Marriage and Gender
In the "Good Old Days" of our Western civilization there were two sexes, dominant males and subservient females. There were actually two additional groups, both neutral in gender, both totally subservient and expendible: children and true neuters. Neuters weren't considered for marriage or for much of anything else, their roles being highly specialized. Children were given in marriage in the roles they were expected to grow into, as either male or female. Pseudo-neuters, such as members of the clergy, were required to be male who acted as if they were sexless; their frequent failure to keep up the act was usually either punished or overlooked, more often the latter than the former.
Marriage was a bond between a man and a woman, a form of property ownership, to the ancient Jews, Pagan Romans and Christians. The Roman Pater Familias or head of the household had the power of life and death over his wife, their children, all of their slaves and those who swore fealty to the household. Then, in the time of the Caesars, Rome invented a super-alpha male, an individual whose power extended over the households of males subservient to him. These extended families were established and maintained by a combination of tradition, wealth, posturing, threats, treachery and brute force, the latter four functions in combination being dignified under the new name of diplomacy. As the current super-alpha male could easily be reduced to lower status, including demise, by the use of diplomacy, being the head of an extended household was often fluid and of short duration.
Nobody worried a lot about exactly what a male was or what a female was. The few hermaphrodites who appeared were considered to be freaks and were often terminated in their youth. They were not considered natural. As unnatural creatures, abominations, they were called works of the devil, vile and evil things, and couldn't live like normal people. A male who preferred to have sex with other males, with children or with animals was considered to be almost as evil as the physically deformed hermaphrodite. That a woman might prefer not to have sexual relations or want to have sexual relations with another woman seemed fantastic: a woman's preferences were given no consideration at all. Even more fantastic was the idea that a man might want to live as a woman, even to the point of undergoing surgery to do the transformation. The science of those halcyon days knew nothing of XXY, XXYY or other genetic super-sex anomalies, nor even that, genetically, every man is half woman (XY) while all women are all woman (XX).
Genetic sex determination has been muddied with super-sex combinations such as XXY and XXYY. Physical sex may not match genetic sex. Gender may not match physical sex. Legal gender may not match gender preference.
It is often difficult to determine, at any given moment and circumstance, what a particular person's gender is, particularly if that person is in the process of trying to legally and physically change gender. This is a new problem, one that did not exist before.
It didn't exist when the Constitution was written, for example.
So if, for some people, you can't figure out their gender, should you keep them from marrying?
If you prohibit marriage because of doubt, you get a whole new problem, that of after-marriage transgendering. For example, John marries Mary, then John goes through the transgender process and comes out of surgery as Joan, but Joan and Mary want to continue the marriage. Do you force them to part because of some silly, arbitrary decision about marriage being between two different genders?
The doubt always exists.
In my humble opinion, if you are going to permit marriage at all, you are, in all fairness, going to have to permit it between any two individuals who desire to share their lives, regardless of gender. Gender is too nebulous to be a determining factor.
Recent Comments