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: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:19am
Hello all, I just wanted to post my opinion....as far as Mayor Newsom, I agree with him completely, I feel there are so many problems that our government need to be dealing with and this same sex marrage issue should be the least of their concerns. Whether we agree with it or not if these people love each other than so be it, people keep using the " what about the children " well as a mother of two let me just say if something were to happen to my husband and myself, I would Much rather see them be taken care of and loved by two loving people no matter what there sexual prefrence. I also think that we need to remember that it is not our place to judge ANYONE.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:28am
There are better methods than to commit a felony to challenge a law, dont you think???
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:31am
Hi MB2 Welcome

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:39am
From the day Adam and Eve met, the union of "marriage" was to be between a man and woman. I do agree that same sex partners, in a long standing commitment not a fly by night affair, should be entitled to some benefits such as insurance, inheritance, etc. but I do have problems with the marriage part. I also feel the unions that bring children into the world are only looking for trouble and heartache.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:46am
As a person who was married in San Francisco on February 15th, I was presented with the same marriage certificate as anyone else who married in SF. What we are requesting - excuse me - requiring of the government, is that we be able to have the same rights as anyone else in this country. The scenario that you described, marrying your friend for benefits, is not a marriage. I view my marriage to my partner the same way that anyone else would - permanent, full of love and respect - until death do us part. This does nothing to undermine non gay marriages that exist. Intead, what the President is offering is nothing short of a legal descrimination against people who live, work, support, protect and defend this country. I served in the Navy during Vietnam, retired as a deputy sheriff and now teach at a college. See? I am a human just like you. I do the same things you do, except that my partner is a woman - just like me. Others in history became known for discrimination and one in particular, cost the lives of thousands of Jews in WWII, because he didn't like them for who they were. It's time for this country to grow up and face the facts. Folks like me have been in societies throughout the world since the beginning of time. We are not going away. Other countries have been able to embrace all members of their societies. As of yesterday, I became ashamed to say that I was from the United States - there is nothing united about them - not from where I stand. Maybe one day, some President will want to take away your right to have more than one child, or tell you what kind of job you can have (if they all haven't been given away to other countries by then), or otherwise impose limitations on your rights - the rights you take for granted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:47am
I agree there should be better methods but obviously at this point there dont seem to be any. This is definatly an issue that most people will have to agree to disagree. I guess I just dont feel that this is such a big deal to be causing so much drama ??..
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:50am
Hey there, thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 10:55am
"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?"

The problem with this statement is that you are implying that I should settle for less than you have. Why should I go through my life as a second-class citizen? Why should there have to be a compromise? I am a citizen here, just like you. What you get, I should get...period. I shouldn't have to BEG for my rights any more than you should have to.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-13-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 11:00am
i totally agree! not allowing people to get married when they are totally in love and wanna spend the rest of their lives with one person? that is ridiculous! it should not matter, gay or straight, white or black..people are people! when will we realize this!!!!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Wed, 02-25-2004 - 11:02am
I am like you to a point, where I don't get real excited about this issue but I do believe that if a couple wants to be married, they should no matter what sex either of them is. I'm curious to hear why you feel that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Just because it's the law? Or is there some other reason. Please, i'm interested.

Pages