Compare and contrast Ferguson and Kandaswamy's arguments about the politics of marriage

Similarities and Differences between Ferguson and Kandaswamy's arguments about the politics of marriage
Same sex marriages have become a controversial issue in the American society. According to Ferguson (2007), the support of same sex marriages undermines heterosexual families. On the other hand, if it is not allowed, it undermines the civil right of homosexuals. Kandaswamy (2008) delves on the specific benefits that the gay and lesbian activists seek to access through these unions. A close scrutiny of both writers reveals several similarities as well as differences about the politics of marriage.
First and foremost is the fact that same sex marriage is opposed in both cases. Kandaswamy observes that same sex marriage has been met with vitriolic opposition from many of the very conservative of family values who support marriage in welfare policy (707). On her side, Ferguson says that the campaign to change state legal requirements of marriage to allow gays and lesbians to marry created the greatest controversy among all the public policy questions raised in the last U.S. presidential election (43)..
Secondly from the above arguments it is clear that marriage in both cases is controlled by the state. Kandaswamy points out some state laws which control marriage relationships like the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) which is a federal block grant program designed to maximize state control over welfare eligibility and benefits. On the other hand Ferguson says that, although marriage should be the private institution that establishes kinship relations in the family and should be seen it as a contract chosen in the private arena, it is indeed regulated by the state. In addition, those who engage in same sex marriage are viewed by the society as lesser citizens or non-citizens in both cases. Ferguson says that, "My partner and I and our chosen kin relationships do not fit into the national sexual imaginary of the United States at this time. We are thus the noncitizens, the abject other that has to be constantly repressed to maintain the national idea" (Ferguson 43). She argues that the national imaginary of the United States, like most other nations in the world, is based on a heterosexual norm of the rights and obligations of its citizens, and this, in turn, are based on the institution of the heterosexual family with its kinship ties legalized by marriage. On the other hand Kandaswamy argues that in making claims to citizenship, the gay marriage movement seeks recognition not only as the same as those privileged citizens who reap the benefits of being ‘fully American` but also as fundamentally different from those who have been constructed as undeserving of the full ...