The traditions the cultures bring to marriage are all different, but the fact of marriage itself is universal across all humanity in all cultures and times, and except for Nero's wanting to marry a male homosexual friend, which some Roman senator or other worthy dismissed as sheer foolishness, I know of no human group anywhere that has countenanced gay marriage.
quote:
The only unmarried individuals in Native American societies were those too young to be married, the widowed, the divorced, and berdaches, men who assumed many of the mannerisms, behavior patterns, and tasks of women. Yet sometimes berdaches married men. In such cases, the berdache fulfilled the traditional wifely role while the male partner provided game from hunting and performed other male tasks. Some Native American cultures also had “manly-hearted women” who hunted and assumed other male roles; often the manly-hearted woman married another woman who fulfilled female tasks.
quote:
Most North American Indians allowed polygyny, the marriage of one man to two or more women. Often these wives were sisters. But usually only wealthy or powerful men were able to support several wives. In some societies, such as those of the Great Plains, women far outnumbered men, because a large number of men were killed each year through bison hunting or warfare with other tribes. Men were expected to have several wives not only to maintain the population but also to lighten the wives’ crushing workload of tanning, sewing, beading, cooking, and packing camp. The wives could also share childrearing responsibilities. Polygyny was most common in the Northwest Coast region; in some parts of this region more than 20 percent of marriages were polygynous.
Native Americans
The fact is that historically, same sex marriages in many diverse cultures, were considered normal. Among them, Greece, Rome, China, The Middle East, Japan, etc.
Thus I think you can safely say that "same-sex" marriage is something universal, fundemental and traditional across cultures.
The problem that you are having is that you want the constitution to "define" marriage based on your religion. Thus excluding those who do not believe as you do, and denying the undeniable historical presedence for same-sex marriages.
™ Version 4.2
