Federal Marriage Amendment?

[cklockner]

I’m a little late jumping on board here, but I want to reiterate that if gay marriage becomes legal it will affect us all. It will affect what our children are taught in school as well as health care benefits,etc . . . It would affect the very definitions of mom and dad. It would even affect pictures you see and books you read–everyone would have to try to be PC and not offend anyone.

Another source of information on the FMA is www.family.org. This is Dr. James Dobson’s website–a strong, passionate advocate of both the family and the FMA. (He’s not a Catholic, but a heck of a great man nonetheless).

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

I agree with bobcatholic take the state out of religon! Return marrige to the churchs and leave it there!

 

[Brad]

BobCatholic -

I see your point although there are many benefits to society of people being married even if they do not belong to a church

No resistance - as long as we don’t fail to declare our position that the state should only ever allow one man and one woman to marry just because we don’t think the state should be in the marriage business. We cannot opt out because things are not ideal - we must take 1 step at a time. Because, you know, as soon as the state allows homosexuals to marry, they’ll be coming after the Church to recognize them - and this cannot happen

 

[Pat_Laub]

Like cklockner I am late jumping on this band wagon. Have read all these comments with much interest. But like Brad has stated, we have to take a stand. We have to stand up for what we KNOW is the TRUTH.

Over the past week I have read many threads criticizing Catholic politicians and clergy for not standing up for what the Church teaches. Voicing our support for this admendment to our elected officials is our chance to stand up for what we believe.

If only we Catholics could unite on what we know is the truth what a powerhouse we could become to change this country.

pat

 

[pat]

I don’t believe support of the FMA is going to be controversial on this site. I offer the following advice to readers:

(1) Know what position your Senators, Congressman, and state legislators have and let them know your position.

(2) Get acquainted with the pro- arguments for the FMA and know how to answer the con- arguments given by the proponents of same sex marriage.

 

[Meg_Hanlon]

I have been given a copy of a Catholic Answers Special Report “Gay Marriage.” It is excellent and I would like to use it in my classroom. How do I obtain additional copies? meg

 

[SHEMP]

BobCatholic:

Hey, I’m proposing a solution here, why the resistance?

Here is a great review of the history of marraige law.
I don’t think that you realize the implications of getting rid of legal marraige.

This is from: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/articles/witte.html

The modern lesson in this is that we must resist the temptation to reduce marriage to a single perspective, or to a single forum. A single perspective on marriage—whether religious, social, or contractual—does not capture the full nuance of this institution. A single forum—whether the church, state, or the household itself—is not fully competent to govern all marital questions. Marriage demands multiple forums and multiple laws to be governed adequately. American religious communities must think more seriously about restoring and reforming their own bodies of religious law on marriage, divorce, and sexuality, instead of simply acquiescing in state laws. American states must think more seriously about granting greater deference to the marital laws and customs of legitimate religious and cultural groups that cannot accept a marriage law of the common denominator or denomination.

 

[BobCatholic]

SHEMP:

Here is a great review of the history of marraige law.
I don’t think that you realize the implications of getting rid of legal marraige

I didn’t say anything about getting rid of legal marriage.

I said get rid of SECULAR marriage. Let there be secular laws (in addition to religious laws) that govern religious marriages, but get rid of the government’s ability to declare two people married apart from a faith.

Marriage demands multiple forums and multiple laws to be governed adequately.

That’s right. Unfortunately, modern society is throwing away many forums except for the secular one.

 

[Ken]

Many folks look at the Christians in the country and see no reason to folllow their lead. There is nothing about their behavior and lives which is in any way superior to the general public. Christians claim to have a better way, and maybe they do, but they don’t demonstrate it.

 

[tmulkey]

Pax:

Response to TruCatholic

While heterosexuals have done many things destructive to marriage, they are not the greatest threat to marriage. Unfortuantely, the culture tells us that virtually anything goes, and the same sex marriage argument is simply more of the same.

Your marriage may not be directly impacted by the acceptance of same sex marriages, but over time the institution of marriage will suffer. The Scandanavian countries are a great example of what happens after accepting gay marriage. After the initial rush of gay marriages things took an interesting turn. After approximately ten years of this errant experiment, gays like to point out that everyone is happy and that the divorce rate is down. Yes, the divorce rate has declined, but so has the rate of marriage. Most people in these countries are now simply shacking up. Gay marriage is bad in and of itself, and it is detrimental to society as a whole.

