Marriage and the Arrogant Heterosexist Supremacist

Robert P. George, from Princeton University

Now that we have disposed of the December 2010 propaganda article co-authored by Robbie George, let’s turn to Robbie’s thoughts on marriage in New York, Sex and the Empire State, which seems to be either a play on Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl or the more recent television and silver screen series, Sex and the City.  We’ll leave the origin of the “Sex and the. . . “  formula title to the students of the lingual arts.

Remember, the interview is in National Review, which is a conservative magazine with pretensions of the sort of lofty intellectual-seeming snobbery usually reviled by more bread-and-butter conservatives as an effete liberal trait.

So one can understand the article's introduction that indicates that Governor Cuomo “rewrote” the meaning of marriage when he signed the Marriage Equality Act last week.  Of course, the meaning of marriage has been rewritten in the New York Domestic Relations Law and its predecessors many, many times.  All this last “redefinition” accomplished was to complete the process pursuant to which the marriage laws of the State of New York have become fully gender neutral in their application.  The last step was to extend connubium – the right to marry – to persons of full age and sound mind regardless of the gender of their intended spouse.

In the interview, Robbie comes out swinging, referring to this simple vote on connubium as a matter rooted in the loosening of sexual ethics.

Pray tell, Robbie, how does the extension of the civil rights, responsibilities, privileges and obligations of marriage on a gender-neutral basis have anything to do with loosening any sexual ethics?  Indeed, this new law involves a re-affirmation by the State of New York of the dignity and favor placed on the institution of marriage as the basic unit of family formation and as the bedrock of stability in society.

One would think that advocates of marriage would leap with joy at the idea that persons with a homosexual orientation would no longer be denied the connubium with a spouse of the same gender.  The extension of marriage rights on a gender-neutral basis is morally neutral as to the rights of opposite-sex couples, and a moral good to same-sex couples previously denied the rights.

Robbie accuses Kinsey of being a liar and a fraud, accusations that if one merely reads the Manhattan Declaration that Robbie co-authored, one would know could be fairly lodged at himself.

 It’s interesting that Robbie seems to associate gender-neutral marriage with “sexual freedom” – when marriage itself provides legal limitations on sexual freedom.  One should suppose that society should discourage licentious behavior among those with a same-sex orientation quite as much as it discourages licentious behavior on the part of opposite-sex oriented people.

Robbie asserts that with this “sexual freedom” thing, that

“marriage simply cannot function as the central principle or standard of rectitude in sexual conduct, as it has in Western philosophy, theology, and law for centuries.”

The simple act of enlarging the range of connubium on a gender neutral basis doesn’t have a basis in any “sexual freedom” thing, so Robbie can rest easy.  But no.  Here is his central argument:

“The idea that sexual intercourse (the behavioral component of reproduction) consummates and actualizes marriage as a one-flesh union of sexually complementary spouses naturally ordered to the good of procreation loses its force and even its sense.”

Perhaps that idea was a misdirection in any case.  For Robbie, it seems, it’s all and seemingly only, about f-cking, and not just f-cking, but only heterosexual f-cking.

Robbie’s randy idea still works within the context of opposite-sex marriages.  But just as opposite sex marriage can exist in situations in which there is “one flesh” but not “one soul,” it is possible for same sex marriages to be situations in which there is “one soul” and where the “one flesh” aspect just does not happen to be procreative.

 That is not a tremendous leap, and if the examples of Canada, Massachusetts and other places where the right to marry has been made gender-neutral, Western society is not about to collapse because of this.

Perhaps Robbie should focus more on sexual liberationists and leave LGBT people alone.

As I pointed out in my last essay, Robbie’s next argument is false, as well.  Proponents of making civil marriage gender neutral are not against “traditional marriage” at all.  What we are opposed to are those who use “traditional marriage” as a means to enforce heterosexist supremacy, and who by their arrogant position seek to deny extending connubium on a grender neutral basis.

It’s not traditional marriage that is bigoted, it’s the heterosexist supremacist position that LGBT people are not as good as straights that is ignorant, intolerant, bigoted and immoral.

Heterosexual is good.  Heterosexist is bad.  There is a difference, Robbie, and if you can discern the difference you will be going a long way toward reducing the level of internalized and institutionalized heterosexism and cissexism.

The root of Robbie’s sexual ethics is misogyny and patriarchal dominance.  The idea that women are lesser beings who should have less rights has been deeply engraved in Western Culture until more enlightened and civilized times.  Western society once tolerated serfdom and chattel slavery, but we have become more civilized over time, and these cultural appendages are no longer tolerated.   

Robbie’s worries about multiple-party marriages are premature.  The legal structure to define, support and govern two-party marriages are already there.  With the gender-neutralization of all aspects of marriage with the single exception of connubium, the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples is an easy thing to do.

Getting to the point where multiple party marriages will be possible will take a great deal of effort.  If Robbie is interested in getting this done right, rather than willy-nilly, perhaps he could start a call for legal and sociological experts to put together a model statute that would cover the mutual rights and respobsibilities of multiparty marriages.  Commencement and dissolution issues would be much more complicated in these marriages, and of course, the safety and care of children should be a paramount interest to the parties and to the society.

So let’s not bring in multiparty marriages to the discussion, we're not there yet!  But alas, Robbie doesn’t seem to understand that society hasn’t got anything put together that would support such a structure. 

I am aware that polygynous polygamy is an easy adaptation, but that kind of multiparty marriage is only a standard traditional patriarchal marriage on Viagra.  The practice of splinter Mormon sects is more of a warning of the wrong way to do it than it is an example of what should be done.

When Robbie refers to New York as being “one of the most socially liberal states in the Union,” he seems to have forgotten that there is more to New York State than New York City, and once one gets beyond Westchester and Rockland counties, the social conservatism is so thick one can cut it with a knife.

It isn’t sexual liberationist ideology that is at work in the drive to marriage equality on a gender-neutral basis, yet Robbie keeps playing that line in the hope that if he repeats it often enough, people will believe it.  Well, Robbie is barking up the wrong tree.

Robbie thinks that the extension of connubium on a gender neutral basis has “abolished marriage” and “replaced it with a counterfeit.” 

All Robbie is doing here is histrionically raving heterosexist themes.  The fact that Robbie cannot see that only one thing has changed in the law – two, if one counts the “religious protections” that were put in place to insure that the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to sacramentalize same-sex weddings or allow the receptions in their halls. (The religious protections are broader than that – all a church has to do is say that racial mixing is against their religious principles, and presto, the Masons don’t have to allow a racially-mixed marriage reception in their halls, either.

For Robbie’s heterosexist notion, marriage is not a marriage without heterosexual f-cking.  And if that isn’t a limitation placed on the institution, he would just take his balls and bat and go home.

Without heterosexual f-cking, to Robbie, with this “counterfeit” marriage:

“there is no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence that structure and help to define marriage as historically understood in our law and culture.”

That, of course, is the purest heterosexist hogwash.  Whatever was in the New York Domestic Relations Law as it related to monogamy, exclusivity and fidelity, etc, that was there immediately before the Marriage Equality Act, is still there afterward.

