Some think that the US Constitution should be amended to prevent gay "marriage." That may be a good idea; I'll settle for a State Amendment victory in November for starters, however.
Those who think that it should be a Federal issue:
Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Cardinal Egan of New York, Cardinal George of Chicago, Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, Bishop Gomez of San Antonio, Bishop Nienstedt of New Ulm, Minnesota, Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, Bishop Yanta of Amarillo, Texas, Archbishop John Myers of Newark.
Then there is Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Church, and an impressive list of Protestant leaders: Charles Colson, James Dobson, Timothy George, Ted Haggard, Jack Hayford, James Kennedy, Gerald Kieschnick, Richard Land, Paige Patterson, Eugene Rivers, Rick Warren.
Add to that Jewish leaders of considerable influence such as Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Rabbi David Novak, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, and Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb.
In any case, their argument will be useful in the next few months here in Wisconsin:
Long concerned with rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers, we have recently watched with extreme alarm the growing trend of some courts to make marriage something it is not: an elastic concept able to accommodate almost any individual preference. This does not so much modify or even weaken marriage as abolish it. The danger this betokens for family life and a general condition of social justice and ordered liberty is hard to overestimate.
Therefore we take the unprecedented stand of uniting to call for a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of marriage on our whole society. We encourage all citizens of good will across the country to step forward boldly and exercise their right to work through our constitutionally established democratic procedures to amend the Constitution to include a national definition of marriage. We hereby announce our support for S.J. Res.1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
HT: First Things
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Problem: "rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers"
Solution: permanently deny loving and committed families the legal responsibilities and protections provided by a civil marriage or civil union
I'm looking forward to the 30-second spot on that one.
Dad29-As a conservative, you should be more concerned with encouraging personal responsibility among those people who can currently marry--all of those heterosexuals who contribute to divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers. An amendment about gay marriage has nothing to do with these problems. It's just not logical. You're sounding like a liberal: let's impose a constitutional amendment--big government--to try to control behavior.
It's laughable that restricting gay people from the stabilizing impact of marriage will address these other problems.
Are you sure it's not your own personal distaste or discomfort with gay people that leads you to support a Wisconsin amendment? Because it's sure not logic.
IF there is to be a Federal Amendment, it should be on the grounds of natural right order--just like the State Amendment will be.
As to Anony--the proposal does NOT "control behavior." As a liberal, you should know how to read.
The proposal instead ratifies right order.
"The proposal ratifies right order."
In other words, the text happens to be partially affirmative in its wording... And besides, gay people are icky.
Puh-leeze.
My sense was and is that it's the gay-rights advocates who should be having to ask for an amendment to justify their preference. I see nothing in the 200+ years of tradition that suggests We the People have ever delegated to the government the right to define what marriage is. To adjudicate as to whether this man and this woman can marry, yes. To define whether marriage is between a man and a woman, or could include a union between a man and a dog, no.
Marriage predates the creation of the Union. Some powers relating to the execution of the institution of marriage were given to the government. The power to define the institution was not. I see no reason that those who wish to see the institution continue to maintain its historical form should require a supermajority of Congress and state legislatures. If you want to make a major change to its basic order, you should be the one required to go back to the People for new authorization.
Grim, I too believe that there is a limit to positive law--but the hubris of the legal "profession" won't stand for limits on their practice.
Rick, it's time you grew up.
Many people have been drawn to the life of Rosa Parks, and want to think they're like her. Yet there is not, today, an inequity in American life to compare with the one she faced. There is no other situation that is equitable to the situation of Jim Crow America. You can't be Rosa Parks; you have to be yourself.
The tools that were fielded in the Civil Rights struggle, similarly, are too big for treating the far-lesser inequities claimed by various modern minorities. No one is being kept from the lunch counter. No one, save felons and the underaged, is being denied a vote.
All anyone is asking is that you not muck about with institutions that predate, not just the founding of the United States, but recorded civilization. If you can't point to any previous culture that has had gay marriage -- and in fact you cannot -- it's improper to suggest that it's a simple matter of "civil rights" to change the institution to suit gay-rights advocates. It's not. It's a matter of altering the base nature of a fundamental social institution.
That's no small thing. It should require careful argument, and the fullest consideration. I think the Constitutional Amendment process meets that standard for the United States. If you want to make that kind of fundamental change, you ought to undertake that thorough process.
Allen--you've spent far too many years getting paid by the word. Cut to the chase or your posts will be removed.
Homosexuals do not have "a civil right" to get "married." All your other civil rights are protected just fine, including your right to bleat endlessly about your "lack of rights."
No one requires homosexuals to buy presents or decorate hallways. There's no obligation--thus no corresponding "right."
Note the brevity of the responses from Grim and this blogger.
Emulate.
Thanks!
Yes, thanks! Brevity/wit--you know...
So: let's FIX the hospital-visit thing. That's an easy legislative remedy. There are other similar issues which ALSO can be addressed with equitable resolution in the legislative forum.
But NONE of them require Homosexual "marriage."
Post a Comment