Heterosexual sin and divorce are problems as well, but at least neither of these is used as a basis for an organized effort to redefine marriage. Redefining marriage beyond “the union of a man and a woman” is the equivalent of redefining any other truth into something it is not.

If we cannot have the truth then what will we have? Our society is systematically exchanging the truth for a lie and that will ultimately have devastating effects for all of us. While it may not affect our immediate situation, it will have ramifications for our children and for future generations thereafter.

I totally agree here… Society is the greatest threat to itself. If you look at the decay, it started about 40 years ago and has finally culminated (although it might have a long way yet to go), in this debacle of human intelligence.

The greatest threat to marriage is indeed what is happening in the world today, but I also agree that the divorce rate is part of that. If we are to continue as a society that values human rights, the marriage pact has to be part of it. Instead of raising ‘generation X’ or 'generation me"…let’s start raising ‘generation respect for others’. Children are raised with no respect for themselves, how in the world can they respect a partner they have halfheartedly chosen, whom they assume they can discard when used up?

If you look at the fall of the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire, you find that the last symptom of the disintegration is complete moral breakdown. This is happening in the US at an accelerated rate. Why is it accelerated? Because we all now have access to daily television and internet news. The news tells us (speaking in a broad generalization, here, no offense intended) how to think, what to think and what to do about it.

Am I also saying we need to get rid of the tele and internet? I doubt this would be possible…although I’m not sure it wouldn’t help our society instead of hindering it. No…I can’t agree to getting rid of it, but until and unless we start raising a generation who is educated to the point of being able to think for themselves, and quit allowing the television to babysit, and quit allowing children to always put themselves first, we are doomed as a society and will soon go the way of the Roman and Greek empires.

tmulkey

 

[Ken]

tmulkey:

I totally agree here… Society is the greatest threat to itself. If you look at the decay, it started about 40 years ago and has finally culminated (although it might have a long way yet to go), in this debacle of human intelligence.

The greatest threat to marriage is indeed what is happening in the world today, but I also agree that the divorce rate is part of that. If we are to continue as a society that values human rights, the marriage pact has to be part of it. Instead of raising ‘generation X’ or 'generation me"…let’s start raising ‘generation respect for others’. Children are raised with no respect for themselves, how in the world can they respect a partner they have halfheartedly chosen, whom they assume they can discard when used up?

If you look at the fall of the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire, you find that the last symptom of the disintegration is complete moral breakdown. This is happening in the US at an accelerated rate. Why is it accelerated? Because we all now have access to daily television and internet news. The news tells us (speaking in a broad generalization, here, no offense intended) how to think, what to think and what to do about it.

Am I also saying we need to get rid of the tele and internet? I doubt this would be possible…although I’m not sure it wouldn’t help our society instead of hindering it. No…I can’t agree to getting rid of it, but until and unless we start raising a generation who is educated to the point of being able to think for themselves, and quit allowing the television to babysit, and quit allowing children to always put themselves first, we are doomed as a society and will soon go the way of the Roman and Greek empires.

tmulkey

Does respect for others include respect for their right to choose their own lifestyle? What are the limits on this respect?

 

[John_Higgins]

Several comments. First, I think this has absolutely NO chance of passage. The founding fathers made it deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution, that’s why there have only been 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights. Further, this should not even be a federal issue.

With regard to these comments:

They can do this without creating secular marriages. Leave the creation of marriages to the church.

But for some reason, one religious ritual, a marriage, can be done by the government.

What about people who have no religion, can they not get married at all in your scenario?

On the topic of separation of church and state, the Constitution does not mention it. Thomas Jefferson did. Here’s the letter:

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Following the exchange of letters, Jefferson created the bill which established freedom of religion in the state of Virginia. It was this bill that influenced the clause of freedom of religion in the First Amendment.

Source: Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

Within context, it would be hard to determine that President Jefferson intended that anything with religion in it (for example the LA County Seal) should be removed from public life.

John