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
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 5:47pm

And what about the churches (like Unitarian Universalist) that fight for gay rights, who CHOOSE to perform MARRIAGES both under the law AND according to their religious beliefs?


I say an effective compromise is to call it a civil union for ANYONE who doesn't get married in a church - whether they be straight or homosexual.

________________________________________________

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 6:16pm

I say an effective compromise is to call it a civil union for ANYONE who doesn't get married in a church - whether they be straight or homosexual.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 6:54pm
When I hear the stuff about violating religious rights, that is what I tell them... that some churches do wish to marry same sex couples, and we violate their religious rights...

oh, but that is ok.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2004
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 11:35am
Marriage isn't supposed to be something sacred first of all. That is the definition by religious affliation. When people discuss gay marriage they always try to bring the word "sacred" into it. Religion and the state are and should be separate. So if certain religions don't want to allow gay marriages that's fine. But they should be able to marry and have it been seen real by the government. It's not fair to those couples who love each other that they can't have a marriage. They don't get the benefits of being there for their partner when they need help. It isn't right that they can't move their relationships to the next level. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from health insurance and taxes? The government used to believe that interracial marriages are wrong because they wanted to keep a pure race and protect white women. We should no longer allow the government to control that part of our lives. If two people are in love, any two people, they should be able to be together and not have to deal with other people messing with their lives. If you aren't gay then gay marriage really doesn't affect you. Why should straight people have a right to decide what's best for them? They shouldn't. Just let people live their lives and be happy. Give it up!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-20-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 7:10pm
I don't make a big deal about the gay marriage debate or anything but I do have my opinion about it and everything. I think that they should be allowed to get married if they truely love each other. It's just the same when a man and woman get married, they're in love and they get married. I think most of the world who are totally against it are just homophobic, and I think that is immature and childish, I myself have gay friends and they are totally normal except they like the same sex, so they shouldn't be treated any different. If they weren't allowed to get married it's like favoritism and they get left out, it's like they wouldn't get "certain privilages" because they're gay. I mean the whold world brings religion into everything these days and I just don't understand why they don't for once. Because I mean it's their choice if they want to be gay and get married and if they are going against God or the Bible, that's their choice and let them deal with it, but I don't think they should be stopped from getting married.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 10:46pm

Hi Umpalumpa!

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages