Gay Rights — Just like everyone else?
The conversation that we had in class about gay marriage last week has really got me thinking. Does wanting to be “just like everyone else” or asserting that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else” make a nod towards heteronormativity? I don’t think so.
The ideas that are put forth by saying that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else,” merely serves to say that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is pretty much identical to the heterosexual lifestyle. We all go to work, do our jobs, come home, go out with friends, pay the bills, have pets, etc. There is very little difference in the lived lives of gays and lesbians in comparison with the lived lives of heterosexuals. In fact, gays and lesbians can be involved in political groups, just like heterosexuals. They can even have the same values. I would argue, and maybe this is just an experiential difference – since I think that I live my life “just like everyone else,” that my existance compared with my heterosexual friends’ existances are pretty much equal.
So why then, does the granting of rights to homosexuals make a nod towards heteronormativity? I’m really confused as to where this idea comes from. My girlfriend argues that we all need to do the same steps — she thinks we should abolish marriage and make everyone go though paperwork to be married. How does that nod towards heteronormativity?
On the Limiting of Marriage
The DOMA that is working its way along in Washington state attempts to limit marriage to individuals who can/intend to produce offspring. Take a look at the text:
On July 26, 2006, the Washington supreme court cited the “legitimate state interests” of procreation and child-rearing as a basis for preserving the defense of marriage act. The People of Washington find it desirable to place part of this ruling into statutory form and make procreation a requirement for valid marriage in this state.
From: http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx
There are so many problems with DOMAs in general, but this DOMA, in particular, is insane.
Some other choice quotes:
The following individuals cannot be married:
(d) When the parties are unable to have children together for any reason
and
(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
Now, then. What I take issue with here is not the attempts to say that reproduction is the sole and most important byproduct of marriage (although I do find that problematic in itself), but the fact that there are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children and many more who do not have children. The Washington state DOMA would prohibit a large population of heterosexual individuals from getting married, including:
the elderly
couples with fertility issues
couples who choose not to have children
women who are infertile due to health reasons (PCOS, hysterectomy)
men who are infertile due to health reasons or accidents
When we cling to an essentialist construction of gender, we believe that men and women are constructed differently and complementary. A marriage that produces children fufills the essential duty of marriage. However, not all women can have children (or want to have children). Is a woman any less a woman because she is infertile or has had a hysterectomy? This DOMA seems to imply that our gendered roles are fulfilled by our wanted to become mothers and fathers.
