Printer-friendly version

Contributed by Vesmir 2009-07-20

Portland — THIS ISN’T JUST “OUR” BATTLE (from the website www.createdequal.us)

Let's back into this gay and gender neutral marriage debate from an outside point of view. How about an experiment in perspective...

A small segment of the population is born with both genitalia, intersex individuals.

There is strong current medical opinion that it should be left to the child to figure out and assume their preferred gender role and sexual identity as they mature.

See the website: www.isna.org

1. Allowing for this, once an intersex person reaches adulthood, should society be the decision makers for which gender that person assumes or even whether the person must choose?

If that intersex person felt they were more male than female, should it matter to us? How about the reverse? Or both sides equally? They are still the same person, following their nature, they just happen to have both sex organs.

2. Now, let's assume the surgery is never performed, that the individual decides not to risk the dangers of surgery or simply hasn't figured out their preference or decided not to make a choice, meaning both sexes are intact. Should society impose it's will and force the person to pick a gender?

Or failing that, should the decision of who is appropriate for him/her to love and marry be up to society? Or would it be better that (s)he make those decisions without restriction or without having to weigh positive and negative legal consequences?

If (s)he met someone (male or female) and fell in love, should society have any say in whom (s)he can marry because (s)he happens to have organs of both sexes?

How much basic freedom and liberty should be curtailed for these people to "fit" into society? Should the will of the majority impact such a small minority? Or should that person have the freedom to be with whomever they fall in love with, male or female? If so, why would it NOT be called marriage? We have two loving, caring individuals in a committed, intimate and legally binding relationship. Is it relevant on any level that one partner can partly fit into either gender?

On the other hand, Is it ONLY having the genitalia of both sexes that would permit an intersex person to MARRY the person of their choosing?

3. This brings into focus the true nature of relationships. Gay marriage, intersex marriage, straight marriage....it's all about two people sharing love and life together. We are after a loving, caring, intimate partnership sanctioned under civil law, so why should the law look at this differently because of the gender(s) involved?

Whether religion and tradition see it differently, it's not the government's job to impose either component upon anyone, but it is government's job to treat everyone equally.

If honoring freedom and liberty means that intersex persons have a "choice" to follow their nature and have equal treatment under the law in following their nature, why should the gay community not be treated equally as well? Or IS it only a question of genitalia? In which case intersex individuals will always be partly wrong AND partly right in the gender-neutral marriage opponents’ eyes. And as such, who decides which gender an intersex person can or can't marry?

This isn't just "our" battle. Arguments against gay or gender neutral marriage fail entirely when considering this issue in the context of intersex individuals.

I'm all ears if gender neutral marriage opponents can supply a viable and legitimate argument and detail specifically how any of their positions for one man and one woman marriage can be applied without infringing on intersex individuals' rights to privacy and liberty and freedom of choice.

Here are a couple links with a more precise discussion, which highlight the heart of our debate regarding liberty and freedom in America and gender neutral marriage as it relates to intersex people.

http://www.isna.org/node/670

http://www.isna.org/library/law/vilain_aaas_2005

This is an important excerpt:

Significant minorities of individuals are left out of simple civil rights because they don’t fit established categories of sex. Intersexed people are hurt by arbitrary definitions of sex. As doctors, we have a responsibility to care for our patients in more ways than just drugs and surgery. Intersex patients are born with a disability that makes sexual intimacy and thus intimate life partnering difficult. If they do end up with a partner whom they wish to marry, that is a great success, and they should not be impeded by irrational laws about definitions of sex. After all, in many cases, we, as doctors have assigned their sex fairly arbitrarily.

Personally, I don't know of a more cogent discussion to illustrate to everyone how exclusionary the one man / one woman marriage stance truly is.

We all deserve to breathe the same A.I.R.

We all deserve to be Accepted, Included, Respected.