Same-sex marriage, pits human rights against the family and against man.

The Heroic Battle of the United States to Preserve the Sacred Covenant of Marriage

Barbara Kralis September 29, 2005

It is imperative that the will of the American people to protect this vital institution from arbitrary redefinition be acknowledged in our Federal Constitution.  Until such time, all states are called to preserve marriage Œbetween one man and one woman¹ through state constitutional amendments.






Comments to Barbara


Comments to



It is imperative that the will of the American people to protect this vital institution from arbitrary redefinition be acknowledged in our Federal Constitution.  Until such time, all states are called to preserve marriage Œbetween one man and one woman¹ through state constitutional amendments.



By Barbara Kralis


September 29, 2005




The battle to preserve the covenant of marriage only between Œone man and one woman,¹ is an issue central to the future of America¹s survival.  The obligation of the marriage, as instituted by the Creator, is two-fold:  fidelity and fecundity. [i]


Same-sex marriage, and other Œde facto unions,¹ part of a new ideology of insidious and hidden evil, attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.  Even if the majority of the people supported same-sex marriage and civil unions [and they don¹t] making them the equivalent to traditional marriage [and they are not], the majority would be gravely wrong.[ii]


Traditional marriage is, however, under attack by a small minority of people and judges who are usurping their role and authority by making new same-sex marriage policies from the bench instead of interpreting the law.


The institution of marriage between one man and one woman comes before any recognition by public authority.[iii]  Civil authority should consider it a grave duty to acknowledge the true nature of sanctified marriage and the family.[iv]


For the past eleven years and for the next several years, fierce battles have and will exist in cumbersome state-by-state constitutional referenda to ban same-sex marriage.  The larger question, however, is not whether each state¹s Constitution will be amended but rather Œwho will amend it and how will it be amended.¹  



Widespread ignorance exists on the immorality of same-sex marriage


Widespread confusion and misinformation on the issue of same-sex marriage abounds.  Growing secularism shows increased hostility toward Judeo-Christian dogmas of faith.

Pro-homosexual civil rights organizations such as The National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are representing cases on behalf of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender [GLBT] groups in courts throughout the country under the guise of anti-discriminatory suits.


Another group calls themselves a Œloyal Republican family.¹  The Log Cabin Republican organization has thousands of members in dozens of chapters nationwide including a full-time Washington office and a federal political action committee.  Since the late l970¹s, the platform of homosexual Republicans has gained influence at highest levels not only within the Party itself but on Capitol Hill and inside the current Bush administration.  Ever since President George Bush announced his first term support for a Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA] banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, Log Cabin Republican leaders worked hard against his re-election and passage of the FMA.  The Log Cabin, however, has not been able to defeat the much larger number of pro-life/pro-family grassroots Americans, insuring the Party¹s platform to remain largely pro-life.


Wielding more obfuscation, the Democratic Party has a national GLBT group called ŒThe National Stonewall Democrats¹ within its political organization.  The Stonewall Dems [the same group that assails the Boy Scouts of America] vow to defeat all state amendments that support traditional marriage by misrepresenting moral truths of same-sex marriage; i.e., calling same-sex marriage an  Œequality issue,¹ a Œcivil right¹ for homosexuals.  Shannon Bailey, President of the Stonewall Dems promised in August:


³We will keep hammering the message, telling our stories, and giving people time to absorb themŠwe¹re engaging with families and houses of faithŠon the marriage issue and talking about equality.² 


As state constitutional amendment referenda progress over the coming years, church leaders of every denomination must speak and write boldly in favor of traditional marriage between Œone man and one woman.¹  This battle will require courageous clarity to teach the Œobjective disorder¹ of same-sex marriage.  If church leaders neglect to do so, Americans will fail to voice God given moral truths in the voting booth.[v] 


However, the sanctity for sacredness of marriage is not for Christians alone ­ it is for everyone, even non-believers.



³Lex injusta non obligat²[vi]


Churches and other non-profit 501(c)3 tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from endorsing political candidates.  Laws may vary by locality, but usually churches can support ballot measures such as federal and state constitutional bans on gay marriage.  In questionable cases, legal counsel should be consulted.