As to permanence, that is a point to which Robbie’s Roman Catholic Church only gives lip service.  Its canon law makes the obtaining of an annulment incredibly easy these days, and the grounds have been made such that virtually any Catholic marriage can be nullified on the basis of the parties’ allegation that at the time they got married, they were not truly ready to get married.  If we are going to agree with Robbie that permanence is a mark of marriage, then be forwarned, no Roman Catholic marriage is a true marriage either.

New York was the last state in the United States to allow true “no-fault” divorce.  New York already allows serial polygamy, the parties do so one spouse at a time.  With the no-fault divorce, it’s so much easier to change partners.  And it was this way even before the connubium was extended on a gender-neutral basis.

If Robbie was concerned about the state of marriage, his concentration on heterosexist concerns meant that he did little or nothing to oppose “no-fault” fivorce.

For that matter, what has Robbie done about restoring the common law law of bastardy, pursuant to which no child born outside a marriage has any inheritance rights or rights of support from the sperm provider, unless the sperm provider voluntarily filiated himself to the child.  The abolition of these laws in the 1950’s was perhaps the single largest blow to the institution of marriage.  Women who had previously refused to allow sexual congress to a man unless and until “the ring is on the finger” within a few years were throwing themselves at rock stars and sports figures in the hopes that a child would be produced, and the paternity suit would follow.

That is what heterosexists have already done to marriage.  Robbie cannot blame LGBT people for the failings of heterosexuals.  But he does.

I am all for monogamy, exclusivity and yes, even permanence, though with the last, there must be a way out of a truly abusive marriage short of ending the life of the abusive spouse.

Robbie’s idea that mothers, children and the poor are harmed by same sex marriage is ludicrous.  The fact is that in New York alone, there are tens of thousands of children in poor black and latina lesbian families who will be immeasurably helped by the marriage equality act.  For Robbie, though, the inconvenient facts just get in the way.

Robbie says:

“Of course, among the activists and leaders of the movement to redefine marriage, it is already difficult to find anyone who believes that same-sex marriages demand as a matter of moral obligation sexual exclusivity.”

 Well, Robbie, here I am.  Though I don’t refer to the marriage equality movement as “redefining marriage,” all I think of it as doing is making connubium fair to LGBT people.

What Robbie should be doing, rather than opposing gender-neutral  connubium, is to preach the principles of “monogamy, exclusivity and permanence” as hallmarks of a moral marriage.  I would be happy to join him in that.

The harm happens when same-sex couples are not granted the connubium.  There was a time when marriage laws created unequal marriage rights that had a basis in the gender of the spouse.  Wives had one set of rights (and at some times, no rights), while the husbands had a completely different set.  The idea of two husbands or two wives was virtually inconceivable from a legal standpoint.  With different appurtenant rights and responsibilities, people ith a same-sex orientation developed what Robbie would disdainfully refer to as “alternate lifestyles.”  Having been denied the right to marry, many turned their backs on the institution and all of its trappings.  I am of the opinion that with the availability of marriage, the next generation of same-sex-oriented people can be integrated into the society much better.  The preachers and the priests should think of how to reach them with moral messages of “monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.”

One of the useful bits I adapted from Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Casti Conubii in an earlier essay bears repeating here

24. This mutual molding of [husband and wife] spouses, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as [the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,"] not just a 50-50 proposition, but as each spouse giving 100% to the other, to express not only a law of justice but of charity.

NOTE: [Bracketed] portions to be deleted, Italicized portions are my gender-neutral replacements.

There was also an earlier encyclical, Pope Leo XIII’s Arcanum from 1880, that also dealt with Catholic marriage,  While it’s aimed at Catholics, I’ve adapted a little piece of it to illustrate a message drawing to other religious traditions as well:

In the story from the Biblical book of Genesis, God, who had created the original Adam in God’s own image and likeness as male and female, proceeded to divide Adam into two people so that the human person would not be alone.  The Greeks contribute to our understanding of this unitive nature of human beings, a story, from Plato’s Symposium, about how human beings were first created in combined pairs, male-and-male, and female-and-female, as well as in the form of male-and-female from the Genesis story.  In the Biblical First Book of Samuel, we read of the love between David and Jonathan being so great that they become “one soul.”

From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ Yeshua, son of Miriam. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."  And Yeshua never said a word against marriage as being between men, or between women, and thus, while the conjugal “becoming one flesh” is representative of the generative power of marriage between a man and a woman, we must not forget that becoming “one soul” as did David and Jonathan is the form of marriage appropriate to those with a same-sex orientation. 

One thing I might hasten to note, about the “let no man put asunder” part, is that at the time that Yeshua walked on earth, divorce was something only the husband could obtain, and it was incredibly easy,  All he had to do was say out loud, three times, “I divorce you.”  And that was it, the wife had to leave, the husband kept all the children, and it was a very, very patriarchist, misogynist and sexist process. No wonder Yeshua spoke so strongly against the abuse as a part of his messahe of social justice,

Same sex marriage, while it was enjoyed by David and Jonathan, was not something that was available during Yeshua’s life, or for most of history.  Western civilization only became civilized enough to abolish chattel slavery in the 19th century, and to gradually improve the legal rights of women and minorities.  Only in the 21st century have western societies become civilized enough to extend connubium on a gender-neutral basis.

When it comes to divorce, it makes sense to recognize that it is a solution best left to last resort.  But when there is an abusive relationship, or one spouse has broken the marriage vow by way of marital infidelity, divorce should be an available option, but marriage should not be terminated by a court except for grave cause.  Is no-fault divorce somehow “more civilized?”  I doubt it.  But Robbie and his friends at NOM are so focused by the blindness caused by a heterosexist supremacist mindset, and have devoted millions of dollars and tons of hours fighting against justice, when there are real moral battles to fight that they have not addressed.

Robbie gives the credit for the Marriage Equality Act to the Republican-controlled New York State Senate (though from his perspective, it’s an allocation of blame).

What happened in New York does not damage marriage, it gives marriage the biggest boost it has ever had.

One can only hope that the marriage vote in New York can help the U.S. Supreme Court in making a decision in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

On the third page of the online article, Robbie does address the idea of divorce, and he identifies no-fault divorce as marriage’s equivalent of Roe v. Wade.  This is surprising, since the National organization for Women fought very hard against no-fault divorce in New York, a fight in which both Archbishop Dolan and Robbie George were silent or nearly so.

Robbie believes that the anti-marriage position of his NOMbies will help Republicans in 2012.  Perhaps he will prove prophetic, but the damage already dons since 2010’s mid-term congressional elections should be a strong signal to voters to elect Democrats in 2012 at all levels of government.

Robbie temporized about the idea of bringing marriage discrimination back to New York, but we already know that his colleague Maggie Gallagher has already unveiled a four-year plan to do this – a plan that is entirely unrealistic.

