Constitutional Amendment to Define Marriage?

See the following article in which an America Archbishop urges a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the bonding of a man and a woman.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-cordileone-supports-constitutional-marriage-amendment/

Do you agree or disagree with this proposal. Why?

Makes sense to me that the State ought to “uniquely” recognise the unique relationship that is Marriage. It has obvious and fundamental value to the continuation of the State in a way no other relationship can. If the US legal system needs constitutional support to achieve that, so be it. The prospects of success are presumably nil, given the US cannot even bring itself to deal with its historical and absurd gun rights in the constitution! ]

This is not an “anti same sex union” argument. If there are good grounds for the State to recognise such an institution, so be it. But we should be clear it is a different relationship.

The “marriage” argument is not the problem but a sympton. The problem is the moral decay. To resolve that you would have to get the Bibe back into the curriculumn.

Agreed. The only way forward is to radically convert society to Christ Jesus and His One Holy Church. Decadent Rome didn’t get rid of gladiator games, celebrated homosexuality, and infanticide through amendments. It got rid of them by metanoia.

This though is a bit of an “outsiders response”. Would you support the constitutional amendment or would that be counter-productive?

Is that feasible in a diverse society? How could this be achieved in the USA (for example)?

Perhaps we’d have to re-evangelize America before we could get prayer back in the school or the Bible in the curriculum.It’s sort of putting the horse before the cart.

Is a Constitutional Amendment even feasible? Are there enough Americans who even care to save traditional matter to carry the day? If not, the Amendment will fail and activist judges (I suspect atheists for the most part) will rule the issue and all will be lost. Six members of the Supreme Court are Catholic. It will be the shaming of the Church if they side with the legitimization of same-sex marriage. But I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them did. The only Catholic on the Supreme Court at the time ruled in favor of Roe v Wade, opening the floodgates to 50 million infanticides.

Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is the only chance left to save traditional marriage. But if the Amendment fails, all will be lost. :shrug: More elements of social insanity will accrue and a gathering storm of moral anarchy will likely break because good men and women stood by and did nothing.

=Charlemagne III;11748422]Perhaps we’d have to re-evangelize America before we could get prayer back in the school or the Bible in the curriculum.It’s sort of putting the horse before the cart.

There’s some wisdom in focusing on the evangelical elements, but I don’t think that getting public schools to promote the Bible is the right path.

Constantly quoting Scripture is unfortunately a reason I see why we are “losing” the marriage argument, because it’s always about eating shellfish and laws in Leviticus. :rolleyes:

Is a Constitutional Amendment even feasible?

Sadly, no. The ideal I see would have been for the states to have each had Constitutional bans; I do not like the federal government having more power. But any such discussion should have been done 30 years ago.

Are there enough Americans who even care to save traditional matter to carry the day?

Not when the gay agenda lobby votes for the same people who get checks in the mail to people or who make promises on immigration.

Look at it like this: Is it so terribly surprising in the United States that coalitions who get government goodies will unite to spread the pie around? You get yours, and I get mine, thus all will be fine!

See, that’s why the left is so effective at getting people who disagree with them 90% of the time to vote for them.

Want to know the really sad part? An elected social conservative wouldn’t just rip their checks at the first chance.

They are voting away their country and possibly their eternal souls for NOTHING. :sadyes:

But, that’s the way the world has worked and will continue to do so with a fervor and a smile.

If not, the Amendment will fail and activist judges (I suspect atheists for the most part) will rule the issue and all will be lost.

They’re already doing that on a faux argument about the 10th Amendment that even a 1L student could see through.

Six members of the Supreme Court are Catholic.

:rotfl:

Utterly meaningless for all intensive purposes. Some Catholics have loyalties to other parties besides Jesus and the Church.

I see it on here rather frequently, so it’s not surprise that the government (a reflection of the people in a republic) is as well.

It will be the shaming of the Church if they side with the legitimization of same-sex marriage. But I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them did. The only Catholic on the Supreme Court at the time ruled in favor of Roe v Wade, opening the floodgates to 50 million infanticides.

Well, it would be nice if the pro-life movement and the pro-marriage folks would actually put some effort in their strategy.

When I hear nonsense that they thought an anti-abortion amendment would pass in New Mexico because lots of Hispanics live there, the proper reaction is facepalm.

The progressives would have us believe that there is nothing we can do and that this is the way the world was meant to evolve. It’s all from too much daydreaming in the public education system and too many futuristic idealist TV shows, I suppose .

But the truth is a lot of the world is not progressive. In fact, they want the progressives in power because it will strengthen their positions.

Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is the only chance left to save traditional marriage. But if the Amendment fails, all will be lost. :shrug: More elements of social insanity will accrue and a gathering storm of moral anarchy will likely break because good men and women stood by and did nothing.

So-called gay “marriage” won’t be good for anyone, least of all GLBTQ folks. They’ll need us and the Church now more than ever, especially not so much if but when they are kicked to the curb once the Western progressive elite have them locked in. Just like Native Americans, African-Americans and Eastern European/Irish workers in the northeast. :sadyes:

Well the reality is that there are not enough votes in Congress to pass such an amendment. The constitution requires a two-third yes vote of the entire congress then it must be ratified by two-thirds of the States.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.