Here are some examples of what a church or parish can do to get involved: speak on the Catholic Church¹s infallible teachings on marriage;[vii] speak on the biblical definition of marriage;[viii] teach on Sacred Scripture¹s condemnation of homosexual acts ³as a serious depravity;¹[ix] distribute ŒVoters¹ Guides; hold voter registration drives; print bulletin inserts; bring in guest speakers; arrange parish meetings to discuss same-sex marriage issues and submit absentee ballots.


In recent years, Pope John Paul II and relevant Vatican Discasteries have addressed with great clarity various questions relating to homosexuality.[x]


Cardinal Ratzinger and The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on March 28, 2003 addressed the great and troubling moral and social phenomenon of marriage and unions between homosexual persons in a document entitled ³Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.²

Since this question relates to natural moral law, the document is addressed to all persons, not just believers, committed to promoting and defending the good of society.


In addition, Pope John Paul II on January 10, 2005, unequivocally condemned gay marriage in a strongly worded annual message addressed to the world meant to define the position and agenda of the Roman Catholic Church:


"Today the family is often threatened by social and cultural pressures that tend to undermine its stability; but in some countries the family is also threatened by legislation which at times directly challenge its natural structure, which is and must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage.  Family must never be undermined by laws based on a narrow and unnatural vision of man." [xi]


Interesting Polls


We are witnessing an intense period of attack upon traditional marriage from gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender [GLBT] groups throughout America.  The 2000 census showed 600,000 same-sex couples in the nation, while the 1990 version found 150,000.[xii]  Two years later, a 2002 U.S. government study by the National Center for Health Statistics asked 12,571 in age group 18-44 ³Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or something else?²  In answer, 2.3% men and women said they were homosexual, 1.8% answered bisexual, translating to possibly 4.5 million self-identified homosexual or bisexual persons.[xiii]


Encouraging news comes from a July 2005 Rasmussen Reports poll showing not only American pro-life voters overwhelmingly support traditional marriage but 48% of pro-abortion voters support it as well.  Among all 1,000 likely American voters polled, 66% favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage.


An interesting three-year Gallup Poll conducted during the month of May for years 2002-2004 showed that Catholic Church leaders are failing to teach their flock about same-sex marriage.  The Poll showed Catholics¹ acceptance of Œhomosexual behavior¹ at 48%, higher than non-Catholics acceptance at 39%.  Other Gallup data in the same poll suggests Catholics are no different than other non-Catholics on key moral issues.[xiv]  This would indicate that little if any Catholic moral teachings were coming from Catholic parish pulpits or Catholic bishops¹ diocesan newspapers.


Not all Christian denominations support traditional marriage.  On July 4, 2005, four-fifths of delegates to the United Church of Christ¹s national conference voted to recognize same-sex marriage, the first major Christian denomination to do so.


Moreover, our good neighbor to the North, Canada, on July 20, 2005, announced their parliament¹s legalization of same-sex marriage.


In another interesting Gallup Poll,[xv] Americans are turning more negative toward the concept of same-sex marriage.  The poll taken during March 18-20, 2005 shows 57% of Americans polled support a federal constitutional amendment ban against same-sex marriage.  In addition, 68% of Americans polled said same-sex marriage should not be legalized.  A year earlier, in February 2004, the poll showed support for a federal constitutional amendment was only 47%.  



Attempts to pass a U.S. Constitutional Amendment


Extremist groups in Washington, namely politicians and activist judges practicing or promoting sodomy, continue to strip away America¹s traces of its Judeo-Christian heritage. 


One example can be recalled from July 14, 2004, when 50 Senators [37 Dem., 6 Rep.] led by Sen. Ted Kennedy [D-MA] rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA], an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[xvi]


The 48 votes in support of the amendment were 19 votes short of the 67-vote [two-thirds] majority needed in the senate.[xvii]  Despite the U.S. Constitutional amendment's failure in the Senate, the House of Representatives presented the legislation again on September 30, 2004.  It received 227 yea votes and 186 nay votes, well short of the 290 yea votes needed for adoption.  A U.S. Constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.



What can the people do to preserve sacred marriage?


For decades, many Americans have bemoaned the virulent judicial activism by justices supplanting the rule of law and the will of the people.  Activist justices often spuriously characterize pro-family groups making any defense of the clear national moral consensus as evoking ³hate speech.²


Many ask, ŒWhat can one person do?¹  One successful antidote to this judicial oligarchy is to partake in the privilege Americans have to vote. 


