Genderless Marriage: Redefining the Debate

The contending premises in the debate over gay marriage have thus far been "Same sex couples deserve the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples" versus "Marriage is only between a man and a woman". Essentially, the question has been whether or not to endorse these relationships as valid.

It seems evident now that this somewhat restrictive framing of the argument helped cost California its fleeting glimpse of progress last November, many voters feeling forced to register their approval or disapproval of homosexuality itself -- and understandably confusing moral convictions with their constitutional counterparts.

Subsequently, the national portrait of advocates has been largely oversimplified: gay men and women working to secure their rights. This is in great part what the movement is about, of course, but there is in reality far too diverse a spectrum of proponents working alongside these men and women for everyone to be agglomerated into one demographic. The portrait is, as every family member and heterosexual advocate for gay rights knows (and here I include myself), a gross misrepresentation.

This must change.

If we strip away the layers of debate that obfuscate the fundamental principles in play, we arrive at a simple premise: that legal marriage ought to be blind to gender. No more change in law need be affected beyond the alteration of select pronouns. Marriage is, after all, a legal partnership -- a civil union, if you will -- between two consenting adults of a reasonable age, which receives tangible rights and benefits at the local, state, and federal levels.

The question then becomes: On what basis do we exclude certain persons or arrangements from this institution? After the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same sex marriage, Justice Mark Cady put it simply: "We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective." Granting marriage to same sex couples? Yes, but also rendering marriage a genderless institution.

Re-branding the movement as such not only widens its scope, but does so in a way that puts it more squarely in line with the two biggest rights struggles of the twentieth century. These are not just fights for the equal treatment of racial minorities, women, or the LGBT community, but more broadly for our national definition of civil rights. It illuminates all of these as issues that speak to our national character, something in which every citizen has a vested interest - not just those groups who are directly affected by a given piece of legislation or court decision.

Further, calling it genderless marriage changes the focus from demanding new rights be granted, to obliging opponents to explain why they shouldn't already be granted. If no evidence can be shown that same sex couples impede governmental objectives, than the argument is over before it has begun. Tradition, religion, and morality need not even enter the conversation, nor in this instance should matters of anatomy.

 

Follow Kevin Armento on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kephen

Comments

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

..........­.......wit­h justice and liberty for ALL.

either we change the Pledge of Allegience or we adhere to it. it's like claiming to be Christian and ignoring what Jesus taught.

[John Howard]

Postgenderism is a form of Transhumanism. From the Wikipedia on Postgenderism:

Postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.

Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and cogno-physical disparities and differences are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either become obsolete, or that all post-gendered humans will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, which, postgenderists believe, would have the effect of eliminating the need for definite genders in such a society.

So, "Genderless marriage" is about more than just not paying attention to anyone's gender, it is about declaring a right to reproduce with or as anyone, using stem cell derived artificial gametes and artificial wombs.

However, it is a really stupid and cruel idea, it would be totally unsustainable and expensive for society, and would eliminate everyone's right to procreate with their own genes, sexually, with someone of the other sex.

SSM is NOT about being left alone to live ones own life, it is about being allowed to create human beings from lab created genetically modified gametes.

[metalboi]

They're called "fertility treatments," and they are in wide use by infertile heterosexual couples. That will not change as the technology advances.

[John Howard]

The fertility treatments in wide use all combine a man's sperm and woman's egg. They are NOT "genderless", it is not "postgendered". Postgenderism is about future fertility treatments that enable people to have biological offspring with someone of either sex.

[Jovan Givens]

I can see it now..."I support genderless marriage."

This has been something that I've been pondering -- finally someone articulated it.

Now let us begin to think of the counter-arguments from the opposition...and it will exist, no matter how redundant or circular.

[mydwyf]

Actually, the concept of 'genderless marriage' is what is 'redundant and circular'.