Ahmed.
LGBT Ali 448F (Prof. Kadish)
03/09/2009
Midterm.
Q1)
The world we live in today is ever changing. Traditional ideologies are constantly
redefined, and societies constantly adapt to accommodate the changing tastes and choices of the
masses. Unfortunately in the process the voices and well being of the minority groups are often
subdued or totally ignored. Often in these situations, the bureaucracy dictates the social
construction of the community. One element of society that has been the subject of much debate
and constantly been researched over the years is the definition of a family and its composition.
Nations have always tried to evolve around their definition of families. Experts have tried to
paint the perfect family for many years now, but have found the process a little difficult. When
they do define the role and structure of a family, they often end up ignoring the existence of
family diversity. Family composition is as diverse as the individuals that make up a community.
Recently LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) families have been the topic of much
discussion, as their efforts to be recognized are becoming more prominent, and they are less
inclined to hide from the public view than in the past. The traditional nuclear family
(composition of a father, mother and children) has dominated the American society for many
decades, though less now than before. Often, LGBT families have been in conflict to whether
assimilate or resist to the ideal of the nuclear family.
The Ideal Nuclear Family: In The Way We Never Were, Coontz tells us about how the family
of yesterday is thought to be better than that of today and to be the ideal era of the nuclear
Ali Ahmed.
Page 1
family. Among her assertions is the statement that our image of the "ideal" 1950s nuclear family
is far more myth than fact; in fact, she says, the nuclear family was itself an anomaly, offset both
before and after by very different ways of life. Coontz's further asserts that family life is shaped
far more by social and economic forces than by any ideals we may hold. Corollary to this is the
compelling argument that the very values of individual striving and success, so cherished in
American culture, both contributed to the development of the nuclear family and to its
disintegration. Coontz goes on to inform readers about the abundance of teen pregnancies and
shotgun weddings during the so called golden era of family. But as it is, such a perfect nuclear
family never existed.
Accommodation and Resistance: In chapter 3 of Queer Family and Queer Politics, we are
made aware of many examples where LGBT couples have either tried to accommodate and
assimilate into the ideal of the nuclear family. The author in chapter 3, Ellen Lewin, tells us
about the wedding of Margaret Barnes and Lisa Howard. It illustrates the effort of the couple to
accommodate into the idea of the nuclear family and seeking acceptance. The partners had
known each other for 10 years and decided to exchange vows before their families and friends.
The couple urged their families and friends to support and celebrate their relationship. The
wedding seemed much like that of heterosexual couples but it was kept low key, so as not attract
too much attention. But we later find out how a single ceremony cannot open doors to legitimacy
and acceptance. Margaret is laid off from work, when she discloses her wedding. Their marriage
isnt recognized by the public, as illustrated when they go to a restaurant with another couple
celebrating their anniversary, and the waiters only bring one cake. This shows us how LGBT
politics are complicated. Even as Margaret and Lisa sought acceptance through their marriage
and living like any other couple (paying taxes, having stable jobs, doing volunteer work), they
Ali Ahmed.
Page 2
masked their struggles and differences by trying to accommodate into the heterosexual family
ideal. Their wedding ceremony did not in essence eradicate the fact that they were a lesbian
couple and give them an automatic ticket to acceptance.
Through chapter 4, we learn from authors Micheal Bennet and Juan Battle about black
LGBT members and their non acknowledgment to exist in a family structure. The black church,
which holds significance in the black community has oppressed the openness of black LGBT
families, and has enforced a heteronormative family model. Also little text and research has
been written about black LGBT families and their existence. This has resulted in the black LGBT
family members trying to assimilate themselves into the ideals of the nuclear family and not
seeking recognition of their existence. The irony of this is the fact that most black families dont
fall into the category of the ideal nuclear family model, as the authors point to the existence of
many single parent black families and so on.
From our Kath Weston readings (Families we Choose), we find her exploring issues
concerning the lesbian and gay community in regards to raising children and creating families of
their own. In my opinion she is trying to tell her audiences that the idea of kinship is culturally
relative and it is susceptible to change (and has been historically). The word kinship and the
meaning of family is constantly being challenged and changed. In page 31 (exiles from kinship),
Weston tells us of how the LGBT community in San Francisco had set up special telephone
hotlines during the holiday season for lesbians and gay men who were battling depression and
loneliness. Weston goes on to say this had come about due to the fact that many in the gay
community had been isolated and outcast from their family gatherings and events after coming
out. Often, the gay community is compelled to choose between spending the holidays with
Ali Ahmed.
Page 3
either their partners or family. Thus many were trying to accommodate their two worlds, often
ending up alienating one for the other.
Effect of Marriage Equality: Attaining marriage equality for the LGBT community, I believe
we would think differently about the terms assimilation and resistance. Marriage equality would
not only encourage LGBT families/community to be more comfortable in announcing
themselves but also give access to certain security/protection and privileges that come with
marriage. For most part the LGBT community then would not have to accommodate their lives
and family structure to fit into heterosexual the model of family and community. Marriage
equality in my opinion would also break the resistance of institutions, such as the black church,
in recognizing the existence and diversity of minority LGBT families.
Q2)
Some despise it, many cant wait to become a part of it, and others could care less about
it. It can give humans the happiest of times and the worst all at the same time. Yes, the topic is
marriage. Throughout time, religious scholars, politicians, family experts and many others have
defined, redefined, criticized, and applauded marriage. Much research has been conducted and
books written on how marriage shapes society and defines our values. In the course so far, we
have come across such readings and commentary. Let us analyze some of the text studied in
class, and see how the marriage issue is engaged and whether marriage is beneficial or
detrimental to the rights of the LGBT community.
Nancy Cott: In Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, Nancy Cott makes a strong
case trying to prove that marriage is a public institution. She goes on to say that marriage is and
has been subject to the will of the state and men in power. She claims marriage has been
manipulated and changed over decades by the bureaucracy, often for the purposes of exercising
control over the population and for imposing on society the perceived natural order of things.
Ali Ahmed.
Page 4
Marriage may be ancient in origin, but Nancy Cott claims that marriage in the U.S. did not
simply grow organically from ancient traditions, and that government is capable of altering the
institution for its own purposes as it sees fit, regardless of what might truly best for society or the
for the individuals living in it.
In my opinion, Cott tries to show readers how heterosexual marriage is embraced with
open arms in our society, while nontraditional marriages and relationships are patronized with
intolerance and adamantly discouraged. Nancy Cott, I believe, is trying to highlight that civil
liberties provided by marriage should be enjoyed by all and not just heterosexual couples. While
she is critical of how marriage has been shaped and how it has come to define gender roles, I
believe she would support marriage if all couples were to be allowed to enter it, and given the
same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. And in my opinion, this is why she differs from
the other authors, she views marriage as an institution molded by the influential, which defines
the individuals civil liberties and privileges in a society and also set roles. This is all apparent in
the reading when Cott discusses in great length the changing economic positions of men and
women through the history of marriage and how owning property was much easier for members
of society in marriage.
Mary Lyndon Shanley:
In Just Marriage, Mary Shanley argues that the law must be
essentially reformed if marriage was to become a more fair and an accessible institution. Like
Nancy Cott, Shanley has also come to believe that marriage is not just about two couples loving
each other, and that marriage has greater ramifications in the society we live in today. Shanley
essentially believes that marriage is a matter of civil rights. In addition to making marriage more
accessible, Shanley proposes that state action must promote spousal equality by ending
practices and traditions that reinforce gender norms in employment and in the home. On page
Ali Ahmed.
Page 5
14, she cites Loving Vs Virginia, and hopes that the ruling would someday lead to marriage being
looked as a fundamental protected right. She claims that the ground work was laid when the
Supreme Court declared, The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. She tries to maneuver
between the extremes of conservatives and the contractualists. The former view marriage as
rooted in tradition, religion, imbued with gendered roles and obligations, while the latter argue
that liberty and equality demand that marriage not be state sponsored or privileged and should
simply be a private contract between two adults who enjoy the liberty of personal choice(s).
Citing the dual goals of liberty and equality, Shanley takes a middle position. On page 6, she
outlines this position, a position that would retain marriage as privileged, but makes it more
widely accessible, all the while promoting equality within the marital relationship.
Paula Ettelbrick:
Paula Ettelbrick leaves little doubt in readers mind about her position on
marriage, in her piece Since when is marriage a path to liberation. Ettelbrick believes that
marriage would not liberate lesbians and gay men but rather make them more invisible, force
assimilation, and undermine the LGBT civil rights movement. She also argues that it would not
transform society into respecting and encouraging relationship choice and family diversity,
which are primary goals of that civil rights movement. She is forceful in her thinking and
provides us an alternate way to look at what marriage for the LGBT community would mean.
She explains on page 403 (from handout, Since when is marriage a path to liberation?), By
looking to our sameness and de-emphasizing our differences, we dont even place ourselves in a
position of power that allow us to transform marriage from an institution that emphasizes
property and state regulation of relationships to an institution which recognizes one of many
types of valid and respected relationship. She goes on to say that by accepting the sameness,
Ali Ahmed.
Page 6
the LGBT community ends up mimicking all that is bad about the institution of marriage, just so
they appear the same as straight couples.
Final Thoughts: Whether they support or oppose marriage equality for the LGBT community, I
believe the three authors above and many others studied in class would feel safe in declaring that
marriage was and still is an institution regulated by the state. Its purpose is to provide protection
and let individuals access certain benefits. In my opinion the LGBT community would benefit
from attaining equal marriage rights, currently enjoyed by only heterosexual couples. The
struggle to have the constitution interpreted to respect and encourage differences, as suggested
by Paula Ettelbrick, would take a broader and massive effort.
Ali Ahmed.
Page 7