Responding Post

I have to agree with Jia and Caroline when they say that they had an eye opening experience after reading the same sex marriage articles. Before reading this article, I just thought that gays and lesbians were fighting for the legalization of same sex marriage because of the title of being married. I had never thought about how much comes with marriage regarding property, children, social security, health insurance, estate taxes, retirement savings etc. In 10th grade, I living in a dorm with women faculty advisors that were married to each other. These two women were by far the most amazing and inspirational people that I have encountered in my life. On breaks, they would go up to their cabin in Vermont, where they also got married to each other. To think that not everyone has this freedom of choice really maddens me. Luckily my two advisors were able to find a PREP school that allowed them to be with each other and both teach at the school without any different treatment. However the fact that they do not receive some of the benifits that come with marriage is infuriating. Not every gay or lesbian couple has the privilege of working together and living together like my faculty advisors have. However if they are legal citizens why is this right to marriage being denied? In amendment 14 of the Constitution it states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ettelbrook makes a great statement when she says that we need to legalize same sex marriage in order for their to be social acceptance of gays and lesbians in our society.

I was inspired by the initiative that Andrea Vaccaro took in buying the wedding dress for protests and rallies. I thought that this was a very powerful gesture on her part and it was interesting to read her story and perspective on same sex marriage as a lesbian.

Responding Post: Hate Is Not A Family Value

After reading the Same Sex Marriage FAQs article, I was reminded how little I knew about the legality behind the institution of marriage. I think I have been oblivious for all my life to the marriage benefits heterosexual couples receive upon marriage until I took Safe Zone training at Colgate this summer. Unfortunately, I think I am not the only one who is unaware of all the benefits that heterosexual couples receive that same sex couples are not granted of. Similarly to Caroline, I am really shocked and upset by all the rights same sex couples are denied of. Hospital visitation, social security benefits, health insurance, estate taxes, retirement savings, family leaves, immigration rights, nursing homes, home protection, and pension all seem like basic human rights that everyone should have regardless of who they marry. I like how this article continued to argue that civil union is not the same and not equal to the slightest degree of marriage (refer to the map to see states take on same sex marriage--only until 2003, seven years ago, did the United States allow same sex marriage with Massachusetts being the first state to do so). 


In Paula Ettelbrick's article "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?," I think she would of also agreed with the Same Sex Marriage FQAs that civil unions is not enough, but more importantly she expresses the concern that granting same sex marriage the same treatment as heterosexual couples will only ignore the fundamental problems of society: the need for acceptance and acknowledgment of variety in our society. I found Ettelbrick's argument to be very interesting. I like how she took a surface issues and went into deeper analysis of it. That makes me wonder, what other situations/issues have society simply granted something to but still ignored the core problem? I think this is the problem our society: we often solve the surface problems and not think of the other implication the situation/issue may have and then use the fact that we solve the surface problem to rationalize that the job is done. Take women's right for example, women have gained their right to vote, to work, to have access to education, etc. therefore feminism must be over. In terms of racism, we have desegregated, progress, we even have a African American President so therefore society isn't racist. There are probably many more examples. So the question then comes, to what extend has over society actually moved forward?

Andrea Vaccaro's chapter in Leading The Way tilted "Soldier in a Long White Dress" is a very inspiring piece of literature to read, especially as a first year college student; I admire her dedication to her passion and the work she has done at such a young age--juggling both academics and activism. I loved her reasoning behind why she does the things she do. Not only is it her passion and of personal concern, but she also want to be the voice for those who cannot participate or represent themselves. It is leadership like Vaccaro's that drive change.        

A Disservice To Our Nation

As I was reading the same sex marriage FAQ's, I was shocked by the rights denied to same sex couples. Coming from a very liberal family and diverse high-school, I could never imagine what it would be like to restrict someones' rights due to their sexual preference. I also have a personal connection with this issue because my aunt married another woman in MA. At the time, I did not fully understand the implications of her marriage. A few years after her marriage, her and her partner came back to visit my family and I for the holidays. At dinner my aunt started discussing the frustrations she had with marriage rights. I remember her stating how unfair it was to be treated so differently just because she was in love with another woman. How come my dad, who just simply because he married someone of the opposite sex, had so many more rights than she did? I knew that things were different for same sex couples, yet I still had trouble grasping the difference. I just figured it was day to day issues, instead of major legal rights.

After reading the FAQ's, my eyes were finally opened up to the issues my aunt had been discussing. Right before her marriage she had gotten into an accident horse back riding. It was after this accident that she realized she wanted to marry her partner. But, as I read the FAQ's I couldn't help but think of my aunt and what if they had been married already? Her partner would not have gotten visitation rights to see her in the hospital even though she had just as much reason to visit as my father or grandfather did. The woman she loved and was married to, technically wouldn't have been considered "family". I frankly was appalled by the difference of rights and now can better understand some of the issues my aunt was facing.

Though my aunt and her partner are not longer together, I still feel that she has had a huge disservice in her life. If she wanted to grow old with her partner, they wouldn't even be able to stay together in a nursing home. I feel embarrassed for our country because while we are so progressive, there are clearly still obvious inequalities that affect our population.