If made into a major motion picture, the Republican National Convention could arguably be one of the best movies of the 21^st century. Between Representative Steve King claiming that white people have been the biggest contributors to civilization, Steven Colbert crashing the stage in full Hunger Games attire to mock Donald Trump, First Spouse contender Melania Trump plagiarizing current First Lady Michelle Obama (the irony is still fresh), Ben Carson (from what anyone can understand) claiming Hillary Clinton admires Lucifer (as in the devil), and Ted Cruz pleading to Americans to “vote their conscience” and not for Trump, this convention features enough politically dramatic events for a full year, let alone four days. However, as easy as it is to brush off the RNC as hullabaloo, the fact remains that the RNC was a real event, featuring real people whose chairman and staff drafted a real party platform. The platform features certain highlights such as an extensive recount of the 2^nd Amendment in order to solidify the RNC’s stance on the gun debate (as if everyone didn't already know) and a careful retelling of The Old Testament interspersed with sections of Revelations. While excerpts of the platform are easy to scroll past, one section forces me to question how much “progress” we as a nation have actually incurred over the past few years: Defending Marriage against an Activist Judiciary.

Defining “traditional marriage and family” as a marriage between one man and one woman, the RNC claims this familial model to be the foundation for a free society and the only way to instill important cultural values. While a large part of me wishes to write this example of bigotry off as an outdated belief harbored by old people, another part (see: exasperated millennial watching the U.S. political sphere crumble) recognizes the RNC’s platform is not the first heterosexist political act of the year.

Sponsored by Representative Tim Huelskamp (R) of Kansas, House Joint Resolution 32, categorized as a Marriage Protection Amendment, suggests that the Constitution should be amended to only recognize heterosexual marriage while simultaneously prohibiting both the U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions from using the term marriage for any other type of union (aka gay marriage).

Between the RNC party platform and H.J. Resolution 32, honestly one major question comes to mind: Why do straight people cling to this idea of “traditional marriage”? Many times the quick answer to this question given by those who believe in “traditional marriage” is that marriage between a man and a woman is “sacred.” Seeing as how I’m a product of divorced parents, to the notion that traditional marriage is “sacred,” I call B.S. If traditional marriage is so sacred, why, then, do a significant portion of heterosexual people end up divorced? I mean, is it so sacred that 50 percent of people who try it can’t even handle it? Is remarrying just as sacred? Or is only the first marriage counted as a sacred act? Considering I’m a 19-year-old-agnostic-unwed-undergraduate, I unfortunately don’t have all the answers regarding the sanctity of marriage, but I do have one last question: If Donald J. Trump, the Republican party nominee, has been married three (yes, three) times, how does he fit into this notion of “traditional marriage”? I mean, one man and one woman don’t equal one man and three women, am I right?