Americans can pick their lawmakers and pick their laws by voting in all elections.  All elections are crucial.  We cannot afford to lose any election to the culture of death undermining the good of the family and society.  Each election, no matter how insignificant, demands the attention of all its citizens.


Federal court activist judges and anti-family legislators have left the American people with one recourse: until our nation can call for the passage of Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, citizens of every state must now work to enact state constitutional amendments to protect sacredness of marriage in America, the most fundamental institution of civilization.[xviii]



Why pass State Constitutional Amendments rather than state statutory bans?


Congress enacted the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to enact similar legislation.  Since 1996, forty-two states, following the model of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted Œstate¹ DOMA type laws [not state constitutional amendments] prohibiting same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages formed in another jurisdiction.[xix] 


Because the U.S. Senate was unable to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment [FMA] to the U.S. Constitution in July 2004, the best remedy against judiciary rulings and out of control legislators who support gay marriage is to have another attempt at passing a federal constitutional amendment that says marriage in the U.S. shall only be between Œone man and one woman.¹ 


Until that happens, however, having Œstate constitutional amendments¹ banning same-sex marriage are seen as the most sure-fire way to protect traditional marriage.  State constitutional amendments prevent state courts from ruling that statutory same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. 


State constitutional amendments will prevent legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states as well.  All state legislators and state judges [but not federal judges and federal legislators] must follow the state constitutions. 


To date, eighteen states have passed state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.[xx]


Undermining the Will of the People


A good defense for enacting Œstate constitutional amendments¹ rather than state statutes is what recently took place in California.


The battle began in March 2000 when 61.4% [or 4.6 million] California¹s voters approved statute ŒProposition 22,¹ making it a state DOMA law [not a state constitutional amendment].  The new marriage law read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  


Horrifically, on September 1, 2005, Californians saw their heavily Democratic Senate pass gay legislation ŒAB 849¹ granting same-sex marriage.  Five days later, both state assemblies passed AB 849 again.


California's lawmakers were the first in the nation to back gay marriage, approving a bill that defines marriage as Œtwo persons.¹  AB 849 was unlike Massachusetts¹ law, where gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry because of an activist state court ruling. 


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, at this writing, has promised to veto the bill.  The Governor stated he believed voters had clearly spoken when they approved ŒProp 22¹ in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  The Governor said AB 849 violated the will of the people.[xxi]


Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is Gov. Schwarzenegger¹s Archbishop.  Cd. Mahony must speak out boldly in support of traditional marriage to California¹s over ten million Catholics [10,110,452], a group who represent 30% of the state¹s entire population.  It is Cardinal Mahony¹s duty as Archbishop to remind all those that promote and/or practice same-sex marriage and civil unions that they have separated themselves from communion with the Church.  Church leaders of all denominations must teach the people to protect the sacred covenant of marriage between Œone man and one woman.¹ 



State by State by State


The heroic battle is before us all.  State by state, the referenda to ban same-sex marriage will be put into motion, requiring passage of the ban in each state legislature by 2/3 vote, then voted on by the people.  Some state constitution, such as Massachusetts, requires the legislature to approve identical language in two successive sessions before the amendment can be put before state voters in 2006.


State constitutional amendments are the best way, outside of a federal constitutional amendment, for states to inoculate themselves from rulings such as the November 2003 decision by the Supreme Court activists judicial ruling in Massachusetts that ruled equal-protection guarantees made it illegal to deny marriage to gays and lesbians.



Let¹s look at Texas


Let us look at one important but little known election that will have national repercussions, especially after a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, in extreme judicial activism regarding ŒLawrence vs. Texas,¹ struck down a Texas sodomy law on June 26, 2003, declaring a state right to practice sodomy.[xxii]


The jewel, Texas, once known for its national patriotism and state republic¹s independence, whose once mentally and physically strong-willed people with staunch Judeo-Christian beliefs magnificently scratched out extraordinary livelihoods from scrubby, harsh and rugged terrains has now, paradoxically, over 43,000 same-sex couples living in plush, upscale urban areas of Austin, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas.[xxiii] 


Yet still, many pro-family Texans, with their forefathers¹ resolve, fight a heroic battle against the onslaught of same-sex marriage. 


