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: 04-16-2003
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 12:01pm
<>

Then perhaps you should move to another country. This is a process, we went through this with sufferage, civil rights and attempts at an equal rights amendment. This is the way a society grows to embrace all its citizens. You should be using this topic as a living example to your children of how differences of opinion are aired and resolved in a free republic. This is a civic lession!

Avatar for mrsm10
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 2:20pm
I really don't support gay marriages, and probably never will, but in the case of the one who used to be a man and visa-versa, it appears to be a gray area. However, yesterday when the news showed Rosie O' Donnel and "her friend" "getting married", All I really thought was <> THEN, when Rosie stated and I quote "I'm only doing THIS, because of the Presidents' stance against the gay communities" Well, I was totally confused, taken aback and sickened, Gee, I thought when people got married it was for love, NOT to make a politicial point!! and <>

Clearly, if the gays want to get married and prehaps make it "legal" without the media frenzy, couldn't they go through the proper channels? What would be next? those who absolutly love their animals, such as a horse want to marry them also?

JMO

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 6:40pm
Thank you for your original post that started this discussion. I was sorry but not surprised the discussion quickly got off topic. I read ALL 175 posts because I really was interested in all sides of the debate of same sex marriage. Most of what I read was the same information and opinions being expressed over and over in this and other forums. I was enlightened by some, astounded by others but mostly glad we live in a country that we all are entitled to our opinions and free to express them.

I was enlighted by your original post. I had not given any thought to the attempt to actually define man, woman or for that matter sex/gender (as in "same sex/gender"). I had never considered the possiblity that in order to enforce such a law there would need to be test for determining that the law was indeed broken. Wouldn't it be something to live your life believing you were genetically one "sex", be forced to get tested in order to marry, then find out you have a genetic disorder that produced ambiguous genitalia. Far fetched yes but not impossible?!

Truthfully, I believe it will not, should not ever come to that.

Equal rights for all!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 02-28-2004 - 10:38am
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am so happy that someone got the message that what seems so obvious is not really that simple. I too have read all the posts, I wonder if some posters read the first article or just gave a "knee jerk" reaction to the topic. Then I wonder how many realize what the proposed amendment would do to the constitution. I too am happy we have free speach.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-17-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 7:14am
My problem with calling a gay union a marriage is that marriage is one of the sacriments and the Catholic church has always claimed homosexuality to be contrary to the bible. Personally, I have no problem with a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. I have no problem with civil ceremony or legal unions. I'm not comfortable with the state (or nation) trying to force the church to accept something that it has always rejected. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:25am
But you and your roommate would actually have to BE MARRIED. It is a legal contract. It would work the SAME as with roommates of the opposite sex. And that is the key here. Giving EVERYONE the SAME RIGHTS.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:29am
Do you think that people who "feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" enjoy feeling that way? Imagine the heartache these people must feel when everything society tells them to be feels so wrong? Imagine if someone else defined who you could be, how you could act and feel. Why can't people just be people- and not let any gender label define them?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:36am
But civil unions are a way of telling them that they are not as good as hetersexual couples. Seperate but equal??? That's bs, and it's not good enough.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:42am
Amen to that! How can anyone be against love? These are people that want to commit to each other and be MARRIED. It does not hurt anyone! What is the divorce rate these days? I bet gay couples will cherish and respect the union a lot more than hetero couples do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:46am
And African Americans should have settled for separate water fountains. Its about equal rights.

Pages