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: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:04pm
<>

<>

Are you talking about calling just same-sex unions that, because what about all the 16 and 17 year olds out there that marry? They are surely not consenting adults. Yes, the parents sign consent, but the person getting married is not a consenting adult. And should/are same-sex couples going to afforded that same ability? Having their guardians/parents to consent to a 'legal-union' prior to legal age? If not there will still be double standards and feelings will still be hurt.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:15pm
Washington doesn't have any marriage residency requirements either...and the only residency requirement for divorce here is:

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:24pm
You have obviously never made the mistake of marrying an adusive person. That comment is beyond archaic and would cause soo many children to think marriage is hell on earth. Not to mention countless deaths that were totally and completely unnecassary. Imagine, punishing people for trying to fix a wrong and further happiness.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:32pm
<>

What I find amazing is that so few people are aware of the biological facts. Not only are they uninformed, they don't want to be informed--stretching the mind is painful.

How can uninformed people have an accurate opinion? Blind faith is dangerous. As a compassionate person I consider the pain of individuals who can't be who they are because of what other people think. It is really sad! Thanks for your contribution,


Edited 5/28/2004 3:43 pm ET ET by hayashig

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:37pm
I knew Nevada allowed them, the infamous quickie marriages & divorces. Yes you're right! Well I be darned, &

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:40pm
<>

Most states already decide who is an adult for marriage purposes. I don't see that this needs to change, and I certainly don't to get into a discussion about whose an adult. Particularly, since age is not a very accurate indication.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:57pm
I completely agree! I always thought a marriage between two people was just a union telling the world that they love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's just a word discribing a union, what's the deal?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 4:13pm
Oh, come on! Let's get real here folks! The norm in the US IS a single parent home or a step-parent home or the grandparents raising the kids already. I think when you've got Oprah interviewing Cameron Diaz and the two of them are sitting there bobbing there heads agreeing that marriage is not feasible for today, you have to realize that maybe the sanctity of marriage was gone ALONG time ago. The argument on that particular show was that neither one knew what they wanted for breakfast or lunch from one day to the next, but they're supposed to know they want to spend the next 30 years with one person? Although some people will be totally shocked at the idea, it does raise a good point. But there again, gay marriage had nothing to do with the downfall of the sanctity of marriage. There are a huge assortment of problems. My personal problem with it is marrying one person and a month later finding out you're married to someone completely different. Someone who could beat and rape and humiliate you. To me the whole concept of marriage is too risky in this day and age. But you guys go ahead and blame it on the gay folks if you want to remain in the dark.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 4:18pm
When I said Massachusetts didn't have one "overall" I mean in a general sense. There's this latest twist to the gay marriages, but I think you're going to find that the "Massachusetts only" interpretation is going to get tossed pretty quickly. There are 12 states that do not expressly forbid or invalidate marriages of same sex couples. They just don't issue licenses to them.

The other 38 states, while SOME have definitions of marriage as being between "one man and one woman" failed to describe specific instances in which a marriage obtained in another jurisdiction would be invalidated. Utah covered their collective butts, but then again, that's no huge surprise. California is included in that count of 38 but I can almost guarantee you that they'll be recognizing marriages of same-sex couples married in Canada.

I know that doesn't address individual residency requirements for the states as far as qualification for the license, but my point was ONLY that most states don't have a residency requirement these days. It's bad for business and tourism. :-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 4:19pm
<<< I certainly don't to get into a discussion about whose an adult. Particularly, since age is not a very accurate indication.>>> I have often described my older brother as a 50 year old adolescent....

Pages