Friday, November 13, 2009

	CSP 19: Gender, Race and Gay Rights in the Obama Era Fall 2009

	Why Marriage? The Intra-Community debate Friday, November 13, 2009

Reading	Ettelbrick, Paula. "Since When Is Marriage A Path To Liberation?" Frum, David. "The Courts, Gay Marriage and the Popular Will" Rauch, Jonathan. "For Better or Worse?" From Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Ed. A. Sullivan
Assignment	Paper #3 is due by email by 11:30am. Paper #4 is distributed.
Goal	1) To understand the internal debate in the LGBT community about the goal of marriage equality 2) To see different styles of advocacy writing

Today I want to discuss the future of marriage as seen through the triplicate eyes of Frum, Rauch and Ettelbrick. So, first we might want to know a little about each of these authors and pieces. The pieces are from Andrew Sullivan's "Same Sex Marriage: A reader," which is an interesting collection of material about same-sex marriage published in 1996. Andrew Sullivan is a white, gay man who was named the former editor of The New Republic at the ripe old age of 26. He's a self-described gay, HIV+, Catholic conservative. He edited the reader and was able to get it published due to his status as a wunderkind of the publishing industry. He is know probably more well-known as the proprietor of the most widely read blog on the Internet, The Daily Dish.

I chose Frum, Rauch and Ettelbrick because they represent canonical examples of thought from different perspectives on the question of same-sex marriage.

Paula Ettelbrick is a longtime lesbian-feminist activist who was the Litigation Director at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund when the Hawaii same-sex marriage case first was filed in 1990. She argued successfully for her organization NOT to get involved in the lawsuit at that time, though Lambda became co-counsel for Ninia Baehr et al, the three couples who sued the state of Hawaii for marriage licenses.

Jonathan Rauch is practically a surrogate for Sullivan. He is conservative also, but would be more likely to call himself a "pragmatist."

David Frum is a classic conservative of the current "religious right" school. Frum does a good job of articulating his opposition clearly.

This question comes up as we analyze the reactions of each of the three authors' to the idea of same-sex marriage being legalized.

What is each author's position on the legalization of same-sex marriage?
What are the ways in which each author essentializes marriage?
What is the relationship between how each author essentializes marriage and how each author reacts to the possibility of same-sex marriage?

Group Activity
FIRST (5-10 minutes) we shall group you into dyads (pairs) and assign you one of the three articles to analyze.
You will identify

the strongest point made in your assigned article
the weakest point made in your assigned article
the answer to the"Wideman question": what is not included in the arguments made in your assigned article?

SECOND (10-15 minutes) we shall group the dyads into three (6 people, 3 pairs); one pair for each article and have you debate the relative merits of the articles with each other. In this discussion you should be analyzing how the authors make their points. What audience are they writing for? How would you evaluate the efficacy of each authors article if you were a lesbian pro-marriage activist? a straight lawyer? a religious conservative? an academic?

Discussion Questions

What are the ways in which same-sex marriage would alter the way "we" think about marriage currently?
What are the ways in which "we" think about marriage now?
In what ways is the "construction of marriage" related to constructions of gender, sexuality and race?