Robbie pooh-poohs Governor Cuomo’s membership in the Roman Catholic Church.  Andrew may well be a cafeteria Catholic, because he takes seriously the obligation of having an informed conscience seriously, and has chosen to reject those teachings of the Roman Catholic Magisterium that are immoral and evil.  Perhaps if the Catholic Church reformed itself, Governor Cuomo might be a “better” Catholic. (And yes, I would like to see Governor Cuomo and Sandra Lee get married, but I won’t judge their personal moral choice on the issue.  Perhaps now that the Marriage Equality Act is the law in New York, they might make a point of doing so, and explain that their main reason for not getting married is that they could not do so in good conscience until the Act becomes law.  Now, that would be a sweet statement to make in favor of marriage – not the heterosexist supremacist kind that Robbie George espouses, but the real thing, on a gender-neutral basis that is inclusive of and respectful to all marriages.

Robbie also has unkind words for the moral struggle of upstate State Senator Mark Grisanti, who provided the 33rd vote for marriage.  He had not been on the whip count, but he explained his vote so eloquently on the floor of the senate that it brought tears to my eyes.  Robbie thinks the very real religious protections will be “cover” for Grisanti and the others who fought to make sure they were in place.

What Robbie does not realize is that it took 17 Republicans to allow the bill to go to a vote.  All they needed to do was bring the vote up to 32 from the 29 Democrats willing to vote for it.  But it took at least 17 of them to tell Majority Leaser Dean Skelos to let it go to a vote.

Don’t discount the reality of the religious protections, Robbie. 

Before the vote, I was afraid that the religious “protections” were going to be a poison pill.  To a very small extent, they were, but not a fatal poison.  It turns out that they should appease thpose whose heterosexist supremacism is built into their religion, but only to the extent of the celebration of weddings and wedding receptions.  That is fine, we can live with that,

Robbie is fearful that the protections might not survive judicial scrutiny, even though the New York Act contains an in terrorem clause designed to provide further protection for fearful religious bigots.

As to legislative repeal of the "religious protections?"  There is the possibility of that, I don't deny it.  The only concerns I have is organizations that use state funding to discriminate.  Other than that, the religious protections are fine.  I would not insist that the Catholic church sacramentalize same-sex marriages - that would actually violate religious liberty (unlike the bogus religious liberty that Robbie prefers, that would protect only those who believe in religious liberty for those who agree with him).

Robbie incredibly still believes that religious liberty should belong only to heterosexist supremacist Christianists.

To illustrate thatm, take this quote from Robbie, in which  says:

“If you ask, “What can be done going forward around the country to protect religious liberty?” the answer is this: Win the fight to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Period.”

Robbie should really consider taking a really serious look at his moral blind spot.  The institutionalized heterosexism (again, heterosexuality is okay, heterosexism is evil!) is his biggest failure.  Heterosexism itself is built on a foundation of misogyny. It’s built into the Catholic Church’s moral theology, which is the biggest failure of the Catholic Church itself.

Robbie sums up a truth, but expresses it in heterosexist terms. Children actually need loving parents.  The sex of those parents is immaterial, except to the heterosexist supremacists, for whom only an opposite-sex marriage should be permitted.

 Robbie closes with the “intellectual challenges” that he thinks that marriage equality advocates “have not met and cannot meet.”  I have news for Robbie, I took care of that yesterday. 

Nuances from last night's New York Marriage vote

The "Rev." State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.

I don't know how many people noticed it, but the "Rev." State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a pentacostalist minister who admits to having become "one flesh" with a second wife while his first wife is still alive, and admitted in an interview this week that it was wrong to do this, did his best last night to try to derail the well-organized procedure for the marriage vote in the State Senate.

It wasn't just the length of his comments, which went well over the stipulated two minutes. (To be sure, Senator Duane and others also exceeded two minutes in their own comments).  But in his halting English, he kept insisting that he was "laying aside the bill." He became agitated, and repeated several times that he was getting no respect, that he had said to "lay aside the bill."  He said he had a right to "lay aside the bill."

What Diaz did not seem to understand, was:

(a) he was recognized solely for the purpose of explaining his vote on the bill" - and

(b) that there had been a bit of ledgerdemain when the amendment and the bill were first taken up, that precluded Senator Diaz being able to lay the bill aside (i.e., put it off until later).

Last night's women's discussion group at my local LGBT center trooped into The LOFT's library rather than meet.  We were watching the internet livestream feed on a large monitor, hoping it wouldn't crash (it didn't), but wen the Assembly bills were first taken up, we noticed that they were being laid aside.  At first, some thought that meant that the bills were not going to get a vote, but without missing a beat, the president of the Senate continued with the repartee with majority leader skelos about there being a message from the governor at the desk, for each bill.

After having each been laid aside, the bills were then taken up on the basis of the governor's message of necessity - first the amendment, and then the main bill (the reverse of the order they had been taken up in the Assembly).

So, when Diaz tried to lay the bill aside, he couldn't, because the bills had already been laid aside once, and because he had not been recognized for the purpose of laying a bill aside but for explaining his vote.

It turns out that Diaz is as poor in his senate procedural rules as he is on interpreting the bible, or in his command of the English language.  As to the last, I hope he is more proficient in Spanish, even if I don't understand a word of it.

As to his feeling of not being respected, I am sure that he is going to repeat that - he was trying to use every trick he knew to keep the bill from being considered.

Then in the other things he said, he chastized the Republicans for not all marching in lock-step (something he, as a Democrat, has always had a hard time doing).  He complained that the Republicans were responsible for letting the bill go to a vote.

On that last point, I think is was not grounds for complaint, but for admiration, despite the fact that nearly all of them disapproved of the purpose of the bill.

As one of them pointed out, had they not let the bill go to a vote then, it would have come up in a couple of years, and when it came up again, it would not have all the "religious protections" they were able to build into it.

Before the final language came out yesterday, I was quite frankly worried that the poison pill provisions were going to be wayy more onorous than they were.  I grant that the in terrorem clause (the one that invalidates the whole law in the event one provision is set aside by a court) was way over the top, but not totally unexpected.

Essentially, on the issue of marriage, the proponents and opponents are so polarized, that no one on either side trusts the motivations of the "other side."  We are fond of demonizing each other. 

Diaz showed that he was possibly the only member of the Senate not willing to lay that aside in the chamber and move forward.

Unlike the advocates on both sides, like me, who operate outside the chamber, the senators have the responsibility of actually making the law, despite their sometimes almost insurmountable differences.

Some senators, mostly Democrats, were justly pushing for the extension of the connubium of marriage on a gender neutral basis.

Other Senators, mostly Republicans, were justly (and with the bill safely passed, I can state this) trying to protect their religious institutions from what they perceived as an assault that goes against their most deeply-held religious views.

Frankly, I do believe the Republican majority is well aware of the fact that 2012 may be the last time they have a majority in the near future, so they set out to get the best deal they could get, to protect the mostly religion-based interests of the opponents,knowing that in 2013, a democratic majority senate could pass marriage without all the bells and whistles that were written into this bill.

I don't really think the bells and whistles were wholly necessary, though I can understand the fears that led to their adoption.

While I really do see the concerns of the opponents to be rooted in bigotry and prejudice, I can admire the way a few of the Republicans were able to negotiate a deal with the Governor to work a way to get the bill passed in a way that could reasonably protect the religious prejudice without harming the legal rights of the proponents.  I also have to admire the willingness of  most of the 28 Republicans who voted no on the main bill, to allow it to go to a vote.  I only wish that they would have used the amendment that was voted on first, to signal who they were - that they were among the at least 17 in the majority conference that were needed to let the bill get the vote.

