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
Fri, 04-02-2004 - 11:36am

This is a legal matter not a religious matter.


There are many committed couples of the same sex that raise well adjusted children. Therefore they should have the same legal rights as hetero's. IMO.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 04-02-2004 - 11:54am

Divorce breeds divorcing children.


EXCUSE ME?


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Fri, 04-02-2004 - 1:25pm

>>Can two people of the same sex really "have" children? <<


Yes they can. My partner and I have two children. We have been together over eight years and have two small children (4 and 2) conceived through artificial insemination. They are just like any other kids around them. They have the same needs (food, clothing and love), the same wants (every toy they see on TV)

-=Seawyt
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Fri, 04-02-2004 - 2:23pm

I personally don't care who anyone loves or wants to be w/ but, when you try and change a fact....a man is a man and a woman is a woman that I have a problem w/


Right, you don't have a problem with people loving who they want to love so long as they have the "decensy" to understand that what they are doing is an abomination and to hide it from us "right folk" like they "should."


Well how enlighted of you, you can continue to pertend that you are not a bigot so long as someone doesn't "flaunt" their horrible ways in front of you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 04-03-2004 - 9:01am
<>

I think this deserves repeating, when you think of children that are being abused by a failed welfare system.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 8:48pm
I believe this is not a moral issue, but an issue of human rights. I believe that gay and lesbian men and women partnerships should be recognized as marriages and receive the same benefits as heterosexuals do. I believe that not allowing these American citizens to be married is flat out discrimination. Look at our country's history, cultural groups (based on gender, ethnicity/race, ability, etc.) have had to fight for equal rights. This is yet another group fighting for their rights in this country.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 9:10am

Hi Lakerfan, I agree!


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 10:20am
I would have to agree with politicalbry on this one, only as to say that perhaps it should not be called or refered to as marriage.

I agree, as I think politicalbry does, that homosexual couples should receive the same legal priviledges as heterosexual couples. If they are granted the same legal benefits, then it would end any claim of discrimination.

I personally don't see two men or two women being joined legally as a marriage, as I see marriage more as the religious part of the legal union, and from what I gather, the Roman Catholic Church is not about to begin marrying same sex couples.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 11:16am
<>

I took this position; however, now I'm not so certain. If we have marriages and civil unions there is still room for discrimination, i.e., civil union means same-sex union.

OTOH, by the very nature of the term same-sex marriage we define the word "marriage" as between heterosexuals. This is a thorny issue, but perhaps we should take one step at a time and get civil unions approved.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 2:28pm
I would agree with the civil unions, but I would make certain that the law provides for equal protection and rights for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Once that is done, it removes any notion of discrimination, as they are getting exactly what they seek. If any group tried to state discrimination because it is not legally seen as a marriage, there would be no grounds for this, as it would have all of the same legal footings of marriage in the eyes of the law.

Pages