Protecting
marriage
By Lou Baldwin
Special to the CS&T
It’s something that would never have occurred to George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, or William Penn.
For them, as it was for rulers and lawgivers for the thousands of years
of recorded history, marriage was a union between a woman and a man. There
was no need to put that fact down on paper; it was universal common law
and natural law.
Now, we have a culture where — against the will of what polls tell
us is the majority opinion — there are those who, through legislative,
executive or judicial fiat, want to extend the title and benefits of marriage
to others, especially through same-sex unions.
To counter that, there are initiatives pending both in the Pennsylvania
State Legislature and U.S. Congress that would make traditional marriage
the only legally recognized marital union under the state and federal
constitutions.
In Pennsylvania, amending the state constitution is not a complicated
process. As explained by Francis J. Viglietta, the director for social
concerns for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, that requires only
a simple majority vote of both the House and Senate for two consecutive
legislative terms and, after the second vote, submission to the electorate
for ratification by a statewide referendum, with passage by a simple majority
of votes.
Backers hope a vote on House Bill 2381 will be taken shortly after the
legislature returns on June 5, and that the state senate will then vote
on the bill before summer recess.
“We are optimistic [that] if we can get it moving, we will succeed,”
Viglietta said. “Ultimately, the people of the Commonwealth will
decide how marriage is defined.”
The proposed state amendment reads: Only a marriage between one man and
one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth,
and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall
create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent
to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”
How the proposed bill will fare in Harrisburg has a lot to do with how
much constituent pressure is brought to bear.
“I fully believe most people I work with, most of my friends, and
the people in my parish support this,” said Bill Shearer of SS.
Simon and Jude Parish in West Chester. “For the sake of society,
and for the sake of future generations, I firmly believe marriage is meant
for one man and one woman. I vote in every election, and I will be contacting
my legislators.”
Pennsylvania already has legal protection for traditional marriage through
the Defense of Marriage Act; which raises the question: Why is a constitutional
amendment necessary?
The answer is that such state laws can be — and in some states have
already been — circumvented, especially by judges who declare them
unconstitutional.
The proposal now moving through the Pennsylvania legislature will avoid
that, because specific amendments to a state constitution cannot be overruled
by a state judge, supreme court, legislative body or governor. Such constitutional
amendments may be nullified only on the state level by a subsequent amendment.
At the same time, the U.S. Senate is also expected during the week of
June 5 to begin deliberating over a national Constitutional amendment
with similar wording, which would be binding in every state in the union.
An amendment to the federal Constitution is to American law what a royal
flush is to poker — on two levels.
First, it trumps everything else. Neither a federal judge nor the Supreme
Court may override a clearly worded Constitutional amendment.
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also like a royal flush in its
rarity: Our founding fathers took their work seriously, and made certain
their Constitution could not be amended capriciously.
It takes a daunting three-quarters majority of both the House and the
Senate for passage — followed by ratification votes by three-fourths
of the 50 states within 10 years of congressional approval.
That is why there are so few federal Constitutional amendments. For example,
the women’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was approved by Congress
in 1962, but despite strong backing, it was ultimately defeated in 1972
because it failed to obtain approval by three-quarters of the 50 state
legislatures within the allotted decade.
Nevertheless, a federal amendment is well worth the fight, because it
would settle the issue. However, currently the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference
and Pennsylvania’s Bishops, led by Cardinal Rigali, are urging Pennsylvanians
to support the state amendment.
As for the federal amendment, “we will do whatever the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops asks us to do,” Viglietta said.
Meanwhile, people are contacting their state legislators regarding the
Pennsylvania amendment.
“I’m married, and I’m 100 percent for this,” said
Jody Della Barba of St. Monica Parish in South Philadelphia. “It’s
not meant to discriminate against anybody’s personal life-style,
but marriage is a union of one man and one woman.”
She added that she believes churches have a right to ask members to petition
their legislators on an issue such as the marriage amendment: “A
reason we were created is to have children, and this can’t happen
with two men or two women.”
“If something isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” added
Vince Novello who is also a member of St. Monica Parish.
Novello said he believes that marriage is a privilege through which a
man and woman become the building blocks for future generations.
“I guess I’m ‘old school.’ My parents were firm
believers in what we are about in our religion,” he said. “We
should be proud that our parish and Church stand behind marriage between
a man and a woman.”
For further information or to contact your state or federal officials
on this issue go to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference at www.pacatholic.org.
Lou Baldwin is a member of St. Leo Parish and freelance writer.