But I think marriage is a sacred institution. I'm going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so in the State of Texas. I've been a person that had been called a uniter, not a divider, because I accept other people's points of view.
The speaker claims to be a "uniter, not a divider," because of his tolerance of other people's points of view who may not agree with him that marriage is outdated and should be abolished. 
The speaker doesn't believe that marriage is "outdated and should be abolished," but that it's a "sacred institution," which is the part that makes this statement incorrect. 
( z1 claim :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 speak ) ) :ARG1 ( z4 instead-of :ARG1 ( z5 unite :ARG0 z2 ) :ARG2 ( z6 divide :ARG0 z2 ) ) :ARG1-of ( z7 cause :ARG0 ( z8 tolerate :ARG0 z2 :ARG1 ( z9 have-point-of-view :ARG0 ( z10 person :mod ( z11 other ) :ARG0-of ( z12 agree :polarity - :ARG1 ( z13 and :op ( z14 outdated :domain ( z15 marry ) ) :op ( z16 recommend :ARG1 ( z17 abolish :ARG1 z15 ) ) ) :ARG2 z2 :ARG1-of ( z18 possible ) ) ) ) ) ) )