And that is the truth.  If there were not 17 members of the majority who understood that there were enough votes for the bill to pass, and were at least comfortable with, if not fully satisfied by the "religious protections" that had been negotiated (what I still tend to call a poison pill even though it did not turn out to be fatal"), there would have been no vote last night.

Last night's vote was the result of the democratic process at work - not a perfect bill for either side, but one that gave each the things that they needed the most.

A victory for "our side," and, though they may not want to admit it openly, a victory for "them," too.

Diaz, though, made it clear that he was not part of any solution, only part of the problem.

Like Archbishop Dolan, he will not acknowledge the victory that the opponents won on religious protections.

State Senator Greg Ball

Senator Greg Ball wanted more of a poison pill.  And to be honest, I don't know if he was willing to let it go to a vote as it was.  His principal role in the past couple of days was to signal to me that the poison pill provisions were not going to be fatal, when he announced his NO vote in advance. 

Senator Tom Duane, who in the moment of victory took the time to call for passage of GENDA next, was gracious - he chivalrously referred to all of his colleagues as heroes for their work in the process, even those who voted agaisnt the bill, even Diaz.

So, the marriage canary tells me that the only hope for GENDA next year would be if there is something the Republicans feel a need to do to protect some legitimate constituency of theirs.  Sadly, the way the opposition to GENDA is shaping up, I don't think there is anything that we can offer in compromise.  All we want is the same protection that has been provided to other minorities under the hate crimes and human rights laws.

The trans community has to organize and lead the charge for GENDA.  I am hopeful that we will not be forgotten by the marriage people, but many of them will be moving on to other states and to federal issues,  Some, however, will do everything they can to help us out - but we have to find a way to take the lead.

Marriage v. Civil Unions, with a postscript on Trans Rights

On the issue of marriage v. civil unions – “separate but equal" is still as bad an idea as it was during the period in which the United States permitted racial segregation with that as the basis), I'd like to examine the whole "civil union" as an alternative to "marriage" basis.

The ancient Romans used a term matrimonium to deal with the marriage concept of caring for children (the first part of the word comes from mater - the Latin word for "mother").

They had a separate concept of connubium (a word from which the English term "nuptial" emerges) that dealt with the rules as to who one could marry. In the early Roman Republic, patricians and plebeians could not intermarry - they did not have the right of connubium with each other, regardless of whether there would be children in a relationship.

Opponents of marriage fairness, whether they are in complete opposition, or merely want to create a separate legal status for gays, are possibly confusing matrimonium with connubium.

The right to marry is an issue of connubium - and the civil term "marriage" does not have to rerefer to a combination of matrimonium and connubium. (And with marriage being permitted between opposite-sex octogenarians and infertile (and other) couples who might not have the desire to raise children, the connubium issue - who may marry whom, is paramount.

It could easily be argued that the state is primarily concerned with the connubium aspect of marriage with marriage equality bills.

Even though the matrimonium aspect is one that would more often affect opposite-sex couples because of the fact that babies often (but not always) come as the result of heterosexual sexual encounters, matrimonium also involves caring for and nurturing children – something that studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples can do as well as, if not better than, heterosexual couples.

Matrimonium is the part of the marriage equation that Roman Catholics celebrate as a Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." For Catholics, the *sacramental* aspect is the matrimonium - at the same time, the Church recognized the connubium aspect for those who, in addition to the sacrament, wish to celebrate a Nuptial Mass.

There is nothing in any pending bill for marriage equality, marriage fairness, or the right to marry, that has any negative or deleterious impact, on the matrimonium aspect of marriage. In fact, what marriage equality bills do is enhance matrimonium to benefit children who live in households in which the parents are a same-sex couple.

This will have a particularly great impact on African-American and Latina lesbian couples, who are more likely to be raising children from previous relationships, than any other demographic. (One can argue that opposition to marriage fairness is racist, and onewould be right, in that context).

Religious-based opposition to civil marriage equality is absurd – perhaps a slogan should be made of "Marriage Rights for all, not Marriage Rites for all" with a crucifix for the central T in Rites. Despite rhetoric coming from some circles, there is no requirement that religions that do not accept marriage except between members of an opposite-sex couple, would be forced to perform or sacramentalize same-sex unions.

Still, for those religions that would wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, a sacramental rite for same-sex marriages (or for octogenarians or infertile couples) would not have to include aspects that relate to matrimonium - (I mention marriages for opposite-sex octogenarians way past their child-bearing years in this context - this would avoid the necessity for some of the questions relating to bearing children - I have seen Catholic ceremonies for the elderly in which the question is always asked.) Of course, if the couple does have existing children (whether related by blood or adoption to one or both of the parties), plan to adopt, or have plans for surrogacy or medical procedures ranging from artificial insemination to embryo implantation, a celebration of the matrimonium aspect would be just as welcome as it would be

As I have mentioned, from the *civil* side in the marriage equality bills, we're talking mostly about connubium - the right to marry. The matrimonium comes in only if there are children involved, wheher pre-existing, later adopted, or in the case of pre-menopausal lesbians, even naturally born (though perhaps not "naturally" conceived, though I would not refer to artificial insemination or other fertility treatment as "unnatural.")

Using a different term for the connubium of same-sex couples than that used for the connubium of opposite-sex couples is a bad idea.

Call it marriage. Period. The focus is on the connubium - and that is the *only* change that marriage equality laws make. Matrimonium does not change - if there are or will be children, than the family created by marriage, regardless of the gender of the couple, will benefit the children.

For Roamn Catholic thrologians, one might find support for the idea in an unexpected place – a 1930 Papal encyclical from Pius XI, that, while it does put primacy on matrimonium, does place a lot of value in other aspects of marriage - this encyclical could actually be rewritten with very few changes to incorporate Catholic theological teachings that could be applied to same-sex couples as well.

Casti Connubii is the name of the encyclical.

Here is an excerpt, from Paragraphs 24 and 25:

24. This mutual molding of [husband and wife] spouses, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as [the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,"] not just a 50-50 proposition, but as each spouse giving 100% to the other, to express not only a law of justice but of charity.

NOTE: [Bracketed] portions to be deleted, Italicized portions are my gender-neutral replacements.

It's *possible* that one day, ancient texts will be rethought - after all, even our Declaration of Independence and other foundational documents are sexist - with the declaration that "all men are created equal" - at a time when married women were considered as "civilly dead" as any convicted felon, since in marriage under the common law, "the two become one and that one is the husband."

Today, we read men in that document as encompassing both men and women. Perhaps the day will come when old documents that relate to sex-specific marriage roles can be recast and reunderstood in a gender-neutral manner.

Many states have made their marriage and domestic relations laws largely gender neutral, even if many have not yet taken the final step of making the connubium also gender-neutral.

New York State is once again on the brink of recognizing the broadening of connubium to make it gender neutral.

