Argument 4: Marriage is a tradition that goes back for thousands of years. It has always been between a man and a woman.

Take note of the people that use this argument. It betrays a flawed and dire world view. In the past several thousand years, one man one woman marriage has never been the norm. Monogamous matrimony has never been the state of most human relationships. Polygamous relationships have flourished throughout human history. In fact, the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook conducted a study of 1231 world societies from 1960 to 1980 and found that only 186 were monogamous. The rest of the societies practiced some form of polygamy, bigamy, or group marriage, and there’s an argument to be made that within those 186 monogamous societies, serial monogamy is equally out of line with tradition, since for most of its history, the Judeo-Christian tradition prohibited divorce.


A recent article from a former actor summated the position of Proposition 8 supporters in California as follows: “They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.”


Forgoing the obvious factual error of the statement, let’s examine the merits of its reasoning. Can we, as a country rooted in freedom from religious prosecution, begin legislating religious tenants as long as they are in line with “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion”? I contend that we can not. After all, other religious tenants meet this standard: Slavery, racism, violence, and the subjugation of women are just a few such tenants (Christian passages: Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11; Hebrew Passages: Job 1:8, Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:1-4, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Exodus 21:8, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Exodus 22:3, II Kings 4:1, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Numbers 31:28-47, 2 Samuel 9:10, Exodus 20:10; Passages of the Quran: 33:50, 23:5, 70:30, 24:34, 4:24, 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 24:33, 90:10; Passages from Bukhari’s Hadith: Volume 1-Passages 29, 439, 661 Volume 7 Passages 734, 344, 845, 341, 352, 371, 410, 413, 654, ch. 22, ch. 23 Volume 5 Passages 541, 637, 512, 67, 182, 50, Volume 9, Passage 462, 293, 296, 277, 100, 80, ch. 23, ch. 32. The list goes on and on: see http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm, http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Chris Hedges, Simon and Schuster, 2008).


The aim here is not to demonize religion. I could easily present a list fifty times as long of beautiful, inspiring religious verse that speaks to our common humanity – verses from each of the major religions. But then again why would I? No one is advocating a constitutional amendment to protect the Golden Rule.


The contention raised by citing the passages above is whether or not scripture is a legitimate source of moral authority. How, we ask, can documents that so clearly permit immoral behavior be guides for morality?


One answer to this contention addresses the biblical references to slavery. Slavery in the bible, the answer goes, was not the same as the race-based slavery practiced in the U.S. and other areas of the world over the first century or so of our nation’s history. Bible followers who are thoughtful enough to advance this distinction point out that biblical slaves were often “Slaves by Choice” (for those of you interested, this happens to be the title of a short, brilliant and very inspiring book by Estienne de la Boetie).


It’s a logical distinction that serves to restore the Bible’s moral authority – but only for a moment. Because the next question we ask is: If the slavery in the Bible was a morally acceptable form that differed from the race-based form, then would followers of the Bible be comfortable with the Biblical form of slavery in today’s society? Would they advocate and vote for laws establishing and promoting Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined slavery within our country, just as they have advocated for the Christian, Biblically-based, strictly defined marriage? Both are equally oppressive. Both violate the American tradition of equality under the law.


The litmus test offered by our nearly forgotten friend was “5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion.” I contend that virtue may exist WITHIN tradition, but it does not exist BECAUSE of tradition.


After all, America itself has existed for only a little less than two and a half centuries. Until our nation was founded, no other nation guaranteed the human freedoms we do. Yet the threats to those freedoms stretch back into history far beyond the founding of this nation. Are we to take seriously the notion that restriction and inequality are better than liberty and equality, simply because of tradition? Our young republic was formed by men and women who challenged the Divine Right of Kings, a tradition that used God to justify oppression and inequality. They paid their taxes and obeyed the laws, and yet they were not given equal treatment under the law. Is the parallel between their situation and ours not obvious? America’s very founding broke traditions long thought to be the will of God. We do a great disservice to our forefathers and mothers and all who have fought and died for this country when we allow any group, even the majority, to legislate inequality on the basis of religious tradition.