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: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 1:16pm
I got that....cl-libraone was kind enough to point that out.

I think her name was Terry Schiavo.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 12:44pm
<>

To get around the problem I have been trying to point you would need to add "between two consenting adults".

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 1:02pm
Great Post!!!! I agree completely!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 2:30pm
I agree with that too....
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 2:34pm
What about that gay people (and their children!) are denied legal protections and financial benefits that only legal marriage confers? Doesn't that bother anyone here? How can you possibly put children in danger just because you don't approve of their parents? It's obscenely selfish.

And as for the possibility of marrying your roommate - well, we straight people pull that kind of fraud all the time! Marrying immigrants we don't know just to get them green cards! Britney Spears was married in Vegas for less than a day! This isn't complicated at all. It's just about bashing gay people and it is immoral. Gay people want to commit to each other, and everyone should only be encouraging them to form stable unions - unions that have all the same legal, financial, and social benefits that we straights take for granted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2004
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 2:35pm
Human rights are human rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Remember that during your starved college years your roomate and/or best friend could have been male and allowed you to "dupe" the tax system in exactly the same way.

People who are in love with one another should have the choice and right to marry - how we protect the abuse of marriage in terms of taxation and immigration is a different story. A man and a woman can exploit the system just as easily as two people of the same gender.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 3:31pm

I agree with your post!


Welcome

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 3:33pm
Ahhhhh another new face! Welcome

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 3:43pm
If marriage needs to be "defended" then how about allowing ONE marriage per person. If a couple divorces, then they will pay a "divorce penalty" to the IRS. And, any further children will NOT be deductible. I could go on on how to "defend" the "sanctity" of marriage.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 4:24pm
Bingo. Unfortunately, the radical gay groups can't see beyond their noses. Yes, they should be permitted to marry like other couples, but the reality is over 60% of Americans do not believe gays should "marry". Why try and FORCE the majority- it only backfires and causes hate and discontent. Gays may end up with nothing for a lot longer.

Pages