting to wonder if we'll ever find a balance, or if one group of people will always be dominant over another.