Destroying the Sanctity of Marriage

| April 16, 2013 | 5 Comments

A re-post of a popular post from the FastCupid blog. At PerfectMatch, we think that who you love is your business. Staff writer Margaret Osako shares this very personal perspective.


Ten years ago, I married the love of my life.

Perfect Match thinks who you love is your buisness.

Love is love, whatever color.

Years later, someone asked me if it was strange having an interracial marriage. What? Interracial? Us? My husband’s from Irvine and is as All-American as you can get. Oh, well, yeah, his parents are Japanese. I guess that’s true. I hadn’t really thought about it. But before 1967, my marriage would have been illegal.

Now I find myself thinking about it a lot. I have friends who, like me, have found the loves of their lives. And they can’t get married. Because they’re gay. And apparently, if THEY are able to get married, that will somehow make MY marriage less sacred, less real, just LESS.

This makes me wonder how I’d feel if I were living in the 50s, and was told, ‘no, you can’t marry the person you love.’ I’d be devastated. I’d be confused. And I’d be angry.

It also makes me wonder if married people in the 50s feel like I do now. When I talk about my marriage, I clench up if I’m around my gay friends. I don’t want to talk about my amazing husband, my amazing kids, and my amazing life. I am so lucky and so blessed, because I have this special privilege reserved for straight people. The ban on same sex marriage makes me feel embarrassed about my marriage.

That feeling is just so awful, and so wrong.

A ban on same-sex marriage does not make my marriage better. A ban on same-sex marriage is a ban on MARRIAGE, and it diminishes my marriage, makes it less sacred, less real, just…less.

This unfairness makes me sad. And confused. And angry. It would be wonderful to live in a place where marriage is something that everyone can take for granted, the way I was able to. I’m sure it’s not that simple, but to me it makes sense to make the institution of marriage MORE, instead of LESS.

Banning marriage for someone else won’t sanctify your marriage. In my opinion, if you can’t find sanctity in your own marriage, gay people are not the problem.

Tags: , ,

Category: Perfect Match News

About the Author ()

Margaret Preller Osako is our Perfect Match blog writer and curator. Unconventional and outspoken, Margaret tells it like it is and doesn't pull her punches. She gives us her honest, real-world perspective on dating and relationships. Ask her anything and she'll give you an honest answer!

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dean Pikel says:


  2. Jes says:

    I relate.

  3. kris says:

    The argument that compares interracial marriage bans to homosexual marriage is fundamentally flawed. It is meant to create an emotional appeal to gain support for something most people would not support absent a sense of “fairness” its not an intellectual argument. Marriage is affirmed by government based on God’s role for marriage. In Loving v. VA, the state law banning Interracial marriage was declared unconsitutional because 1. the court found that marriage was instituted to protect the natural creation of the family through procreation; because it is “fundamental to existance and survival”. Homosexuality is not natural. 2. the ban was implemented for segregation and race is a suspect class prompting strict scrutiny (the court in Bowers specifically said homosexuals are not a suspect class).

    • admin says:

      Yes, I suppose you’re right. The emotional appeal of the homosexual/interracial marriage comparison is its biggest advantage. But if “Marriage is affirmed by government based on God’s role for marriage,” I wonder how you feel about the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

      I think perhaps what we REALLY don’t see eye to eye on is less the function of religion in government, than the function of marriage in society. When I think of marriage, I don’t think of a union sanctified by God, I think of a union between two individuals who have decided to co-habitate permanently, that the government acknowledges and benefits. It’s a bit less romantic, I know.

      But then, do you consider it ‘unnatural’ if two atheists get married? I suppose if they’re not same-sex it would still be fulfilling ‘God’s role for marriage’. What if they don’t procreate? I actually am curious, and not trying to be snarky here… please give me your opinion.

      I also believe that the current court system might find homosexuals are now a ‘suspect class’, but as far as the 1967 ruling goes, you’re spot on.

      Anyway, I don’t mean to create a brouhaha; I just wrote how I felt. I very, very much appreciate your opinions, particularly as they are so well thought out and moderately presented.

  4. Zombiman says:

    Civil unions? yes. Marriage is a sacrament of our faith as Christians, and is not for same sex couples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *