The general secretary of the U.S. bishops' conference joined a panel of clergy and activists July 12 to encourage Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"Marriage is not an arbitrary social arrangement that can be altered by either the church or the state," said Msgr. William P. Fay at a Capitol event to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. "It is God's will for humanity and the keystone of every human community."
Msgr. Fay was among a dozen speakers, including Christian and Jewish clergy and representatives of the Congress on Racial Equality, the National Black Leadership Roundtable and the Ten Point Coalition of Boston, an ecumenical group that works with inner-city youths. Msgr. Fay and other clergy also spoke at another press conference July 13.
Senate leaders hoped to bring a marriage amendment bill to a vote the week of July 12, but even supporters of the amendment conceded it was unlikely to pass on its first hearing.
Msgr. Fay noted that the U.S. bishops had been asked by the president of their conference, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., to urge Catholics to encourage passage of the amendment.
"The protection of marriage is essential to the health and well-being of our nation, and the vast majority of Americans know it," he said. "The truths about marriage that we seek to protect are truths that are present in the order of nature and can be perceived, even without faith, by the light of natural reason."
Many of the speakers at the event said the marriage amendment is not about legislating discrimination against homosexuals, as some opponents of the effort have said.
"I accept same-sex unions as a fact of life," said the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, former District of Columbia congressional delegate, who was representing the National Black Leadership Roundtable. While he said he recognizes the need for such couples to have contractual agreements that protect their individual and collective investments, "it is neither logical nor fair to the rest of society to redefine the institution of marriage," he added.
Other speakers said laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman are a way to protect children from problems that are more common in single-family households.
"We can -- and we must -- rebuild a culture of marriage and intact families in this country while we still have time," said Jeffrey Brown, of the Ten Point Coalition.
Two possible versions of the amendment could be presented for a vote. One would say simply: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Another version would add the sentence: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
But even supporters conceded that they were unlikely to have enough votes to fend off an effort to end debate and force a vote, let alone reach the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment. The House must also approve the bill by a two-thirds majority and the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to amend the Constitution.
"We always assumed we couldn't win a first vote in the Senate," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which launched the drive for the amendment, at the July 12 press conference.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., predicted that the amendment would pass on a second go-round, much as similar bills did in several states after failing on a first try. Constituents would be quick to hold their senators accountable for voting against their wishes, he said.
He warned that senators who vote against the amendment "do so at your political peril."
---CNS |