Postscript: (Meanwhile in New York, the transgender community languishes, desperately awaiting Senate passage of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) – a bill which would serve to “catch up” the trans community on the issues of hate crimes (passed without us in 1999), and on human rights (passed without us in December 2002). GENDA passed in the Assembly this year one day before the Assembly passed the Marriage bill. While the Senate should take GENDA up immediately before marriage, that depends on the Republican leadership of the Senate, as to whether one, both, or neither bill will come up for a vote.

While making marriage laws gender neutral is a positive step for the trans and intersex communities as well as the members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, the failure to enact GENDA will remain an indictment against the members of the legislature, and the governor, for not following through on this vital bill as well.)

When marriage equality comes to New York, and I fervently hope it does, if GENDA is not also passed, my celebration will be somewhat muted. Will the ardent advocates of marriage turn to help pass GENDA? Or will they disappear? And if GENDA does not get a Senate vote - when redistricting come in 2012, it would be my fervent hope that it would result in the election of 35 or 36 Democrats to the Senate - because once that happens, there will be no excuses left.

My June 14, 2011 Letter to Dean Skelos on GENDA

The New York Transgender Rights Organization
Joann Prinzivalli, State Director


June 14, 2011

The Honorable Dean G. Skelos By FAX to 518-426-6950
Legislative Office Building, Room 909 Page 1 of pages
Albany, NY 12247
United States



Re: The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA)
S 2873 (Duane, et al.)/A5039 (Gottfried, et al.)

Dear Senator Skelos:

The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) (S2873/A5039) just today passed in the Assembly for the fourth time.

I am writing to urge you to put this bill to the floor for a vote. I understand that you can put it through Rules and get it to the floor that way.

I am saddened by listening to some of the Assembly debate – some Republican assemblymembers have an understanding of the meaning of the bill to protect “a man who might one day decide he feels like a woman, and immediately start using the women’s restroom” or might in some way be used to protect sexual predators. I assure you that this bill would not provide any protection for a voyeur or any other male sexual predator who might want to wander into a women’s restroom or locker room.

When I wrote the first draft of the bill in December 2002 in the week after the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act was passed without an amendment to include language specifically protecting transgender people, I made sure I thoroughly researched the evolution of the language used in various local and state ordinances. I am annexing to this letter for your reference the result of that research.

The annexed research also provides a survey of local law enactments in New York State that cover transgender human rights: New York City has had such protections in place since 2002, and more primitive language was adopted in Suffolk County and the City of Rochester since 2001. While Westchester County had the first introduction in 1999, a fully trans-inclusive human rights ordinance was not adopted there until 2009.

The need for GENDA cannot be exaggerated. A recent national study shows that transgender people are seriously disadvantaged in areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, etc. This study, entitled Injustice at Every Turn can be found at:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds
and the full report iiself can be accessed at the following URL:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

I urge you to read this full report – it is an eye opener.

Then there are the economic costs of not passing GENDA. A Massachusetts study can be accessed at the Williams Institute website, www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute. While it does not directly deal with New York, the adverse economic effects on New York State incurred by not passing GENDA are likely to be similar. I am sure that Senator Ball wants to do what he can to reduce costs and increasing revenue to the state without increasing taxes, and passing GENDA is actually one small way of doing that. (As an aside, the economic benefits of passing the marriage equality bill should not be underestimated. Millions of dollars are lost by new York State every year, with lesbian and gay couples opting to get married in Canada, Vermont, Massachusetts or Connecticut –and this actually adversely affects marriage-related businesses in New York State.)

While religious faith should not adversely impact human rights, I am terribly saddened by opposition to GENDA from New York State’s Roman Catholic bishops, and from the Rev. Duane Motley and his organizations, who apparently do not understand that sacred scripture includes Isaiah 56, Matthew 19:12, and Acts 8, all of which relate to transgender people.

However, GENDA would not adversely impact the Catholic Church or other churches, which would not have to ordain transgender people or solemnize marriages in which a transgender individual is a party. Existing human rights law has sufficient exemptions so that the Church can continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and GENDA would not provide any greater coverage for transgender people than is provided to any other protected class.

The nature of transgender people is also misunderstood by many, including people like Rev. Motley. In 1965, a blue ribbon medical commission in New York City determined that transgender people are delusional members of their initially-assigned sex for whom any medical or surgical treatment is merely palliative. This is the kind of thinking that is at the root of much opposition –but it is as outdated as the geocentric cosmological theory or the classification of whales as fish.

Much has been learned in scientific studies between 1995 and the present. The current scientific understanding of transgender people is that we are developmentally different, and do not belong to that initially-assigned sex. There are genetic predispositions that have been found for the embryonic development in which the brain develops along one gendered path, while the genital ducts develop along the other. I am also annexing to this letter a survey of a number of scientific studies that reflect the recent developments in the understanding of transgender people.

I urge you to take the evidence I have provided into consideration and allow this bill top go to a vote – you have an opportunity to stand on the right side of history and favor justice, fairness and equality for all by moving this bill.

Sincerely,


Joann Prinzivalli
State Director’
New York Transgender Rights Organization

JP:ns
Encs
cc: Hon. State Senator Tom Duane
Eric Bottcher (by e-mail)
Christopher Argyros (by email)
Colin Casey (by email)


---



- RESOURCES -

A DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE SOURCES FOR
DEFINITIONAL LANGUAGE USED IN
THE GENDER EXPRESSION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT;
AND
A SURVEY OF LOCAL LAW ENACTMENTS IN NEW YORK STATE
THAT PROTECT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

By Joann Prinzivalli, State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization
You ask about the source for the term "Gender Identity and Expression" as used in GENDA (The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act):
Current bill number S 2873 (Duane, et al.)/A5039 (Gottfried, et al.)

The proposed definitional language for "gender identity and expression" is found in Section 3 of the bill, which reads as follows:

S 3.

Section 292 of the executive law is amended by adding a new subdivision 34 to read as follows:
34. THE TERM "GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION" MEANS HAVING OR BEING PERCEIVED AS HAVING A GENDER IDENTITY, SELF-IMAGE, APPEARANCE, BEHAVIOR OR EXPRESSION WHETHER OR NOT THAT GENDER IDENTITY, SELF-IMAGE, APPEAR ANCE, BEHAVIOR OR EXPRESSION IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT TRADITIONALLY ASSO CIATED WITH THE SEX ASSIGNED TO THAT PERSON AT BIRTH.


When I wrote the first draft of the GENDA bill in December 2002, I was cognizant of the language then proposed for a similar amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, (Local Law 3 of 2002, passed as Intro 24 in April 2002), and I was aware of the history of the adoption of housing, employment and human rights laws that cover transgender and gender-different people since 1995. An excellent resource for this is "Transgender Equality," published by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) available online at

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/transeq.pdf?docID=1302

(I must disclose that I am cited in footnote 74 in this resource.)

While working on the first GENDA draft in December 2002, I took the history of the development of human rights law language over the years very seriously. The fact that half the population of the state was already covered by a well-drafted and inclusive ordinance, made it fairly easy for me to choose the language adopted by new York City earlier that year.

In the 1980's, New York City changed its human rights law - the word "sex" was replaced by the word "gender." it is believed that this change may have been an early attempt to broaden the protected class, but all it did was make the definitions seem more vague. See, e.g., Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc. 164 Misc. 2d 547; 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1995), which broadly interpreted the change.


