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: 03-03-2004
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 4:11pm
agree with your statement, too much is made over same sex relationships. however, i feel, if the couple has been together a long time and is raising children together in a happy and comfortable home and teaching them all the proper needs of today; meaning no racism, no violence, drugs, alcohol, or especially hate, they have a right to anything any good and loving married couple do. why shouldn't they be married, share responsibility, have the right to benefits, life insurance, etc. many of these couples take in children no one else will. racially mixed, handicapped, troubled, and many with other problems. they work as hard as any one and deserve the same treatment as anyone. i have no problem with same sex couples, i admire them. they are very brave, and i'm sure GOD looks down on them with the same love as anyone else. I am a 60 yr old grandmother and not gay, FYI
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 4:39pm

Hi Joyeclark!

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2004
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 7:35pm
thanks for the welcome. we'll be talking again i'm sure.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 4:39pm

<<< if the couple has been together a long time and is raising children together in a happy and comfortable home and teaching them all the proper needs of today; meaning no racism, no violence, drugs, alcohol, or especially hate, they have a right to anything any good and loving married couple do. >>>


I'm sure you didn't mean this the way it sounded, but I'm going to address it anyway.


If you'd make it a

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 12:28pm
I work in a 'male-only' prison where there is a person housed that has breasts and no penis and is taking estrogen because this person was considered to be a transgendered person. When I heard of the situation, I asked why they were housing this person at the male facility. I was told when the person was picked up the person was mid-sex-change. I asked what made the sex change complete. The response I received was that the person had to have a uterus. I informed him that my mother didn't have a uterus, did this make her a man. He stuttered at that. It's amazing at what people think make a man and a woman!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 12:50pm

Hi Amanda.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:19pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 2:52pm
What scares me about judges having the authority to override the ability of people to wed (i.e. Rosie O'Donnell and her mate requested to be wed in California and were turned down), is where does it stop? Are traditional marriages next? Are they going to next require EVERYONE to request permission to get married, no matter your sexual prefrence? I don't like the idea of government telling me who I can and can't marry. The possiblities are endless. Cross-racial marriages being outlawed, cross-religion marriages being outlawed, or simply if the judge is having a bad day with his/her spouse he/she could say nobody should get married and not approve anyone.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 2:57pm

>"Rosie O'Donnell and her mate requested to be wed in California and were turned down"<


Most states have a residency requirement. Were they residents of Calif.?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:01pm
Actually, I think that rare is the state that actually has a residency requirement for marriage. You'll note that Massachusetts doesn't, overall. New York doesn't, Vermont doesn't, Colorado doesn't, Nevada doesn't, and there are a host of others. Typically there's a residency requirement to UNdo the marriage, but not DO it.

Pages