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: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 1:29pm

Welcome!Welcome


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 1:48pm

Oh come on Ah-nold, do something that will REALLY help your state!


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 2:34pm
There is a whole lot in your post that I consider wrong, harmful, and evil, but I won't go into that.

I do want to ask that since you believe marriage "was designed for procreation" you would wish to outlaw marriage between sterile persons and/or between an elderly man and woman beyond childbearing age. Should those of us who married and choose not to reproduce be fined, forced to divorce, or incarcerated?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 3:04pm

>"Schwarzenegger had no authority over the elected Democrat.


Peter Ragone, a spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive."<


Another governer interfering, or trying to,

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 3:42pm
You definitely bring up some good points and issues. While I'm for limited government in most circumstances, there are times when the government and our elected officials need to step up and define words that are in our state and federal laws. That is the essence of lawmaking and defining words or the "language" of a bill can cause debate and/or discussion in itself.

Without getting to heavily into political theory or philosophy, I just wanted to say that it is the common good of all to give up some rights for the good of the community. If you would like for me to explain in this in more detail, please feel free to email write me privately and I can explain this in more detail.

I know the City of San Francisco is challenging the State of California on the consitutionality of the law, and the state has alreadys said it plans on defining the law. I can certainly from a legal perspective understand both sides and their reasons for doing so. I did want to suggest that I think it is disturbing that Mayor of California decided to not obey state law and issue the certificates. And I doubt he will face any retribution of his actions either. Yet, if a Democrat or Republican who opposed abortion procedures and put a city wide ban on the abortions within the city, then there would most definitely be calls for either the recall of or the mayor's resignation.

I mean as citizens we are entitled to obey laws and our elected officials should be entitled to do the same. But I suppose most of this might be to deaf ears. Or maybe I could be wrong.

Krissy

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 3:48pm
sorry for the typos in the previous posting. I will be more careful and will more closely

review my posts prior to submitting them.

Krissy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 4:06pm

There's an 'edit' feature to the right of posted messages. Great feature!!!


What would I do without it? Winky 2

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-22-2004
Sun, 02-22-2004 - 4:56am
Personally, I do not feel as though 'we the people' need polititions telling us what is best for us and our life. Banning gay marriage is discriminatory no matter how you try to serve it. It clearly states in our Consitution that you have the right to be free, without limitation, provided you are not hurting others in the process. Gay marriage does not hurt others. So what it the neighbors think its wrong. Gay relationships/love does not fall under the catagory of right and wrong -- it just is -- its just love. And all this nonscence about using God as a marketing tool against gay marriage is, in and of itself, sacreligious. For God made everyone on the planet the way he wanted them to be; further, the bible says we are to love our brother. I didnt read anywhere, 'unless their gay.' I think our socioty as a whole has much more serious issues to ponder. Personally, I think all gay and lesbian souls that have ever been turned down for a marriage license get together and file the biggest class action lawsuit against the United States Government. Afterall, what is the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) here for? . . . you guessed it, civil liberties or making sure our constitutional rights are protected the way our forefathers deemed necessary. They could sue for discrimination and cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately they would win.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 02-22-2004 - 9:52am
Robinelysa, the point of my post was to point out to those supporting a Constitutional Admendment defining marriage between a male and female will be contested because defining male or female is problematic, if not impossible. My intent was not to address the issue of same-sex marriage per se; this board has always done that. The strange thing about boards is they do not always follow the path intended. Please note, this is addressed to you in response to your post to me--not because we have a difference of opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 02-22-2004 - 11:26am
I really must be missing something here but why is it any concern of the American people? Why is something as fundamental as being allowed to marry even open for this kind of discussion.

Pages