Defining Marriage is Problematic
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 02-07-2004 - 10:49am |
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
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with gay marriage if I did not feel like "the gay community" were forcing it down my throat. I don't really know how someones' sexual preference became such a political and social issue.
Yes, I know that people have been gay since the beginning of time, and yes, I know that gays have experienced prejudice. We have laws (and the oh-so-politically-correct "Hate Crimes" {{i thought a crime was a crime, not that someone's beliefs or thoughts could make it worse}}) to protect against real discrimination against gays. I am not defined by the fact that I am heterosexual. I really don't want everyone to know what I do in my bedroom, and I don't want to know what others do in theirs. I feel like everytime I turn around I have homosexuality being forced into T.V. shows, music, and award shows. 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 must admit I'm not exclusively heterosexual, and I have had sexual encounters with both sexes. But at the same time, I think it is problematic if we open up and change the definition of marriage. By doin this, we could be setting ourselves up for a terrible precedent. For those of you who have any legal background (academic or practicing), we could be opening up a pandoras box of challegenes. Example: Polgamy laws being challenged in Utah and other states. And the logic and precedent for such a challenge would be there because of a change in the defintion of marriage.
I also question the agenda of gay rights community and the liberal groups who are rallying on their behalf. I think they have ulterior motives, and I don't think I have to mention what those might be. I know this is touchy subject for most, and I think it is an issue that will not be going away anytime soon. Hope I have given each of you a few things to ponder.
Krissy
Be careful on the statistics...because it's been proven that those percentages aren't exactly correct.
The Madonna/Britney thing was not an example of gay people 'shoving it down your throat', it was two pop stars trying to stir up some trouble. And gay people didn't care what they did, because it's not their place to tell you who you can and cannot kiss.
>>I don't really know how someones' sexual preference became such a political and social issue. <<
I am sure that most gay people (except perhaps the most flamboyant drag queens) would be perfectly happy to keep their sex lives in their bedrooms - unfortunately, they aren't allowed to since certain states like to legislate sexual acts.
And here's a genuine question: in what way exactly is it 'shoving it down your throat'? You don't have to watch Bravo or 'Will and Grace' just like I don't have to watch reality TV and 'Orange County' (both of which I hate). But if gay people want to make TV shows, I don't have a problem with it, just as I don't have a problem with asian people wanting to create TV shows.
Please elaborate...?
Ah, now there's an interesting point....
I remember when southern whites said this about the civil rights movement. When patterns of behavior and beliefs are firmly established, any change seems like it's "being forced down the throat". This is a understandable reaction to change.
Pages