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: 09-05-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 5:45pm

What about churches that do decide to "join" homosexual couples, there are already some Temples and Churches in this country that are willing to do that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 8:51pm
I have heard many people on both sides debate this issue.

I think that a compromise is the fairest way of handling this, and the compromise would be to allow same sex civil unions, and provide equal protection under the law.

Those same sex couples still fighting to have it called marriage will then be viewed as extremists, as they would no longer have any issues to argue, especially in the court of law and the court of public opinion, and will be viewed as extremists.

The same would hold true for extremists that do not feel that homosexual couples are entitled to equal protection under the law. They will not have as much support in the court of public opinion either.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 04-20-2004 - 9:37am

So long as Civil Unions are recognized across state bounds I don't think anyone will care what you call them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 11:24am
I agree as I have said they should receive equal protection under the law.

This has always been my position.

As a Catholic I have been taught that homosexuality is a sin (which I may not agree with), but as a human with common sense, I realize that I have no control over others, and as long as it has no detrimental effect on my life, then I do not have a problem with it.

As a way to resolve the conflict between the "feuding" factions, I would propose the comnpromise on the worldplay, in exchange for the civil union being seen as equal to marriage with regards to the law.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 3:29pm

Just out of curiousity because you were raised Catholic...I proposed this before...


How about making ALL 'partnerships' (hetero & same-sex) 'Civil Unions'.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 1:18pm
That would be fine with me.

Marriage in my eyes is the religious ceremony of joining a man and a woman (but then I guess that is because of my religious background).

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 5:30pm

Marriage in my eyes is the religious ceremony of joining a man and a woman (but then I guess that is because of my religious background).


I tend to think of it that way too, but of course it really isn't since there are a number of people that get married by the state and it has nothing to do with the religious sentiment in the first place.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 9:54am
Well that is where you and I differ.

My marriage to my wife is different to me than a homosexual couple joining in a union.

My wife and I are able to produce offspring, which is the reasoning for the marriage, according to the Bible.

This is where my religious teachings come to play.

Since I am not someone who goes by the church 100%, I can say that homosexual couples are entitled to their equal protection, but I really do not wish to their union being compared to my union in the same manner, as they are different.

Just by definition, the nature of their relationship is different than a heterosexual couple, so why can't their union be different, provided that they are afforded the same protections under the law?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 11:00am

You or your wife might not be able to produce children, might not want to produce children, or might have to adopt/use a seregate mother to produce children.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 12:25pm
You forget that even though a couple might not be able to produce children, biologically that is the reason for having the different sexes in nature.

I dont know of any homosexual couples that are able to have children of their own, without the assistance of the opposite sex.

The entire meaning in nature for members of the opposite sex to come together is to further the species.

Man is not the only species that chooses a parnter for life. If I remember my studies correctly, whales, dolphins, chimps, gorillas all choose partners for life, with the purpose of producing offspring.

If I am not mistaken, marriage has been referred to as the joining of a man and a woman for over 3000 years, both in a religious sense and in a legal sense (common law marriage).

Pages