--- - |2 Abstract Political arguments may endure seemingly into perpetuity because the conflicted combatants view the issues in different ways, with one side decrying unfairness and the other side decrying attacks on the sacrosanct. We tested whether both conservatives and liberals rely on protecting the sacrosanct when justifying their attitudes on some contentious moral issues. In four studies, we examine how liberals and conservatives justify their political attitudes on the issues of same‐sex marriage and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Liberals supported same‐sex marriage rights primarily in the name of fairness and equality; conservatives primarily opposed same‐sex marriage rights as a matter of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage. Symmetrically, liberals primarily opposed the development of the Keystone XL oil pipeline as a matter of protecting the sanctity of the Earth; conservatives supported the development of the pipeline as a matter of promoting fairness (e.g., corporate rights; as well as citing economic and foreign policy implications). Like conservatives, liberals also bring sacred thinking to moral issues. The culture war is mired in stalemate partly because each side considers some matters to be sacrosanct, and other matters as suitable for revision in the name of fairness. - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Volume 17, Issue 1, Page 33-59, December 2017.