Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina, two different debates have emerged: one is interesting and it is unclear whether the other is a debate at all. The interesting debate is the question of marriage as an institution, as a way of life; even further, it is the question of partnership itself as the only way of experiencing love or sexual relations. With respect to marriage itself, there are many things to discuss. For centuries, has it not been the most brutal, silent, and everyday form of oppression for thousands of women—one might even say, their enslavement? Paraguay’s first feminist lawyer, Serafina Dávalos – who, incidentally, never married and lived with her “inseparable companion” – already made this argument in 1907.1 I will be told, of course, that she spoke with regards to heterosexual marriage - but can we really re-signify the institution?
On the other hand, don’t we go on selling the myth of eternal love, and marriage as the method of consolidating it, to the entire world? In other words, "true" love is life-long and it is perceived as more stable if the state recognizes it, and for some, even more so if God blesses it. That is why it is so difficult to escape in cases of domestic violence, because the myth of eternal love and marriage is never questioned, it is never challenged. We do not think it is a myth; rather, we think it is something that we personally cannot attain because we have failed at something.