Same-Sex Marriage and Tradition
Nancy Messer
University of Phoenix
Business Communications and Critical Thinking
COM275
Fernando Gutierrez-Rueda
November 01, 2012

Same Sex-Marriage and Tradition
Gay marriage violates tradition. The definition of “tradition”, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is a “long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another”. It has been a long-established custom and belief that marriage should only exist between a man and a woman. “A central point of contention in the national debate over same-sex marriage is the importance of preserving tradition. Opponents of such bans argue that tradition is an illegitimate justification for the bans, while defenders of traditional marriage contend that tradition is not only a legitimate justification, but is in fact sufficiently important to withstand heightened judicial scrutiny.” (Ford-Mazrui, 2011, para. 1)
Society divides themselves based on class: income, religion, finances, ethnicity, etc.; the majority holding control over the minority since the beginning of time. There is and always will be some group of minorities that are segregated. Traditionally, most cultures have defined marriage as a unification of one man and one woman, but tradition has a dark history. Tradition includes the ownership of slaves, incongruous treatment of workers, and the denial of rights to women. The abolishment of slavery, the women’s rights movement, and civil rights proved that tradition should not be made into law and that it can and should be broken when a person’s freedom and human rights are denied.
In the 1600s, pilgrims fled England. They did not agree with the King’s law that you must believe in what he believed. They wanted to live and worship as they chose not as they were told. Because of this, they took a stand and left England in search of freedom from tyranny. Many traditions were brought with them, some they shed, and some new traditions were established through their own ideals and beliefs.
In 1776 the political leaders and statesmen of the original thirteen colonies of the United States of America drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Independence Hall Association, 1995) There were no exemptions written.
Arguments against same-sex marriage vary depending on the opponents moral, religious, and traditional beliefs. One main argument is that including same-sex marriage in the laws forces tax payers to foot the bill for the benefits that will then be available to this non-traditional couple. These include Social Security and employer provided benefits. Where this argument loses its validity is in its nearsightedness. We pay our state and federal income tax based on our income, and everyone pays the same rate in sales tax based on their location. These taxes are not figured based on the taxpayer’s sexual orientation and preference. Let’s look at this argument from another angle. If lawmakers submitted a bill that homosexuals will pay less taxes then heterosexuals, would the argument for equality come in to play? If all citizens are expected to pay taxes equally then they should be allowed the same benefits financed by those taxes based on equality and not denied those benefits based on their personal choices.
Religious opponents for same-sex marriage refer to the Bible when making their argument. In the King James Version of the bible, the definition of marriage is as follows: “The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity…..” (The King James Bible Page, n.d.) Based on this definition, governed by the laws of Christianity, same-sex marriage is not an option. Within the Christian community they have the right to deny those that do not follow standards set within the Bible. They have the right to deny a divorced women and those that marry divorced women: Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” They also have the right to deny anyone that cuts their hair, has tattoos, or body piercings: Leviticus 19:27-28: “27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” Based on the 4th Commandment they can also deny anyone that works on Sunday: Exodus 20 8-10 “8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” (The King James Bible Page, n.d.). This would include all pastors, ministers, priests, etc.
Hypocrisy is when a person claims to have moral standards or beliefs that they themselves do not conform. Luke 6:37 states, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” and John 8:7 claims, “ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (The King James Bible Page, n.d.) Although he did not agree with their sinful ways, Jesus ate with “sinners and tax-collectors.” From a Christian standpoint, if Jesus loved everyone despite their actions and preferences; how do today’s Christians justify the denial of equal rights, love, and opportunity based on the sexual preference? Same-sex marriage does not have to be allowed within the religious community. Their acceptance or denial is their choice, but one group’s religious beliefs and traditions should not govern those that do not belong to that community. The government should never recognize a particular group’s traditions and beliefs and force them upon others. As stated in the Declaration “…that all men are created equal…” (Independence Hall Association, 1995)
Let us take “sexual preference” out of picture for a moment and replace it with a preference for alfredo sauce vs. the traditional tomato sauce. For years, our very traditional Italian family ate nothing but tomato sauce on pasta. Alissa, my daughter, never really liked it, but she was never given a choice. Because of tradition, she ate what was expected of her or she went hungry. As she grew up and moved out into the world she realized that there were other choices. She found that she preferred alfredo sauce. Her Grandmother, who is traditional to the bone, was upset that her Granddaughter did not like her sauce, but Alissa was not cast out or considered a second-class family member because of her preference.
In a less humorous example, we must put ourselves in the other person’s shoes. If this were a world where homosexuality is the majority and heterosexuality the minority, what would a heterosexual do? Would they be happy with a life that denied them their true identity for the sake of the majority? Would they stand up and fight for their right to live a heterosexual life with all the same benefits as the homosexual community. Both communities consist of law abiding, tax paying, carbon-based life forms and should be treated on equal grounds. One community should not be segregated because the majority disagrees with how the minorities choose to spend their personal time.
A common argument used against the legalization of same-sex marriages is that same-sex marriage destabilizes the institution of marriage. It is believed that a marriage between members of the same sex is a self-contradiction, and if their unions are legalized then the institution of marriage will be harmed. “In April of last year, The New Civil Rights Movement was one of the first to report on a new study by the Williams Institute that found an estimated nine million Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. That translates into 4% of the American adult population.” (Badash, 2012, para. 3) Along with not allowing same-sex unions, the tradition of marriage did not allow people to live together before marriage yet, “The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005.” (Fowler, 2008) Tradition also held divorce as taboo topic yet approximately 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If these figures prove that banning same-sex marriage would protect from the destabilization of the institution of marriage, then we should also consider the effects of divorce and the co-habitation of unmarried couples. The percentage of divorced couples along with the 5.4 million people that live together, yet remain unmarried, are a larger contributor to the destabilization of the institution of marriage than the 4% of homosexual Americans that may one day marry.
At the end of the day, a marriage should be based on two people who love each other and want to build a life together. The fact that laws based on archaic tradition deny a group of people their right to make that choice and legally commit to one another is shameful. What they do in the privacy of their own home should be irrelevant and is nobody’s business but their own. Homosexuals are denied the rights of marriage and equal benefits simply because this type of union does not follow a traditional standard among the majority. It is called discrimination, plain and simple.

