This story has been corrected. See below.

With emotional, often rancorous debate hitting a climax this week at the state Capitol as legislators considered granting same-sex couples in Hawaii the right to marry, the essence of the argument has centered on what some consider a sacred definition of traditional marriage.

But traditional marriage in the Bible has not always been defined as matrimony between one man and one woman, but described in a variety of ways, depending on the time period. It has included the union of a man and many wives (polygamy), or between people who were required to be of the same race, says Jay Sakashita, an associate professor of religion at Leeward Community College.

Not so long ago a woman did not have the right to divorce an abusive husband, or it was seriously frowned upon for a woman to look beyond tending children and her home to seek a career in the marketplace, he added.

In an article published in May 2010 in The Honolulu Advertiser, Nakashita wrote:

"I oppose traditional marriage. I suspect, too, that those who publicly claim to support traditional marriage really don’t, at least not on biblical grounds. After all, exactly which form of biblical marriage should be held up as the traditional model? Polygamy? The great biblical figures had multiple wives. Indeed Solomon, to whom God gave wisdom and insight, had 700 wives.

"If not polygamy, then how about other forms of traditional marriage found in books of the Bible such as Deuteronomy, Ezra, Nehemiah and elsewhere, which ban interracial marriage? Because of this Bible-based form of traditional marriage, it was illegal in parts of the United States up until 1967 to marry outside of one’s ethnicity."

Sakashita, who said his wife is of another ethnic and cultural background, is keeping track of the ongoing marriage equality debate in Hawaii while in Japan on sabbatical, and submitted his article for republication because of its pertinence today.

In an email interview, he said he wrote the article originally because students in his Christianity classes "assume that there is only one form of Christianity and only one truth," adding, "I try to show them that what churches often do is adapt the Bible and Jesus’ teaching to the fit the context (of the current time period). All religions do that. The problem is, the Bible and Jesus’ teaching emerged in a particular context. We no longer live in that context … And if you take things out of context, you change the meaning. This is how religions, and certain churches, can use the Bible and Jesus to promote their agenda."

A teacher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa since 1998, Sakashita said he follows no faith tradition personally.

"I tell students I just do the best I can as a husband, father, friend, and teacher and let the god(s) decide if they want me. Whichever religion will take me, I’ll go! I attend churches, temples, synagogues, shrines and mosques on a regular basis so that I know what I’m talking about in my world religion class!" he said.

In his article, Sakashita said the definition of the average nuclear family has also evolved with the modernization of society. Today it might include single or divorced parents, along with their biological or adopted children — and their children’s step-siblings and half siblings are all family — outside the traditional model.

"Traditions are meant to provide continuity, not constraint. They inspire and stir innovation, and should not be invoked to mask discrimination. … In short, tradition is the source of change … more akin to bridges and pathways rather than fences and gates. Standing tradition is thus an oxymoron.

"The tradition of tradition, then, is nontradition. Simply put, traditions give birth to new traditions. It is an indisputable fact that the concepts and forms of marriage have changed over time. Indeed, change is a tradition of marriage. Traditional marriage, therefore, violates the tradition of marriage," he concluded.

CORRECTION: Jay Sakashita is an associate professor of religion at Leeward Community College. An earlier version of this story and a story in Saturday’s paper gave a different first name.