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 - 5:23pm
Forgive me for sounding dumb, but when did everyone vote on this supposed definition of marriage? Because I don't remember being asked to do so. I'm also somewhat confused and concerned-what the heck is the difference between a marriage and a civil or legal union except a few letters? Why is everyone SO stuck on a dumb word? From what I can gather it all MEANS the same thing - everyone involved is together for life (or divorce), they love eachother, they can have kids together, they get a tax break and they get insurance together. What is the deal with this word game thing? I've never really considered myself pro gay anything, but come on guys, do you really want the government telling anybody what to do when it does not hurt anybody that SHOULD be a personal choice? I mean you might as well take us back to arranged marriages. You know how these people are give them an inch, they'll take a mile. The next thing they'll be telling us no more inter-racial marriages or something like that. Never invite them into the bedroom!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 5:31pm
What planet are you on that you think we need to procreate the Earth so heavily? From where I'm standing our cities are a dirty, over populated and over crowded mess. Even the once small cities are too big for their breeches now. I mean, no offense intended, but really! We have children starving in the streets because we can't afford to feed them. The Asian countries only allow a certain number of children because of this problem.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 5:40pm
>"I know for a fact that each and every homosexual suffers from an emotional problem."<

>How do you know this? The first I've heard of this.<

Thank you SO much! I wanted to say something like that and instead went rambling on about something else. Bravo!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 5:46pm
I'd still like to know who deemed it a privilidge and not a right. Even prisoners on death row get married, so obviously they don't take it away where it needs to be taken away - from a criminal about to die. But, I mean, really, how can it be a privilidge anyway, you lose privilidges for various reasons. So what I lose my ability to wed if I bring the car home late? Come on. Marriage is a right, not to be forced upon one of course, but nevertheless, it is a RIGHT!
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 12:18am

Gays were not outraged that Madonna and Brittney/christina "acted like lesbians" just to try to shock people? I really try to be open and understanding but I am getting sick of it all.


So you don't think it is descrimination that a gay couple walking down the street can't hold hands without someone saying something like this to them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2003
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 9:21am
Good post - and I'd like to add my own two cents as well.

You responded to this paragraph "Gays were not outraged that Madonna and Brittney/christina "acted like lesbians" just to try to shock people? I really try to be open and understanding but I am getting sick of it all."

I wonder why the gay/lesbian community was supposed to be shocked by this? A lot of people have suspected for a long time that Madonna is at the very least bisexual. In an interview after this performance, Britney Spears admitted that she loves to kiss women. Finally, why would homosexuals be outraged that two women kissed? It's not like they did it to slam the homosexual community. It's not like they said "This is for all you queers out there" as a preface to the act. They kissed. So what? If two women kissing is "acting like lesbians," then the person who wrote this clearly has no understanding of what "acting like lesbians" really entails. And once again, even if they WERE just "acting like lesbians" what's the big deal? Should the gay and lesbian community be outraged that straight women play lesbians on "The L Word" or straight men "act like gay men" on "Queer as Folk?"

I'm sick of the pretend acceptance too. And I love the phrase "What they do behind closed doors is their own business as long as they don't flaunt it in public." That one gets me every time. That's the "I'm not against gays as long as I don't have to see it" mentality, which contradicts itself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2004
Thu, 06-03-2004 - 3:50pm
Whatever any ones opinion, marriage is supposed to be a sacred union between a man and a woman with the purpose of creating a family unit. That idea is so far off of what is happening today in this world. Few people are interested in building a foundation for their family to grow on. We are in the last stages of another Sodam and Gomorrah because we are very selfish and me oriented. We want everything now and expect it to be given to us. We should not have to work so hard to get what we want. Everything is expected to be a gift because we are just here. The old ideas of working for what we want is old fashioned thinking. If we are poor, the government should give us housing, food, insurance for health needs. If we don't make enough money on the job we are doing, some agency should make up the slack instead of each person living on what they can make. They may be poor, but they have two or three TV's, a VCR & DVD player, cars, etc. Sorry for the preaching but this is a sore spot for me. If you want something, work for it. The old fashioned way.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 06-03-2004 - 4:33pm

Sorry for the preaching but this is a sore spot for me. If you want something, work for it. The old fashioned way.

And what exactly does this have to do about gay marriage?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 8:22am

<<>>


And with this marriage equality movement, that's EXACTLY what the GLBT community is doing.

________________________________________________

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2004
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 4:48pm
I do have a problem with gay marriages because I beleive living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. I believe it is very clearly stated in the bible. I do not beleive homosexual people should be targets of violence but I do believe they should be told that the lifetsyle they are choosing is directly against God and they will have to pay the ultimate price if they continue to do so. I believe as a stron Christian American, we must stand up for what God says marriage is (between a man and women) it is our responsibility to teach our children how to make a strong stand for right and against wrong without creating violence.

Pages