Cultural Evaluation
The history of same-sex marriage in the country of Brazil, like other countries, has its opponents and proponents and the legalization goes back and forth depending on the area of the country. In 2004 a judge granted a common law marriage to a same-sex couple. Before this time, common-law marriages were only granted to opposite-sex couples. This then set a legal precedence in this particular state and other same-sex couples sought to make the switch from a civil union to a common law marriage.
In 2010, “…the state-owned Infraero (Brazilian Company of Airport Infrastructure) came to recognize the stable union between same-sex couples for purposes of granting benefits.” (“RSSU”, 2012)
In May 2011, Brazil's Supreme Federal Court voted 10-0 to grant same-sex unions throughout the country. This ruling granted LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples, in a civil union, adoption access, pension, health benefits, & joint property ownership. (Reed-Smith, 2012, para. 5)
Unlike the United States, the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage is not as emotionally charged and volatile; although in June 2011 a judge from Goiania annulled the first legal civil union claiming that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He then ordered that the notaries of Goiania no longer issue civil unions. It is also interesting to note that the judge is a church pastor. Four days later another judge overturned the decision reinstating the civil union stating that it is unconstitutional to deny a person their legal rights because of their sexual preference. (“RSSU”, 2012)
The debate for same-sex marriage has been before the Brazilian Senate for more than 16 years, it seems to have gained more ground then in the United States. However, there are still parts of the country that do not allow LGBT marriage. One particular President, considered to be extremely homophobic, has earned the nickname “Dilmofobica”. (Reed-Smith, 2012, para. 13).
Although, in parts of the country, the fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage continues, the new fight is to have the crimes against members of the LGBT community treated with the same judicial principles as crimes of racism, which is considered a “…heinous crime in Brazil.” (Reed-Smith, 2012, para. 14)
As it stands, I do not see that there would need to be any concession made to do a presentation or even a debate in Brazil. Since they are farther along in the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, it seems that the same arguments apply in the United States and Brazil. They too are fighting the traditions and beliefs of the religious community and will continue to so for a very long time.

References
Badash, D. (2012, June 1). The new civil rights movement [White paper]. Retrieved from the Williams institute: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/how-many-gay-people-are-there-in-america-nope-youre-wrong/
Ford-Mazrui, K. (2011, January 1). Tradition as justification: the case of opposite-sex marriage [Law Review]. University of Chicago Law Review, 281. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=590a6abe-6173-4e1b-be73-d39c0f6de3a5%40sessionmgr4&vid=3&hid=27
Fowler, R. (2008). Statistics on living together before marriage. Retrieved from http://www.rayfowler.org/2008/04/18/statistics-on-living-together-before-marriage/
Independence Hall Association. (1995). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Recognition of Same-Sex Unions in Brazil. (2012). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 3, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Brazil
Reed-Smith, T. (2012, May 25). Brazil takes first steps to legalizing gay marriage. Gay Star News. Retrieved from http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/brazil-takes-first-steps-legalizing-gay-marriage250512
The King James Bible Page. (n.d.). http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/marriage.html