The substantial issue with "the sacred institution". There was a time in this country when marriage was about two people in love with eachother who wanted to spend the rest of their lives together because of it. It seems to Galt-in-Da-Box that time is over, and has been since about the mid 1970s. When individuals become expendable playthings for the use, misuse and unthinking abuse of others, the very thing about which marriage should be is gone! That has been the case since we adopted as policy the socialist model, which is based on the spiritualistic/altruistic presumption that you are a worthless sinner/"counter-revolutionary", unless you exist for someone else's purposes/"the common good". In a genuinely free society, each counts for one, and only for one, and no individual is a means to the end of another or a collective! Any human being assenting to marriage - as it is currently, socialistically perverted - might as well dowse him or herself with kerosene and strike a match. It is a bear-trap from which none escape unmaimed, or without gnawing off an appendage, and nothing more than a contract by which a couple become exploitable resources for the plunder of government primarily, and whichever decides to lay a claim to the others means in particular. This is also the driving force behind the contemporary push for so-called "gay" marriage, which is not the fault of those wanting to marry as much as the leftist influence of feminism. Under common law (what America had prior to such contamination), marriage of any configuration would be permissible. The dilemma is not the parties involved, but the corruption and immorality of a system that looks at them as objects to be plundered and enables other forms of plunder. As Walter Williams put it recently, taking a different tack on the same thesis propounded by certain Falwell-esque fundamentalists, America's problem is immorality, not marriage. Want proof? Ask the proverbial man on the street point blank: "Do you believe it is moral and just for one person to be used to serve the purposes of another, and if (s)he does not peaceably submit to being so used, the initiation of some sort of coercion or force to make him or her comply?" Despite the fact that what we're basically talking about is slavery, you would be surprised how few hands-down "NO!"s such a question would generate!