Bishops asked to lobby senators on marriage amendment

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The president of the U.S. bishops' conference has asked his fellow bishops to contact members of Congress in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In a June 24 letter, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., asked the U.S. bishops to personally contact their senators urging support for the constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only a union of a man and a woman. It would allow individual states to decide whether to legalize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Bishop Gregory said the Senate leadership had requested the bishops' conference formally support the amendment. A vote on the measure could come as early as mid-July. The Senate is scheduled to recess between July 26 and Sept. 7.

see the whole story here.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004

Answers

bump

-- bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

I don't get it. If you're still going to allow legal unions with the exact same legal benefits a marriage, why do you need a freaking ammendment just to definme the language used on the paper? You say it's not a marriage? Fine. It's not a marriage. It's just a stupid piece of paper. Why do you waste the time of our lawmakers with trivial word games?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

Anti-Bush, read the following:
U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Administrative Committee Calls for Protection of Marriage



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 27, 2004.


You guys keep changing your position here. The origional post says they might be ok with civil unions, but the link you posted says that they don't want homosexual unions to have any recognition, which I think is wrong. It is a blatant attempt to enforce your religious beleifs on an entire nation. What if we gave them the **legal** benefits of marriage and just called it a civil union? How would that hurt you?

You conservatives are all the same. You claim to be all for limited government, but then you decide that the definition of marriage should be left up to the federal government. Doesn't anybody see a contradiction here?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.


Homosexual practice is disordered... Celebrating and legalizing a disorder is exponentially disordered... -those that act disordred and those condoning the disordered act equally in error....

The only contradictions are those that disagree with God...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 28, 2004.



It is a blatant attempt to enforce your religious beleifs on an entire nation.

anti bush, this is how religion works... you take a moral theory and you apply it to a world view, then try to share that world view with others. if you arent willing to share your religion with others, then you should reconsider what religion you're in. furthermore, throughout history religion has been an integral part of society and throwing it out leads to states like russia, where 20 million are starved by their government.

What if we gave them the **legal** benefits of marriage and just called it a civil union? How would that hurt you?

ever read about the fall of rome? you should research the connections between the fall of morality in rome and the failing of the empire (particularly because influx in homosexuality directly preceded the fall of the empire). i think the direct connection of several empires failing and the connection to their gradual decline of morality is just fascinating.

either way, im not personally concerned with the secularist action of civil unions... but leave the sacred RELIGIOUS institution of marraige alone.

You conservatives are all the same.

ooh, ad hominem, or falty generalization... which logical fallacy would you class that one in?

You claim to be all for limited government, but then you decide that the definition of marriage should be left up to the federal government.

oh, we support limited government... but we're not stupid either. when a government action threatens to shatter a religious institution we know that we also need the government to put a stop to it.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 29, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