The language of the New York City Human Rights Law definition of gender as adopted in 2002, now includes "gender identity and expression:

23. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

The New York City language was adapted from a statutory formula first adopted at the state level by the State of Rhode Island in 2001.

2001 - H 5920 Substitute A, amending Chapter 34-37 of the Rhode Island General Laws

34-37-2.3. Right to equal housing opportunities -- Gender identity or expression. -- Whenever in this chapter there shall appear the words "sexual orientation" there shall be inserted immediately thereafter the words "gender identity or expression."

34-37-3. Definitions -- When used in this chapter:
. . .
(17) The term "gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

Prior to the use of the formulation in Rhode Island, legislation to protect the human rights of transgender and gender-different people used various formulas. It was not until the 1990's that the term "transgender" began to be used to describe transsexual and other gender-different people. The earliest ordinance from 1975 was enacted in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and amended that City's human rights law definition of "affectional preference" (what we would today call "sexual orientation"), to include "having or projecting a self-image not associated with one’s biological maleness or one’s biological femaleness."

In 1986, Seattle used the terms "transsexuality and transvestism." In 1999, based on a recommendation from the City of Seattle Commission on Sexual Minorities recommended an amendment to make the law "more accurate, inclusive, and more easily administered."

The language adopted in Seattle may be the first use of language that was adopted at a statewide level in Rhode Island. The Seattle language defined: " ‘gender identity’ means having an identity, expression, or physical characteristics not traditionally associated with one’s biological sex or one’s sex at birth, including transsexual, transvestite and transgendered, and including a person’s attitudes, preferences, beliefs and practices pertaining thereto."

One can see that this Seattle language can be related back to that first Minneapolis enactment, which was the source of the use of the term "self-image" in current definitional formulae.

While there are other inclusive formulas out there, since the adoption of language similar to the Seattle or Rhode Island Language in New York City in 2002, all county and local ordinances adopted in New York State have followed the New York City formulation with slight variations.

The quickly put together but nearly comprehensive survey of the human rights ordinances adopted (and proposed) in counties and municipalities in New York State that follows, indicates that the definitional formula used in the New York City human rights law has held up in later statutory enactments. In the two or three cases that predate the New York City amended ordinance, different language was used. Items are presented in reverse chronological order:

(Possible) Pending legislation NOTE: (This may have been re-introduced for 2011):
Albany CountyLocal Law K of 2009
Introduced 11/9/2009
Section 3.11.
11. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall include a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.
(Note: My last information on this bill is that it was on the agenda of the Albany County Audit and Finance Committee for March 27, 2010

Laws already adopted:

Westchester County –
April 13, 2009, Human Rights Law amended by unanimous bipartisan vote 16-0;
April 2008 Fair Housing Law enacted

The Westchester County Human Rights Law as amended by Local Law 4 of 2009 on April 13, 2009, and the Westchester County Fair Housing Law adopted in 2008 (Local Law 4 of 2008), also use the identical definition, which in Westchester County is one of the sub-definitions of "gender" which is also defined as "the physiological or psychological characteristics

From the Westchester County Fair Housing Law (Local Law 4 of 2008)

L.L. No. 4-2008

Section 700.20 Definitions
. . .
G. Gender shall mean:
1. The physiological and psychological characteristics of being a male or female; and
2. Gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not such gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

The language from the Westchester human rights law:

700.02 Definitions.
. . .
9. Gender means:

a. The physiological and psychological characteristics of being a male or female; and

b. gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not such gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.

2008
City of Binghamton Human Rights Law (Local Law 008-001 (adopted 12/15/2008),
Section 45-3(5):

45-3
. . .

5. "Gender Identity or expression" shall mean having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.


2006
Town of Rhinebeck (policy)
Employment Non-Discrimination policy adopted by Town Board of the Town of Rhinebeck, Decemebr 11, 2006, resolution increasing classifications covered under Rhinebeck’s non-discrimination policy to include “gender-identity or expression” and“ sexual orientation”
§902 of the Employee Handbook was amended to include:

d. The term “Gender Identity or Expression” shall mean having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex associated with that person at birth.”

duly passed by 5-0 vote of the Town Board at a regular meeting held on December 11, 2006.

2004
Tompkins County
Tompkins County, Chapter 92, Anti-Discrimination Local Law No. 6-1991, as amended by Local Law No. 1-2004 Chapter 92 of the Laws of Tompkins County § 92-3 - vote of 11 to 4

§ 92-3

GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
A person's actual or perceived gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, gender-related behavioral or physical characteristics, or gender-related expression, whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, gender-related behavioral or physical characteristics, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex assigned at birth. This shall include but not be limited to:
A. Transsexuals in all stages of transition, including preoperative, postoperative and persons living in a gender other than their birth sex;
B. Persons (including cross-dressers) whose gender expression occasionally differs from their birth sex; and
C. Intersexed persons born with anatomy or physiology that includes medical characteristics of both male and female whose sex was assigned at birth and who sometimes manifest physical characteristics, expressions or identity that differs from the sex assigned.

2003
City of Ithaca
Adopted July 9, 2003

§ 215-2. Definitions
When used in this article:
. . .
11. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a
person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or
not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different
from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.


2002 (for Anti-Discrimination Law, and 2006 for Fair Housing)
City of Buffalo
Part II Chapter 154 of the City Code of the City of Buffalo

Article III Antidiscrimination Law
[Adopted 9-21-1999, effective 10-4-1999; amended in its entirety 9-17-2002, effective 9-30-2002]

§ 154-9. Definitions
. . .
GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
Includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

Article IV Fair Housing Law
[Adopted 5-2-2006, effective 5-17-2006]

§ 154-13 Definitions
. . .
GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION
Include a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

New York City
Intro 24 of 2002, passed in April 2002, amended subsection 23 of the Definitions section of the New York City Human Rights Law, and was the first use in New York State of "gender identity and expression” and the definition used was similar to that first used in the State of Rhode Island in 2001:

§ 8-102 Definitions. When used in this chapter:
23. The term “gender” shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.


Earlier enactments:

2001
Suffolk County
§ 89-13 of Suffolk County's Local Law No. 14-2001

RESOLUTION NO. 802 - 2001, ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO. 14 - 2001, A LOCAL LAW TO STRENGTHEN AND IMPLEMENT APPLICATION OF COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Section 2. Definitions.
G.) The term “gender” shall mean both the biological and social characteristics of being female or male.

Adopted August 18, 2001; Approved by Suffolk County Executibve Robert J. Gaffney September 20, 2001(after a public hearing Sept. 10, 2001); Filed with the Secretary of State on October 5, 2001 (Effective Date)

City of Rochester
General Ordinances of the City of Rochester
§ 63-2 Definitions
Adopted May 15, 2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-131

GENDER
Includes the biological and/or social characteristics of gender and gender identity.


1999
Westchester County
Human Rights law proposed that defined gender as “the biological or social characteristics of being female or male.” At the time of enactment, the definition (later amended in 2009 to clarify the definition) defined gender as “the biological characteristics of being male or female.” The statute also had a provision that included protection on the basis of “actual or perceived” membership in a protected class. On this basis, I wrote an article published in the LOFT Community News in 2000, in which I advocated that the term “biological” should be construed as meaning “physiological or psychological” and this interpretation was used by the Westchester County Human Rights Commission in accepting jurisdiction of human rights complaints from transgender people.


NOTES ON THE SCIENCE:

Here is what some of the science tells me:

In 1995, in a peer-reviewed article in Nature, entitled A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality [Nature 378, 68 - 70 (02 November 1995); doi:10.1038/378068a0] the researchers involved gave us a first glimmer into transsexual brain structures.

This was confirmed in a follow-up study in 2000, entitled Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 5 2034-2041

..

In 2008, two separate studies from Australia established separate genetic predispositions for different kinds of transgender development.

In one study, the predisposition for those who develop with female-identified brains and male genital tracts was shown to involve a long androgen receptor gene:

Lauren Hare, Pascal Bernard, Francisco J. Sanchez, Paul N. Baird, Eric Vilain, Trudy Kennedy and Vincent R. Harley. Androgen Receptor (AR) Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-female Transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, Advance online publication date 27 Oct 2008, Jan 2009 print edition

The other study,aimed at those who develop with male-identified brains and female genital tract development, was entitled A Polymorphism of the CYP17 Gene Related to Sex Steroid Metabolism is Associated With Female-to-Male But Not Male-to-Female Transsexualism by Bentz, Eva-Katrin; Hefler, Lukas A.; Kaufmann, Ulrike; Huber, Johannes C.; Kolbus, Andrea; Tempfer, Clemens B., published in Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey: December 2008 - Volume 63 - Issue 12 - pp 775-777
doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000338093.21452.0b

These studies, and the brain structure studies from 1995 and 2000, provide clues to the ontological developments that result in transgender people. While there is much additional study required, these studies make it possible to discredit the earlier understandings of transgender people that date back to 1965, in which transgender people were seen as merely delusional members of their initially-assigned sex, for whom any treatment is seen as merely palliative.

- excerpted from my blog essay at:
http://trans-cendence.blogspot.com/2011/04/e-pur-si-muove-response-to-keith.html

A further list of scientific resources (which includes references to two of the above studies (in italics) (courtesy of Zoe Brain):

Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. - Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.

Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

Male Gender Identity in Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome by T'sjoen et al. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Apr 1.

Biological and Psychosocial Correlates of Adult Gender?Variant Identities: a Review by J.F.Veale & D.E.Clarke, Personality and Individual Differences (2009) 48(4), 357-366

Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation D.Swaab & A.Garcia-Fulgaras Functional Neurology, Jan-Mar 2009:

Neuroimaging Differences in Spatial Cognition between Men and Male-to-Female Transsexuals Before and During Hormone Therapy by Scoening et al J Sex Med. 2009 Sep 14.

Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):904-7.

Clinical Implications of the Organizational and Activational Effects of Hormones M.Diamond Hormones and Behavior 55 (2009) 621–632

Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality Govier et al International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

Specific Cerebral Activation due to Visual Erotic Stimuli in Male-to-Female Transsexuals Compared with Male and Female Controls: An fMRI Study by Gizewski et al J Sex Med 2009;6:440–448.

Responding to Archbishop Dolan on Marriage

With all the hoopla about marriage equality finally getting close to a vote in the New York State Senate, New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan writes (or rather, lies) in his blog about “The True Meaning of Marriage” as a last-ditch effort to try to stop the law from being enacted – and as has been typical and usual with Roman Catholic hierarchs in the United States, he advocates for moral injustice, using lies and misrepresentations as his methodology.
http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247

He commences his diatribe with:

“The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

Hmmm. “Redefine Marriage” is a stock phrase used by the opponents of the New York marriage bill. The impression is that marriage has lasted for thousands of years without change, and now some people want to “redefine” it so that men and women can’t marry each other.

The fact is that passing the marriage bill will not change a single thing about opposite-sex marriages and the families of people in opposite-sex marriages. Their marriages will not be redefined.

Not only that, but civil marriage gets “redefined” all the time. In ancient Rome, there were several different forms of marriage, and marriage has historically included various forms of polygamy, including both polygyny and (sometimes) polyandry. The Bible indicates that polygyny was one of the earlier forms of marriage – one husband with more than one wife. Indeed, even same-sex marriage was allowed, in some cases. In 1 Samuel 18:3 we see King Saul’s son Jonathan marrying the future King David, and then later in the chapter we see David also marryins Saul’s daughter Michal, thus becoming Saul’s “son-in-law a second time.” (See Darby or ASV, not the Vulgate or translations based on the Vulgate, because Jerome intentionally fudged the applicable verse). In Rome, the Emperor Nero, after killing his pregnant wife Poppaea, later married Sporus, a young man who resembled his dead wife.

In the early Christian Church, as Boswell points out, same-sex unions were actually blessed by Christians. (Indeed, in Christ Jesus, according to Paul, we are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”)


Also, according to Paul, marriage for Christians has nothing to do with procreation, but is for the sole purpose of allowing those with a strong libido an opportunity to have licit sex. See 1 Cor. 7:8-9.

But let’s look at the law as it evolved in New York – not an unchanging tradition spanning thousands of years – but a matter of civil law that has evolved over time.

After the English took over from the Dutch, New York was subject to the English common law, which developed over centuries. Marriage under the common law created a single legal person – “the two shall become one” – and then, as Blackstone (or Lord Coke) notes in a corollary, the married woman essentially suffers from a disability that is the equivalent of civil death for a prison inmate – “and that one is the husband.”

This was the barbaric traditional form of marriage for enough hundreds of years to be part of the common law that was the common law of New York State as well.

In 1836, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose started petitioning for a “Married Women’s Property Act” that would allow married women the right to inheritances – until then, being that “the two are one, and that one is the husband,” the husband had control of inheritances – and would often enough spend it on liquor in taverns while leaving his wife and children destitute.

The religious leaders of the day, like Archbishop Dolan, were appalled – to change the civil law relating to marriage would destroy the institution! And the state senate took 12 years, until 1848, to actually pass the law – and then only because some senators realized that the inheritances that should go to their daughters and grandchildren were likely to end up in a tavernkeeper’s hands if they did not pass the bill.

It took another twelve years to push a bill through the legislature in 1860 “redefining marriage” again, to allow working women the right to their own wages – until then, husbands had control over those as well, and they were just as likely to spend their wife’s wages on strong drink as they were to spend their inheritances.

So many other changes have been made in the years since 1848 and 1860 – “redefining” marriage again and again . . .and again.

So, what’s all the ruckus from Archbishop Dolan about this particular proposed change?

The answer is a combination of moral error and conflict in the Church’s catechism that leads to a nearly schizophrenic response whenever the idea of “gay” is broached.

Archbishop Dolan continues:

“The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don’t see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.”

Tamper? No. The arc of history bends toward justice, and the proposed amendment to make marriage laws gender-neutral is just, fair, and right. Tamperis a loaded word – improve would be better and more accurate.

