Defining Marriage is Problematic

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Defining Marriage is Problematic
266
Sat, 02-07-2004 - 10:49am
Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?

Commentary, William O. Beeman,

Pacific News Service, Feb 05, 2004

Editor's Note: Legislators' attempts to codify marriage as "between a man and a woman" won't work, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman. Like it or not, there is no single, clear biological, psychological or cultural definition of "male" and "female." Already, courts are faltering on the ambiguity of gender.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court advisory, stating that nothing short of marriage for same-sex couples would satisfy the state constitution, has sent legislators throughout the nation as well as President Bush scrambling to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."

These legislative attempts are doomed, because there is no clear, scientific and strict definition of "man" and "woman." There are millions of people with ambiguous gender -- many of them already married -- who render these absolute categories invalid.

There are at least three ways one might try to codify gender under law -- biologically, psychologically and culturally. On close inspection, all of them fail.

Biologically, one must choose either secondary sexual characteristics -- things like facial hair for men or breast development for women -- or genetic testing as defining markers of gender. Neither method is clear-cut. Some women show male secondary characteristics, and vice versa. Before puberty, things are not necessarily any clearer. A significant proportion of all babies have ambiguous gender development. It has been longstanding -- and now, increasingly, controversial -- medical practice to surgically "reassign" such babies shortly after birth so that they will have only one set of sexual organs.

Sometimes doctors guess wrong, and children are "reassigned" and raised as males, when they are genetically female, and vice versa.

In one condition, androgen insensitivity syndrome, genetic males are born with a genetic immunity to androgens, the hormones that produce male sexual characteristics. Though they are genetic males, these children typically grow up looking like females, although they have no internal female organs.

Although figures are imprecise, experts in intersexuality, such as Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, estimate that persons born with some degree of ambiguous gender constitute approximately 1 percent of the population. This means that there are 2 million Americans who may be biologically ambiguous.

Psychologically, another dilemma for those who seek to codify gender is the condition known as gender dysphoria, in which a person feels that their true gender is the opposite of that in which they were born. These individuals are often referred to as "transgendered." Some experts estimate as many as 1.2 million Americans are transgendered. Gender dysphoria is a matter of personal identity and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. A male-to-female transgendered person may be attracted to women or to men.

Finally, human societies around the world recognize individuals who are culturally female or culturally male no matter what their physical gender. The "berdache" is an umbrella term used by Europeans to designate a man who is culturally classified as a woman, and who may be a "wife" to another man. The practice is perhaps best known among the Zuñi Indians of Arizona, but is widely seen in other tribal groups as well. Outside of North America, the hijra of India, a cultural "third gender," is important in ceremonial life. Hijra are classified as "neither man nor woman," but they may marry males. These examples of cultural gender ambiguity are only two among dozens throughout the world.

If the United States tries to enact a national law defining gender conditions for marriage, it is only a matter of time before the law falters on one of these rocks of ambiguity. There are undoubtedly existing marriages where the wife is a genetic male or the husband is a genetic female. In a medical examination, if it is determined that this genetic fact is discovered, is the marriage then voided? When post-operative transgendered persons wed, whom will they be allowed to marry -- persons with the opposite set of chromosomes, or people with the opposite set of genitalia?

There has already been one Texas decision where two "women" were allowed to marry, because one of them had originally been a male. We can expect far more stories like this should this legislative circus proceed.

PNS contributor William O. Beeman (William_beeman@brown.edu) teaches anthropology at Brown University.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d3362852002e314524ffb9ac8eac3c91

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 02-07-2004 - 3:31pm

Very interesting article. This would open up some most interesting arguments in a court.


>"The "berdache" is an umbrella term used by Europeans to designate a man who is culturally classified as a woman, and who may be a "wife" to another man. The practice is perhaps best known among the Zuñi Indians of Arizona, but is widely seen in other tribal groups as well. Outside of North America, the hijra of India, a cultural "third gender," is important in ceremonial life. Hijra are classified as "neither man nor woman," but they may marry males. These examples of cultural gender ambiguity are only two among dozens throughout the world."<


Thanks for posting.

cl-Libraone





 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 12:25pm
<< The Massachusetts Supreme Court advisory, stating that nothing short of marriage for same-sex couples would satisfy the state constitution, has sent legislators throughout the nation as well as President Bush scrambling to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Have you read the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, and supported by all Senators (except 13, including John Kerry, who is supposedly AGAINST gay marriage)?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 10:09pm
Seems it was "defined" on May, 7, 1996

In section #3 of the article titled the Defense of Marriage Act it says:

a. In determining the meaning of any act of Congress...the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

If gay marriages were legal...

**When I was a starving artist right out of college, I could have claimed my best friend and roommate and I were "married", then I could have been put on her health insurance as a dependent?

Yeah, I can see BIG problems all the way around for this one.

~W IN04~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 11:20pm
>>If gay marriages were legal...

**When I was a starving artist right out of college, I could have claimed my best friend and roommate and I were "married", then I could have been put on her health insurance as a dependent? <<

You'd still have to actually get *married* for that.... As it stands now, you can already put a 'domestic partner' (or whatever the term is) on your medical insurance at some companies without needing to get married.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 11:17am
politcalbry, I the article because I thought it interesting and suggests challenges to any law.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 11:22am
<>

The question is how do you define male or female. That's what the article demonstrates. Legal questions can arrise no matter how you define marriage as long as sex of person is mentioned.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 2:44pm
I would really like to know the number of actual cases where someone who is medically defined as "ambiguously gendered" has had a problem getting legally married. Does this also apply to those who feel they are "a woman trapped in a man's body".

This sounds like Jerry Springer court??!!

(I would have never thought ten years ago that this would be a real problem today...jeeeshh, what is HAPPENING in the world?)

~W IN04~

Avatar for moon627
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 2:53pm
hmmm... i wonder how Bush will deal with the gender issue ... maybe he'll declare them unhuman.

Bush has said the "sacred institution" of marriage must be preserved through a constitutional amendment. That would be in violation of the separation of church and state. He would also be in violation of his sworn oath as president to uphold the constitution. Either he is ignorant of the constitution or he is knowingly violating his sworn oath. Either way, IMHO, he is unfit to hold this office. His religious beliefs will be his downfall.




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 3:03pm

Here's an intersting site, #6 Chromosomes and Identity.......


http://www.welcome-committee.org/chapter-keener.html


>"(I would have never thought ten years ago that this would be a real problem today...jeeeshh, what is HAPPENING in the world?)"<


This isn't

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 10:36am
I never knew that state judges had the authority to override a Federal law..... I guess in certain instances they do.

To me, it doesn't bother me if there are same-sex legal unions, but I do agree with those that do not wish to refer to this as marriage, even though the same legalities would apply. I think marriage is between one man and one woman. This is just my opinion....again, this is not a topic that gets me that worked up. I think too many people make too much of a big deal of it either way. There has to be a common ground compromise on this, don't you think?

Pages