I first tweeted about writing an article in support of traditional marriage last week. Some of the messages I received were supportive, most were hurtful, from people I considered my friends degrading me for a position I’ve taken because I’m of my religious beliefs and traditional values.

The ignorance displayed in the tweets and under-the-breath comments only furthered my choice to write this article about a movement who claims love while only advocating for hate.

This year is likely to be a firestorm of a year for the federal Supreme Court. Not only will they continue to hear challenges to provisions of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, but it has become increasingly more likely they will also rule on the definition of marriage.

More so, its become more and more apparent to me that opposing same sex marriage is not the “cool” thing to do. We all have friends, family members, and co workers whose lives could be drastically changed if same sex marriage was legalized nationally.

However, to attack someone because of their belief and support for traditional marriage, as many are quick to do, shows an unfounded level of ignorance to the other side of the debate and is quite disheartening on a college campus where acceptance of all opinions should prevail.

Emotions are not the only guiding force in the gay marriage debate, many believe the health and prosperity of society is at stake as well. Supporters of same sex marriage are quick to label the other side as “hateful”, “anti-love”, and “crazy Christians”, but in reality there is a strong legal argument for the preservation of marriage.

Baker v. Nelson is the monumental case of 1972 in which the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning same sex marriage did not violate the United States Constitution.

This case, in itself, is enough to void any national law made by Congress as the Supreme Court could merely look to Baker as a precedent for future definitions. The only way Baker can be ignored is if SCOTUS sets a new precedent.

Currently same sex marriage is legalized in nine states. If the federal government were to pass a law legalizing gay marriage nationally, if Congress were to pass a law, it would simultaneously ignore the voice of forty-one states. Thats more than three-fourths the nation, a majority no politician wants to ignore. If the nation as a whole wishes a national law legalizing same sex marriage, it should be decided in the most democratic way possible.

There are still many people, voting citizens of this country, who do not support gay marriage for multiple reasons, many derive from their religion.

The first amendment guarantees as much religious freedom to me as it does to someone who chooses to completely ignore any religious institution. No more, no less. By the same context when Christians stand up and argue against gay marriage they have as much ability to do so as when others stand up and argue in favor of it. This is not an issue of equality or civil rights, this is an issue of respect.

Fellow Catholics demeaning their Church for their supposed ignorance are just as ignorant to the religion they claim to profess. Catholicism, like any religion, is a way of life. It requires patience, virtue, and moral upstanding. My fellow Catholics would never deny a person because of their sexual orientation, but marriage derives from the church and deserves a place there. Its an established institution since the beginning of our nation that deserves respect among all people. The preservation of marriage does not just mean embracing a traditional view of marriage, it also means advocating on behalf of lasting marriages. Divorce rates are at a all high time as people begin to see marriage as a passing phase. Marriage was not designed to occur multiple times throughout a persons life and today, more than ever, we need to respect the institution of marriage to preserve our societal values.