As we have already noted, the “definition as old as human reason” is a fiction invented by Archbishop Dolan to cover his apparent ignorance of the fact that the definition of marriage has been amended many times in the past couple hundred years, and has changed over time as humanity has become more civilized.

Those “in defense of traditional marriage” should be honored to vote for the marriage bill – it makes no changes whatsoever to traditional marriage. All it does is expand the definition to include marriages that are gender neutral as well as those between opposite-sex individuals.

Dolan continues:

“But, really, shouldn’t we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?”

The archbishop apparently has little knowledge or understanding of civil law – and even of the law of his own Church. My own Roman Catholic marriage was ended by civil divorce more than 10 years ago (I didn’t start the proceedings), and then annulled by a Church tribunal of his diocese (though I admit it precedes his elevation to the archbishopric in New York). Is Dolan even aware that New York “tampered” with the whole “lifelong” thing a long time ago? That the grounds for civil divorce have changed many times, most recently when New York began allowing “no-fault” divorce? Isn’t he aware that his own Church’s Canon Law has changed many times with regard to marriage and annulment – with the most recent annulment rules being so liberalized that one prominent canon lawyer was quoted as stating that there was not a Catholic marriage in America that could not be annulled under the current rules?

Does the archbishop realize that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage – sure, the Roman idea of “matrimonium” involves procreation, but “connubium” does not. Perhaps he should brush up on his Latin.

Then the Archbishop gets cutesy:

“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

“But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.”

Um – with his geographical references, Archbishop Dolan seems to imply that changing the law is something that only happens under “godless communism.”

But the Archbishop is just being silly here and making false analogies.

Indeed, he is so wrong that it would actually be funny if he weren’t attempting to be so serious.

In the United States, we have representative government, legislative bodies that are charged with making and amending laws and administrative bodies making and interpreting regulations, and courts watching over it all – on the federal, state and local levels. For most purposes, marriage is viewed as being among the laws that is defined at the state level, except to the extent that the state presumes to violate an individual federal constitutional right.

To that end, the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia is most instructive, and the Archbishop should consider reading it one of these days.

And then you notice, he sneaks in something in the list of things godless Communists like to redefine – “natural law.” I can’t help but laugh at his ineptitude. It is the Catholic Church whose ideas and concepts of “natural law” have nothing at all to do with nature, and everything to do with Aristotle’s interpretation of nature. We’re lucky that the Church got as far as Aristotle – but Dolan is as wrong here as some of his predecessors in the hierarchy were when they condemned Galileo.

Let’s move on just a little. We know that in the United States, rights, relationships, laws, regulations, etc. are constantly being changed, interpreted and reinterpreted, by legislative and administrative bodies and courts. Yes, there are constitutional limits, but in many ways, the laws and regulations change as the society changes. This is how democratically elected republican government works, unlike the way the Vatican works, which is strictly top-down, and woe to the priest of bishop who steps out of line - so, which is more like North Korea – the Roman Catholic Church, or the New York State legislature?

Continuing with his misstatements, the Archbishop writes: “Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

I understand the difference between freedom and licentious behavior, having spent some time in a Roman Catholic seminary in my pre-transition youth. However, Archbishop Dolan is misusing the concept here. He might make sense if he was describing sexual promiscuity as licentious behavior – but even that, if engaged among consenting adults is legally permitted, regardless of whether it is moral liberty or licentiousness. Lawrence v. Texas clarified the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting adult consensual sexual behavior other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. These laws were generally enforced only against gay people, even though a great deal of heterosexual sexual activity, within and outside of marriage, involves activity other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Morality is an individual matter, while legality is based on constitutional grounds. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to the higher authority – of the Constitution, and not on the laws of a Church imposed on the basis of arbitrary and capricious interpretations of ancient religious writings.

Incredibly, Dolan continues:

“Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.”

That is a bald-faced lie, told with a straight face. Discrimination against the LGBT community is found in nearly everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy writes about marriage, or about transgender human rights. It is as if we are all less than human in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.

Dolan continues:

“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights.”

It is *all* about denying rights, Archbishop. And denying it is futile.

He continues:

“It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don’t vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.”

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not change, by the amendment of the law- it will also mean the union of a man and a man, and a woman with a woman, and of a transgender or intersex person with a man, woman or other transgender or intersex person. The Church will still allow infertile octogenarians to marry despite the lack of any possibility of creating children. The church will bless the marriage of a man to a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

For that matter, the Church will not be forced to marry any non-Catholics, or even Catholics who want a same-sex wedding. The right to discriminate on that level will be preserved – just as a church that would not sanctify an interracial marriage can licitly deny the right to such a wedding in its sanctuary.

Dolan begins his conclusion:

“Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

Again, Dolan does not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between civil marriage and the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. To the extent that Dolan is referring to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament – “an outward sign, instituted by God, to give grace” – he is on solid Catholic theological ground, right from the Baltimore Catechism – but once he presumes to step into the legislative process for civil marriage, his particular religious prejudices should hold no sway.

He wraps up with:

“We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what’s going on there to justify our apprehensions.) But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life’s most basic values.”

Canada and England do not have the constitutional protection of not having established churches, and do not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression. So yes, Archbishop, it’s paranoia – you’re not a “state religion” like the Church of England, and the U.S. has a strong aversion to establishing a religion, and a strong constitutional provision in favor of “free exercise” of religion.

If by “violating our deepest beliefs” he means that providing spousal benefits to married gay employees is somehow wrong, then he’s likely to have his deepest beliefs violated, just as the courts will require a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness’ baby over the objections of parents, or a court would convict someone who decides that their “deepest” religious beliefs require them to kill Wiccans, or stone gays to death, or otherwise not respect the rights of others.

This is where we should have a discussion about the difference between “freedom” and “license” – your freedom to exercise a Catholic faith does not give you the license to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. Your freedom to be Catholic does not give you the license to disrespect my Unitarian marriage, or to treat my marriage in any way under the law as different from any other marriage. Just because the Catholic Church teaches that transsexual people cannot marry anyone, male, female, or other, does not give the Church the right to deny me any civil benefit, even though the Church does not have to provide me with a sacrament.

Dolan violates my deepest beliefs with every word he has written in this blog essay – but that does not give me the right to censor him – he has the right of free speech even if he is lying, as long as he’s not committing defamation. His calumnious column is evidence of his deep official and possibly personal bigotry – I had hoped that he would at least try to keep himself to Church business rather than meddling – but they haven’t given him his cardinal’s hat yet, so he must feel that he has to cater to the irrational ravings from the Vatican on the subject. Would that he were brave enough to stand up and speak truth to power and risk his position. But he’s typical of the corporate middle-management about to break into the upper echelon – don’t rock the boat.

There is no intrusion, just a fairer, more decent law that will provide legal protection to families in need. Poor black and latina lesbians with children,( often children from prior relationships in which they tried to maintain a straight marriage against their natures because of societal expectations) are likely to have the biggest benefit from the broadening of the marriage law. They and their children will benefit.

Society will benefit from the New York legislature’s enactment of marriage equality – and I sincerely hope the legislature does do the right thing, despite pressure from Dolan and the other foes of freedom.
-