82 of 317

Disagree

Write now Article Tools

There is a fundamental tension in the phrase "sacred institution" when used in the marriage context. Sacred implies the divine and a religious purpose. Yet legal institutions in the U.S. and most other Western democracies are built on secular foundations. Thus, different religious beliefs can understand the sacredness of marriage in their own way, and those differences should be protected. However, the institutionalization of marriage by government must be applied equally without regard to the sacred. If we are denying the benefits of marriage to a portion of the population simply because it goes against a sacred understanding of marriage, then we are wrong.

And we have been wrong before.

The intolerance of difference has deep roots in American society, which still entangle women and racial minorities. It was not until 1967 that prohibitions against interracial marriage were fully and formally abolished in the United States when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the last of the "miscegenation" laws. These laws forbade the marriage between whites and minorities (principally "blacks"), a strategy that was also employed by Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. It took a very long time for the U.S. to finally take a stance against this injustice. And local prejudices prevailed even longer creating pressure that could be too much for couples to bear.

Still, interracial marriage has evolved from being illegal to generally accepted to common place in the United States. That should and will be the evolution of gay marriage as well.

Marriage is a legal construct, creating enforceable rights and responsibilities for those who enter into it. There is nothing about same-sex unions that, in and of themselves, makes gay marriage incompatible with that legal institution. Six countries now expressly allow "equal marriage", including Canada and Spain. As a professed leader in standards of justice, the U.S. most also take the lead on this important issue. To do otherwise is to abdicate it's leadership role and to continue its stained track record of being slow to justice when its own citizens are struggling for equality.

Marriage should be a legal union between individuals who love each other. Plain and simple. To dictate otherwise is to continue a despicable trend is this country to discriminate against beliefs inconsistent with the status quo. Ultimately, same-sex partners will prevail. It is a shame that many loving couples will get entangled in the struggle in this process of change.

Learn more about this author, Joseph Hazelbaker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Marriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man?
We want to hear your view. Write now!