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: 04-16-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 11:59am
Thank you for getting my point. It is the nature of boards that whatever hits a nerve produces a reaction, ergo, the posts get way off the topic. But at least I know you recognize that an amendment to our Constitution defining "marriage as between a man and a women", will weaken the Constitution because challenges will only deepen the ambiguity.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 12:02pm
<>

Ohhhh, and this brings visions.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 9:29pm

Rolly 2


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-14-2004 - 1:28pm
>> Ask Americans about how they feel about allowing 'civil unions' with the same rights as 'marriage', and the vast majority support that idea.

Actually it is almost a 50/50 split, and is within most polls margin of error. In a recent gallup poll, 52% were agains civil unions and 48% supported it. I have also seen 51% against, and 49% for....too close to say either way, but in no way is there a majority for or against civil unions.

By far and away, however, there is a majority of people against calling it a marriage.

So, call it a civil union, and give the two people the same legal rights and courtesies that a married couple receive....it should make both sides happy, at least to a degree.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-14-2004 - 2:37pm

Actually, I've heard about many recent


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 5:54pm
"I feel like everytime I turn around I have homosexuality being forced into T.V. shows, music, and award shows."

One, you do not HAVE to turn on the television or the radio or whatever it is you think is "shoving homosexuality down your throat". That is a CHOICE. I don't watch shows I don't want to watch. Why is it more difficult for you to change the channel or turn the tv off than it is for me?

Two, has it never occurred to you that gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE, with thoughts and feelings just like yours? And guess what! They even bleed the same way you do. I'm sure they don't feel that soap operas and Leave it to Beaver or whatever are shoving heterosexuality down their throats. There are a LOT more hetero couples on tv than gay couples. But you don't hear the homosexual community making a big stink about that.

This seems to me to be almost exactly the same type of discussion that was taking place in the 60s before black people were finally accepted as people.

"I really try to be open and understanding but I am getting sick of it all."

You wouldn't be sick of it if everyone was openminded and realized that people are people. Period. The ones that keep this going and going are the people that are so dead set against homosexuality that they will do just about anything to prevent any homosexual from being happy and having the same rights as the hetero community.

Shannon

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 8:37am
I'm amazed at the term: Gay Marriage.

It's MARRIAGE, just marriage and only MARRIAGE.

Is the ceremony particularly upbeat and merry? Or is the ceremony kind of STRANGE or odd?

Let them legislate bigotry and hang their political futures. This is no different from saying Inter-racial marriages are illegal.

Yeah we couldn't have 2 people committed to each other for 30+ years get married and do what 90% of all married couples do: Stop having sex.

This will surely protect the purity and sancity of marriage, how we'll just be left with drunken hetro pop icons, burping and slobbering their vows in front of an Elvis Impersonater and crying ANNULMENT the next day.

Yeah, marriage is fine and dandy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-16-2004 - 10:05am
JeffreyWelcome

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 02-17-2004 - 10:39am
Interesting debate on The O'Reilly Factor last night about this very subject.

In the debate, on of the guests (I think he was a radio talk show host from Los Angeles, who just so happened to be homosexual) pointed out that in Denmark, where same sex marriage is allowed, the institute of marriage is now dead, and meaningless, and now children are being brought up in single parent homes as the norm, instead of the exception.

This guest said that this is exactly what could happen in the US if the laws were to change.

The debate also went on to say that there is a good possibility that the Mayor of San Francisco could be arrested this week for issuing fake documents, which is a felony in California. I personally doubt it would go that far, but in today's day, anything is possible.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 02-17-2004 - 10:43am
<>

I guess the guest hasn't heard about the numerous single-parent families that already exist. The guest needs a reality check.

Pages