We came across an excellent article written by Dust contributor, Victoria Okoye, about the necessary distinction that must be made between the religious sacrament that is the act of getting married and the legal act of getting married. It’s a well-timed piece, now the President of the United States has publicly declared his political support for gay marriage.

The editorial communicates a stance that isn’t often articulated and Victoria does a good job of deconstructing what it actually means when one says that they are against or for gay marriage.

Read the entire article here. To entice you, the introduction is copied below:

“It was only a few days ago that American President Barack Obama made another first by declaring his political support for gay marriage in the United States. As expected, it’s this move that has split Americans, on an issue that is already incredibly divisive. The way that I see it, Americans who are not in support of gay marriage are against the practice of homosexuality, and/or they’re against the idea that homosexuals can get married like heterosexuals (do correct me if I’m inaccurate here).

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a thought or two on why this is (at least on the second part). First, we need to recognize that the constitutional separation between the Church and State (which we often refer to in an idealistic, patriotic sense) isn’t practiced in everyday life — especially when it comes to this touchy issue. Second, this debate shouldn’t be about gay marriage; what we need to do is take a step back and ask ourselves why we are using a religious term (“marriage”) to refer to the legal institution in the first place (and then, stop doing it).”