ght to marry should be the focus of our community’s efforts, political influence, and financial resources. As is often true in most such political debates, both “sides” to the debate make important arguments about the impact that the right to marry will have on each member of our community, on the community as a whole, and on our place in society.Arguing against same-sex marriage, Paula Ettelbrick believes that it will not liberate lesbians and gay men but will make us more invisible, force assimilation, and undermine the lesbian and gay civil rights movement. She also argues that it will not transform society into respecting and encouraging relationship choice and family diversity, which are primary goals of that civil rights movement.# Ettelbrick also argues that rather than expanding the couples who can marry, we should change the institution of marriage to eliminate its marriage-dependent benefits, so that people will choose it for symbolic, rather than legal or utilitarian reasons. She also recognizes the class-based assumptions inherent in the marriage debate, realizing that for most poor people, marriage offers few economic advantages.Nitya Duclos examines four reasons advanced for same-sex marriage (political reform, public legitimation, socioeconomic benefits, and safeguarding children of lesbian or gay parents). She concludes, that the effects of allowing same-sex marriage will not be felt uniformly throughout lesbian and gay communities and questions whether it will exacerbate differences of power and privilege in those communities.In a companion piece to Ettelbrick’s, Thomas Stoddard believes that while recognizing the oppressive nature of marriage in its traditional form, believes that lesbians and gay men should be able to choose to marry and the civil rights movement should seek full recognition of same-sex marriages. His three reasons for pursuing this right are the practical advantages asso...
