Same-sex
“marriage” is fast becoming a key election issue now that California’s Supreme
Court has imposed it there, and New York decided to recognize other states’
same-sex “marriages.”
In this issue of the Register, we
continue to bring you valuable information to disseminate in the important
fight for marriage. On page 1, Contributing Editor Tom McFeely looks at the
evidence showing that traditional families are best for children.
On page 7, Jennifer Roback Morse
points out that redefining marriage isn’t just a matter of doing a kindness to
committed same-sex couples. In order to accommodate homosexual “marriage,”
society will necessarily have to violate the rights of those who believe what
mankind has always believed about marriage.
Once homosexual “marriage” is accepted law, all must abide by it in
every way imaginable — from allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals to
participating in homosexual “weddings” when one’s professional duties call for
it — or be penalized by the courts.
Unfortunately, there is no clear
differentiation between the two presumptive presidential candidates’ records on
marriage.
Arizona
Sen. John McCain is set to be the GOP candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama
is the likely Democratic candidate. When the federal marriage amendment came to
the floor of the Senate, both these senators voted to kill it quietly, without
debate.
Voters who are concerned about
marriage should look to the two parties’ platforms instead of the two
candidates’ records.
After all, the president himself
will have little role in the marriage issue, particularly as regards a
constitutional amendment. But those he appoints to key positions in Washington
departments will spend every workday of the year deciding how far and wide a
redefinition of “marriage” will take root in federal programs and policies.
Party platforms are generally
describe the positions of a party’s most committed activists. These are
precisely the people who are appointed to roles in departments like Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education, etc.
Here
we quote in its entirety what the 2004 Democratic Party platform, the most
recent, says about marriage:
“We support full inclusion of gay
and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities,
benefits and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been
defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to
be defined there. We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize
the Constitution by pursuing a ‘Federal Marriage Amendment.’ Our goal is to
bring Americans together, not drive them apart.”
This is the only mention of marriage
in the party’s platform: an insistence that marriage be redefined by judges in
obedience to the wishes of homosexual activists.
The
2004 Republican Party platform’s entry on marriage is much longer. We present
it, also, in its entirety:
“We strongly support President
Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we
believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force
states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We
believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and
father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal
recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved
for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has
historically been called marriage.
“After more than two centuries of
American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and
local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of
civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine
marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout
the country, and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by the
Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by
activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must
be heard. The constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final
decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives.
“President Bush will also vigorously
defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and
passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of
states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
“President Bush said, ‘We will not
stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try
to remake America by court order.’ The Republican House of Representatives has
responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to withdraw
jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge
Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law, so that activist
federal judges cannot force 49 other states to approve and recognize
Massachusetts’ attempt to redefine marriage.”
The Republican Party’s platform
includes other references about the importance of strengthening both marriage
and fatherhood.
Pope Benedict XVI put the defense of
traditional marriage in the center of his visit to the United States, both in
his visit to the White House and with the bishops, as well as in his homilies.
He prayed with the president and first lady for the institution of marriage.
We should pray, too. Pope John Paul
II asked for daily Rosaries for the family. Vote for marriage this November,
and spread the word for others to do so.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
.