Notwithstanding a heated debate during May 2005, the Republic of Texas¹ Congress passed legislation for a proposed state constitutional amendment, defining marriage as an institution Œbetween one man and one woman¹ as well as denying state benefits and rights to gay couples. 


The ballot amendment named 'Proposition 2 ' would safeguard existing Texas law that prohibits same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships from judicial challenges.[xxiv]  The people of Texas will have an historic opportunity to vote on this state constitutional amendment November 8, 2005.


In support of the amendment, Texas Governor Rick Perry in August sent out 10,000 emails encouraging Texans to get out and vote:


³Marriage is the union between a man and a woman is a truth known to each one of us already, and any attempt to allow same-sex marriages is a detriment to the family unit and hurts our state and nation."


The biggest obstacle is this Texas November 8 election is that it is a little known 'Special Constitutional Amendment Election' where there are no state or federal candidates or parties on the ballot.  Consequently, there typically is only a 7-12% voter turnout. 


Not surprisingly, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] groups in Texas are taking advantage not only of this little known election but also of the general ignorance or indifference of many citizens on the issue of same-sex marriage. 


It is well known that sodomite groups are much better organized for this Œspecial election¹ than the pro-family groups.  Calling their group 'No Nonsense in 2006,' thousands of GLBT are canvassing neighborhoods in the State's largest counties, using confusing words such as Œcivil rights for all¹ to encourage people to vote for same-sex marriage.  'No Nonsense in 2006' sent 10,000 U.S. mailings to past Democratic Party donors, encouraging support for Texas gay marriage and retaliation against Gov. Rick Perry's pro-family email efforts.


Texas Church leaders of all denominations must speak out boldly and clearly of the immoral truths of same-sex marriage.  Texas Catholic archbishops, bishops, and priests must clearly remind their flock that practicing and/or promoting same-sex marriage and civil unions separates them from communion with the Catholic Church.


Over 2,000 Texas Protestant clergy formed  ŒRestoration Project¹ in May 2005, a Christian organization to bring morality to the government by empowering Christian voters.[xxv]  They plan to have Citizenship Sundays designed to encourage voters to register and vote.  Governor Perry said: ³It is a ridiculous notion to say you can¹t legislate morality.  I say you can¹t not legislate morality.²



Looking at other states¹ upcoming elections


If Texas voters approve 'Proposition 2' on November 8, Texas will join the eighteen other states [see endnote 2, part three] whose voters overwhelmingly approved state constitutional bans for same-sex marriage.  Ten of these eighteen states already have language similar to Nebraska¹s, banning not only Œgay marriage¹ but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.


At this writing, seven states have neither statute nor constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[xxvi]


The only state that specifically allows same-sex marriages is Massachusetts.  Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2003 following an activist state Supreme Judicial Court decision.[xxvii] 


However, on September 7, 2005, Massachusetts¹s Attorney General, on the last day of the deadline and despite great pressure by advocates of gay marriage, approved a strict ballot allowing voters an opportunity to vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as well as Œcivil unions.¹  Voters have the authority to overrule the 2003 state Supreme Court decision.


Pro-family groups in Massachusetts must gather 65,825 signatures before December 7, 2005.  Then a 25% approval must be obtained from the 200-member state legislature in both years 2006 and 2007.  Finally, the ballot would be placed before the people of Massachusetts as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, defining marriage only Œbetween one man and one woman¹ and banning Œcivil unions.¹ 


Not surprisingly, numerous gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] have vowed to challenge the ballot approval in court and are already canvassing neighborhoods to distribute literature supporting gay rights. 


On September 15, 2005 Massachusetts legislators rejected a flawed proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.  Conservative Christians welcomed the defeat of the compromised ban because civil unions are dangerous to traditional marriage, especially legally speaking.[xxviii]  Case in point would be Connecticut¹s decision to legalize civil unions earlier in 2005, granting same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples but denying them to wed.  This decision is now being used in a lawsuit brought about by eight homosexual couples that seeks to force Connecticut to allow gay couples full marriage rights.[xxix]


Archbishop Sean O¹Malley of Boston, and all Massachusetts¹ Catholic Bishops must teach that voting for and/or promoting same-sex marriage and civil unions is gravely immoral and separates one from communion with the Catholic Church.  Church leaders of all denominations must not fail to speak in favor of only marriage between Œone man and one woman.¹ 


More than 6,100 gay and lesbian couples have wed since May 2004 in the state of Massachusetts.  Connecticut and Vermont are the only states that allow same-sex 'civil unions.'[xxx]  California¹s Supreme Court in June 2005 let stand a new domestic partnership law granting homosexual couples the same rights and protections as that of traditional married couples.  As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through activist court rulings.


