After a rather frivolous post, here's something more thought provoking. Election Day is a little over 2 weeks away. I live in a state that is sure to go blue, and ironically, it could also pass a proposition that would eliminate same sex marriage. Things are getting ugly here. There are nasty TV ads. And then activists (on each side) have taken to the streets, waving signs with catchy slogans to generate support and garner votes.
The latest ad to hit the airwaves seeks to instill fear among parents. There is this little girl who comes home from school and tells her mother that she has learned that a prince can marry a prince and a princess can marry a princess. The truth is, there is no law that requires a marriage curriculum to be taught in schools.
I find it interesting how people can have such strong opinions on privacy issues that have no bearing on their lives. Someone I know married their same sex partner over the summer, and I only noticed because they were wearing a wedding band. Thus far, who this person has chosen to love has had no impact upon my life.
We say that marriage is about love, companionship, and finding a life partner. Or something like that. You haven't truly lived a fulfilling life until you get married. Your life is empty until you find someone to share it with. And so on. Yet, if this were the truth, why would we reserve marriage for only certain individuals? Well, I argue that this is about gender equality. Wait a second. How the hell did I jump from privacy to love to gender equality?
Marriage originated as an institution that subordinated women to men. In exchange for household labor and uh, sex, wives depended upon their husbands for well, an identity, economic security, protection, and more. (As recently as the 1990s, some states did not even have laws criminalizing spousal rape) Yes, marriage has been redefined and we try not to think of it as a transfer of property from a father to a husband. Yet, it's still a patriarchal institution. Women are passive and wait for a proposal. Women wear engagement rings, demonstrating that they belong to someone. Women still take their husbands' names. Fathers still give away their daughters on their wedding day. (Oh, and some men ask these fathers for permission to marry their daughters. Some may think it's romantic. I think it's insulting.) Following marriage, there is still a sexual division of labor in the household. Women assume a greater bulk of the household duties, and they are usually the primary caregivers. Most women are still financially dependent upon their husbands. Sure, there may be outliers that think that they have truly equal partnerships. Yet, marriage, as an institution, is still patriarchal (and it's my belief that women are duped into it by diamonds, pretty dresses, and bridal registries- but that's a different subject).
So, now same-sex marriage is turning this patriarchal institution on its head. Some think it's simply wrong. Some believe that it needs to be stopped. And sadly, some are going so far as to seek a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. (uh, from what? Heteros have been screwing it up for years!) If we let gay people get married, we run out of excuses. We run out of reasons to subordinate women simply because they are women. Now we'll have men who will change their names, and women who will get to keep theirs. We'll have men who will assume household and caregiving responsibilities. We'll see that men can cook, clean, and change a diaper (and not just occasionally, but all the time). We'll find out that men are capable and nurturing parents. We'll find out that women can be breadwinners, too. We'll learn that women can be heads of households. Studies have shown that same sex couples are more egalitarian than their hetero counterparts. When we see all of this, we will run out of reasons to justify patriarchy.
Many argue that we should vote no against Prop 8 to guarantee equality for homosexuals. I also argue that we should vote no to guarantee equality for women too.
The latest ad to hit the airwaves seeks to instill fear among parents. There is this little girl who comes home from school and tells her mother that she has learned that a prince can marry a prince and a princess can marry a princess. The truth is, there is no law that requires a marriage curriculum to be taught in schools.
I find it interesting how people can have such strong opinions on privacy issues that have no bearing on their lives. Someone I know married their same sex partner over the summer, and I only noticed because they were wearing a wedding band. Thus far, who this person has chosen to love has had no impact upon my life.
We say that marriage is about love, companionship, and finding a life partner. Or something like that. You haven't truly lived a fulfilling life until you get married. Your life is empty until you find someone to share it with. And so on. Yet, if this were the truth, why would we reserve marriage for only certain individuals? Well, I argue that this is about gender equality. Wait a second. How the hell did I jump from privacy to love to gender equality?
Marriage originated as an institution that subordinated women to men. In exchange for household labor and uh, sex, wives depended upon their husbands for well, an identity, economic security, protection, and more. (As recently as the 1990s, some states did not even have laws criminalizing spousal rape) Yes, marriage has been redefined and we try not to think of it as a transfer of property from a father to a husband. Yet, it's still a patriarchal institution. Women are passive and wait for a proposal. Women wear engagement rings, demonstrating that they belong to someone. Women still take their husbands' names. Fathers still give away their daughters on their wedding day. (Oh, and some men ask these fathers for permission to marry their daughters. Some may think it's romantic. I think it's insulting.) Following marriage, there is still a sexual division of labor in the household. Women assume a greater bulk of the household duties, and they are usually the primary caregivers. Most women are still financially dependent upon their husbands. Sure, there may be outliers that think that they have truly equal partnerships. Yet, marriage, as an institution, is still patriarchal (and it's my belief that women are duped into it by diamonds, pretty dresses, and bridal registries- but that's a different subject).
So, now same-sex marriage is turning this patriarchal institution on its head. Some think it's simply wrong. Some believe that it needs to be stopped. And sadly, some are going so far as to seek a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. (uh, from what? Heteros have been screwing it up for years!) If we let gay people get married, we run out of excuses. We run out of reasons to subordinate women simply because they are women. Now we'll have men who will change their names, and women who will get to keep theirs. We'll have men who will assume household and caregiving responsibilities. We'll see that men can cook, clean, and change a diaper (and not just occasionally, but all the time). We'll find out that men are capable and nurturing parents. We'll find out that women can be breadwinners, too. We'll learn that women can be heads of households. Studies have shown that same sex couples are more egalitarian than their hetero counterparts. When we see all of this, we will run out of reasons to justify patriarchy.
Many argue that we should vote no against Prop 8 to guarantee equality for homosexuals. I also argue that we should vote no to guarantee equality for women too.
No comments:
Post a Comment