Four other state legislatures have approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and will be voted on by its citizens as follows: Alabama (June 2006), South Carolina (November 2006), South Dakota (November 2006) and Tennessee (November 2006).  Pro-life/pro-family constituents in these states must start preparing now for the fierce battle in 2006.


Other legal developments in states without constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage need our attention.  Lower court judges in New York and Washington recently ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.  The rulings do not take effect pending appeals, but each case could pave the way to follow in the steps of Massachusetts¹ activist Supreme Judicial Court ruling.  On April 15, 2005, New York City became the sixth locality in the state of New York to announce it will recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other jurisdictions.  Other localities are Brighton, Buffalo, Ithaca, Nyack, and Rochester. 


Connecticut¹s legislature passed on April 20, 2005 the first same sex civil union bill in the nation not driven by a court decision.



The battle will never be over without a federal constitutional amendment


All eyes are on Nebraska as an activist federal judge, on May 12, 2005, in an unprecedented ruling said Nebraska¹s state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution¹s First and Fourteenth Amendment¹s right and due process.  The ruling, initiated by a group of homosexual and liberal activist groups, including Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Nebraska, is the first attempt by a federal court to overturn the will of the people on a state constitutional marriage amendment, especially stunning since an additional 18 states have similar amendments, at this writing.[xxxi]


Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund [ADF], a non-profit religious liberty legal alliance based in Scottsdale, AZ, recently told this writer:


³We strongly disagree with the federal district court decision which held that Nebraska¹s Marriage Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution.  We remain hopeful that it will be overruled on appeal. 


Unfortunately, the decision demonstrates that ultimately these issues will be decided as a matter of federal constitutional law.  It also highlights the importance of adopting a federal marriage amendment. 


Nevertheless, state marriage amendments remain extremely important as they settle state law and several courts have upheld them.  They also play an indirect role in federal constitutional litigation.  In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court looked to state legal trends in deciding to overrule Texas¹ sodomy statute.  Passage of state marriage amendments shows that the trend is to protect traditional marriage.²


Nebraska is appealing the ruling that may ultimately go before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Nebraska voters passed the state constitutional amendment with a 70% margin in favor of banning same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.



How bizarre can it get?


If the United States does not heroically battle same-sex marriage rulings, America might eventually define as marriage: polygyny [having more than one wife]; polyandry [having more than one husband]; polyamory [group marriage]; marriage involving normal incest [brother and sister]; and same-sex incest.[xxxii]  The courts could even be challenged to allow bestial marriage [non-consensual sex between man and animal].[xxxiii]


Space herein does not permit the possible asymmetries of so-called legalized same-sex marriages - an inimical slippery slope created by activist judges and anti-family legislators redefining marriage and legislating their own immorality.  A dystopian society is not a bridge too far.[xxxiv]



Same-sex relationships are not marriages and they are not procreative. 


Our nation for the last 40 years has witnessed a decline in the quality of life for our children as activist courts and legislators have allowed unions/marriages for homosexual adults that are based upon the perversions of a few [xxxv]


Homosexual activity has resulted in tens of thousands of men getting sick or dying prematurely because they engage in sexual perversions.


Homosexual marriages create motherless and fatherless families.  [xxxvi] Homosexual adoptions deprived the child of the inalienable right to a natural female mother and a male father as a matter of public policy.[xxxvii]  An immutable human truth is that children need a male and a female role model in a permanent relationship.[xxxviii]  Why would anyone consider placing children in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development and is gravely immoral?[xxxix]


If same-sex marriages are approved by the state, then public schools will be forced to teach that they are equal to heterosexual marriage.  All children will be affected and the culture will be transformed.  In California, businesses are being forced to treat same-sex relationships like heterosexual marriage.[xl]


Among children raised by same-sex couples, a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, increased mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behavior was recorded.[xli]


We give thanks to successful reparative or reorientation therapies such as those given by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and President of National Assoc. for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH], and Director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, Encino, California.[xlii]


We must never give up the heroic battle to preserve the sacred covenant of marriage between one man and one woman who cooperate with God in the creation of a new human person, destined for eternal life. 



 ©Barbara Kralis 2005, all rights reserved.




[i] The Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], n. 2363  ³The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.  These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.  The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.²

Cf. ³Family, Marriage and De Facto Unions,² an extensive document published by the Pontifical Council for the Family, July 26, 2000; see also the document¹s accompanying explanatory letter.

Cf. document: ³Considerations Regarding proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,² by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, n. III-9


[ii] CCC, n. 2357  ³Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.  It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.  Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.  Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared, ³homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.²


[iii] CCC, n. 2202  ³A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family.  This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it.  It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.²


[iv] CCC, n. 2210  ³The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family.  Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."


[v] Cf., ŒSource of Same-Sex Attractions in Children: Parenting and Social Influences,² by Fr. John Harvey, Founder of Courage.


[vi] St Thomas Aquinas says ³lex injusta non obligat² [unjust laws are not obligatory] which means, in the sense of same-sex marriage and one¹s well-formed conscience, that a citizen's conscience is not bound by "iniquitous" laws, laws which are not good for the individual and for society and are imposed from outside, laws that can ruin the structure of the natural institution of the family which is central to society and the Church.  Cf. ŒEvangelium vitæ¹ nos. 69, 73, 74 which speak of objection of conscience: ŒThis means a person can use his or her right to object out of conscience and refuse to comply with this crime which represents the destruction of the world.  Conscientious objection has always been respect in the laws and constitutions of all nations and the State is bound to respect it without threats.¹  [Cd. Trujillo, see endnote 3, part one]


[vii] Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, ŒInterview on Homosexual Marriage,¹ May 4, 2005, taken from


[viii] Cf. Gen 1:27; Gen 2:24; Gen 1:28; Eph 5:32; Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9.


[ix] Cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10; Lev 20:13; Lev 18:22; 

Cf. Earliest Christian writers; for example, St. Polycarp, ŒLetter to the Philippians,¹ V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, ŒFirst Apology,¹ 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, ŒSupplication for the Christians,¹ n. 34.


[x] Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and ³de facto² unions (July 26, 2000).


[xi] Cf. ³Pope Denounces Gay Marriage,² by Jason Horowitz, New York Times, 1/11/05.


[xii] Cf. study entitled: ³Seventy percent of older teens have had oral sex-Study finds big rise in female gay sex,² by Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times, 9/16/05.


[xiii] Study by National Center for Health Statistics, ³Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002.²


[xiv] Gallup Poll showed Catholics accept abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, divorce, and embryonic stem cell research at the same percentile as non-Catholics.


[xv] Poll conducted March 18-20, 2004 is the highest measured response of 57% in favor of marriage being Œbetween a man and a woman,¹ across the seven other times the question has been asked since the summer of 2003.  Support for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage among Republican voters in March 2004 was 71%, while support by Democrat voters was 45%.  Independent voters supported the amendment at 51%.  Highest support for an amendment to ban came from Southern states at 65%, with Midwest states at 56%.  Men supported a ban at 59% while women polls supported the ban at 55%.  Men and women in the 30-49 year range gave the highest support to ban same-sex marriage, at 61%.  Weekly churchgoers gave the ban 67% support, while those who seldom go to church gave the ban only 46% support.


[xvi] The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard (CO-Rep), consisted of only two sentences: ³Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.  Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.²  The U.S. Senate did not pass the Amendment on July 2004.


[xvii] WASHINGTON, July 14, 2004 ( ­ Following is the detailed Senator by Senator vote that killed the federal marriage amendment.  List is provided courtesy of the Culture of Life Foundation:


Vote Counts:

YEAs ---48


Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Byrd (D-WV), Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Fitzgerald (R-IL), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Kyl (R-AZ), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), McConnell (R-KY), Miller (D-GA), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Nickles (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA).


NAYs --- 50


Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Breaux (D-LA), Campbell (R-CO), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Daschle (D-SD), Dayton (D-MN), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), McCain (R-AZ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY), Snowe (R-ME), Stabenow (D-MI), Sununu (R-NH), Wyden (D-OR)


Not Voting - 2


Edwards (D-NC)

Kerry (D-MA)


[xviii] You can find a great deal of information on same-sex marriage on these websites: from The Catholic University of America/Columbus School of Law; The nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures offers background information; The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights advocacy group, has a Marriage Center webpage;, a project of Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., tracks same-sex marriage litigation and legislation. The Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group opposed to same-sex marriage, has a Marriage and Family webpage; and Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, offers background and state-by-state timelines.


[xix] AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY.  Source:


[xx]  (Alphabetically)  AK, AR, GA, HI, KS, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, ND, OH, OR, OK, and UT.  Source:


[xxi] Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California

Constitution states: ³The Legislature . . . may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.²  The purpose of this constitutional limitation of legislative power is ³to Œprotect the people¹s initiative powers by precluding the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without the electorate¹s consent.¹  [Citations.]²  (Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1473, 1484.)


[xxii] [Citation]  Lawrence et al v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 [2003] or 123 S.Ct. 2472 [2003].


[xxiii] Cf. ³The Legislature ­ Same-Sex Marriage Ban Going to Voters,² by R. G. Ratcliffe, Houston Chronicle, 5/24/05.


[xxiv] Cf. Entire text of Texas ŒProposition 2¹ can be found here.


[xxv] Cf. Texans for Marriage


[xxvi]  CT, MA, NJ, NM, NY, RI, WI.


[xxvii] [Citation]  Goodridge v. Dept. of Health, 798 N.E. 2d 911 [Mass. Nov. 18, 2003].


[xxviii] Cf. ³Civil Unions: Trojan Horse To Conquer Marriage,² Alliance Defense Fund, 4/15/05.


[xxix] Cf. ³Connecticut Gay Couples Launch Marriage Suit,², 7/28/05.


[xxx] Cf. ³Same-sex unions ­ a constitutional race,² by Kavan Peterson, 3/29/05,


[xxxi] [Citation]  Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 [D. Neb. May 12, 2005].


[xxxii] Cf. ŒHypocrisy on Adult Consent,¹ by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 8/28/05.


[xxxiii]  Cf. ³Horse Sense,² by Wesley J. Smith, 8/31/05, The Weekly Standard.


[xxxiv] Dys€to€pi€a ­ noun.  An imaginary place where everything is as bad as it possibly can be.


[xxxv] Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH] recently stated: ³The AMA encyclopedia incorrectly notes that homosexuals comprise 10% of the population (a figure denied even by gay activists), and erroneously says that attempts to change a person's sexual orientation rarely, if ever, succeed.  The 10% figure has been discredited by recent surveys, including one from Canada's Community Health Survey showing that only 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women identify themselves as homosexual.  The AMA has also ignored the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer showing that some individuals with same-sex attractions can change their sexual orientation.²  Dr. Nicolosi and other NARTH officials are available for media interviews.  Call 818.789.4440 to set up an interview.


[xxxvi] ³No Basis: What the Studies Don¹t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting,² by Robert Lerner, Ph.D., & Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D.,

Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C., January 2001.


[xxxvii] Cf. ³Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting,² by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Prof. of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, S.C.


[xxxviii] Cf. ³Homosexual Parenting:  Is it Time for Change?² By the American College of Pediatricians [ACP].  The ACP found those studies to actually conclude that: ³Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.² 


[xxxix] Cf. NARTH, for numerous well-documented medical and psychological sources of the harmfulness of homosexuality upon society and individuals.  Sign up for their free e-newsletter.


[xl] Cf. ³Lesbian couple case returned to San Diego Superior Court,²

By, 8/1/05.

Cf. ³California Gives Children Two Mommies,² by Aaron Atwood,, 8/23/05.  Gov. Schwarzenegger's spokesperson Margita Thompson said that the governor supports the state's domestic partner law but believes the issue of marriage should be left to the courts or voters.


[xli] Cf. ³Do Mothers and Fathers Matter ­ The Social Science Evidence on Marriage and Child Well-Being,² by Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 2/27/04.


[xlii] Cf. book, ŒHealing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy,¹ by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.,



Barbara Kralis, the article's author, is a Catholic columnist.  She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas, and co-direct the Jesus Through Mary Catholic Foundation.  She can be reached at: