Why We Need A State Constitutional Amendment
Protecting Marriage In Pennsylvania 

By Robert J. O’Hara, Jr.
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Catholic Conference
 

Years ago the question of the need for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely a union between one man and one woman would have seemed nonsensical.

But today, with a culture enamored with personal rights and individual freedoms, it has actually become a touchy topic, and produces uncomfortable reactions when it is brought up. Same-sex marriage is no longer a foreign term in our language.

Yet if you mention the issue to your friend or neighbor you would likely get the response “it probably won’t happen here, Pennsylvania is too conservative” or “even if we do get it, what does it really matter? . . . It won’t affect my life. . . What do I care what people do privately down the street?”

The facts, however, are very different: if we do not do something about the threat of same-sex marriage, it likely will happen in Pennsylvania. It matters because it will be a further erosion of the institution of marriage; and, unfortunately, if the state institutionalizes a same-sex relationship, whether by making it marriage or a civil union, it no longer relates to conduct done privately behind closed doors down the street, it becomes a fixed, intrinsic part of our culture that requires accommodations by all other institutions.

Right now same-sex marriage is allowed in a growing number of countries throughout the world, most notably the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Great Britain and Canada. Years ago when it first was introduced to the Netherlands it seemed unlikely that it would ever come to the United States. But today you can simply drive north to Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, or go east to New Jersey where “civil unions” provide all the same rights and privileges of marriage, except for the title.

Nationwide, activist groups are asking courts to redefine marriage as something other than a relationship between one man and one woman. It was a court that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and courts or legislatures have also made “civil unions” the rule of law in Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, New Jersey and New Hampshire. It has been suggested that it is only a matter of time before similar relationships are recognized in New York and Maryland.

In the 1990s many states across the country, including Pennsylvania, overwhelmingly erected Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), which define marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately state courts can overturn duly enacted laws. Courts sometimes are asked to determine if statutes square with a state’s constitution. At times a court may say that the state constitution bars a state DOMA (even one passed overwhelmingly) and that supposed equal rights to marriage or a civil union should be granted to other nontraditional relationships. Recently a judge in Iowa struck down the state’s DOMA. This judicial activism is of grave concern as courts manipulate the law to serve some agenda not embraced by the citizens or their duly elected representatives.

Pennsylvania courts are no less prone to “activism” than those in other states. For many years the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld legislative instruction that allowed only a married couple or a single individual to adopt. Relying upon the letter of the law, the court agreed that unmarried heterosexual couples could not adopt children. But in 2002, the Court in an unprecedented decision ignored Pennsylvania adoption law precedent and case law precedent and allowed an unmarried lesbian couple to adopt a child.

Since that time, there have been no legal restrictions on gay adoptions in Pennsylvania. The decision highlights the very real possibility that the Pennsylvania court could, in advancing an agenda, ignore the Defense of Marriage Act and impose same-sex marriage or civil unions in Pennsylvania. This court has already demonstrated a proclivity towards an unmarried homosexual couple that it had refused to show for unmarried heterosexual couples.

The threat of same-sex marriage is so real in this country that 27 states have already passed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Most of the constitutional amendments also prevent civil unions. Polls indicate that Pennsylvanians also believe strongly that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The people of this state deserve the chance to speak up and vote on marriage before litigation allows the state courts to change the institution and compel the recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions.

In many ways, Pennsylvania plays a role as the “Keystone State.” There is a great deal of focus on Pennsylvania because, as it stands now, most states in the Northeastern United States have already adopted same-sex marriage or civil unions. The Gay and Lesbian Task Force is doing a great deal of organizing and raising money to push the issue in Pennsylvania.

Why Does It Matter?

The next question, given that same-sex marriage is already happening in the United States and could happen in Pennsylvania, is: Why does it matter?

First, Catholic men should consider: What does the Church say about marriage? The Church says that marriage is the intimate union and equal partnership of a man and a woman. It comes to us from the hand of God, who created male and female in his image so that they might become one body and might be fertile and multiply. Marriage is a sacrament. The purpose of marriage is two-fold, both unitive and procreative. The unitive function of marriage offers men and women, as spouses, a good they can have in no other way – a material and complete giving of the self. The procreative function is the order of nature in the transmission of life.

The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent within God’s creative design. Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complementary, they come together in a union that is open to the possibility of new life. Same-sex relationships do not possess this quality of complementarity and they cannot transmit new life.

Realizing the Church’s reasons for opposing same-sex relationships, we can never be party to accepting them and participating in their advancement. Yet if laws are passed that require acceptance of these unions, the Church will not be able to avoid involvement. Laws not only change society, they change the culture and expectations.

For example, when abortion was legalized no one thought that Catholic or other religious institutions would ever have to participate in the procedure. It would just be something that could legally be performed by others who approve and want it. Yet today Catholic institutions have to fight for their religious conscience when rape victims want abortifacients. And when Catholic hospitals merge with secular facilities, they must fend off attempts which would force them to perform a “full range of services” including abortion, in vitro fertilization and sterilization.

Isn’t it likely that the same dilemmas will occur if same-sex marriage or civil unions become the norm? Already in England and Canada Catholic bishops are fighting a law that requires priests to perform same-sex ceremonies. In Boston and San Francisco, Catholic Charities have had to get out of the adoption business because by law they must place children with same-sex couples. In New Jersey, a Methodist church group is going to court to stop the state from forcing it to allow a civil union ceremony on their property.

Even at the secular level, in public schools individuals with religious conscience can come into conflict with new laws. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is now a civil right, children must be taught (in the early grades) that two moms or two dads are the same as a mom and a dad. It has gone so far that a man was arrested because he went to a public school to voice his objection to his child being taught this social engineering concept in an early grade.

The debate regarding the marriage amendment is not just a matter of who should receive legal recognition of particular private relationships. Allowing marriage to be redefined means that other state sanctioned activities will have to be changed to accommodate the new law. In Massachusetts, for example, birth certificates no longer list a “father” and “mother;” they must note “parent A” and “parent B.” In Canada, the Ontario Court recently ruled that a five-year-old boy has two mothers and one father. This would logically mean parent A, parent B and parent C. The societal implications are staggering.

The Effect Upon Children

Beyond our religious beliefs and the legal implications for our institutions is another question. What will this cultural change do to our children and to future generations? We now live in a society that has suffered the consequences of the sexual revolution, the Pill and no-fault divorce. The results are staggering numbers of out-of-wedlock births, high levels of teen pregnancy and over 50% of marriages ending in divorce. With all this we are now considering a new, radical social experiment with unknown and potentially devastating consequences to children, families and society at large.

The great majority of more than 30 years of social science evidence (some suggest more than 10,000 studies) indicate that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. Children who come from intact families with a mother and father, on average, are more likely to: do better in school, graduate from college, achieve better jobs, be healthier, have lower rates of substance abuse, be less aggressive, be less likely to commit crimes, be less likely to experience domestic violence, be less likely to be victims of both sexual and physical abuse, and be less likely to grow up in poverty.

Two women cannot provide a daddy for a little boy – anymore than two men can be complete role models for a little girl. If two people of the same-sex are permitted to marry, society will be forced to ignore the unique value of children being raised by both a mother and a father.

Of course, the ideal situation of a child having both a mother and a father in a stable marriage does not always exist. Many single parents do an exemplary job of raising children and they deserve recognition for the extraordinary sacrifices they make in their daily lives. Some of those parents encounter especially difficult circumstances in raising children, and society has a special obligation to support these families. But supporting such families, as a just and compassionate society must do, is far different than deliberately creating motherless or fatherless families by establishing same-sex unions.

Marriage is much more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large. No-fault divorces, for example, reflected a selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults and it has been, on balance, a disaster.  We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex adult couples.

In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been the norm for a number of years, there has been a marked decrease not only in the rate of same-sex marriages but also in traditional marriages. Marriage as an institution has started to lose its importance. In some areas of Norway, 80 percent of firstborn children are conceived out of wedlock as are 60 percent of subsequent births.

One country, however, which certainly has never been seen as the bastian of conservatism, did a long-term study before it embarked on this social experiment. France undertook a year-long study. The government convened 14 roundtables and commissions, took testimony from many individuals and groups, and studied many countries including the Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain and Belgium. At the end of their inquiry, France determined that the desires and aspirations of adults were not as important as the healthy, development and needs of their youth. The country rejected same-sex marriage. It would seem that conservative Pennsylvania, and the United States for that matter, might learn something in this case from liberal France.

The Effects of a Marriage Protection Amendment

The basic goal of the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is to protect the core element of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It would also prohibit the creation of a legal status that is identical or substantially equivalent to marriage for unmarried persons. It would prohibit “marriage” by another name such as “civil union.” The Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania have said they oppose civil unions because they wish to protect the institution of marriage, not simply the word “marriage.”

The Marriage Protection Amendment would not affect the rights of any private entities to provide their employees with an array of benefits such as health insurance, family leave, etc. The Marriage Protection Amendment would not repeal any already passed laws affecting individual’s rights. It would not prohibit the government from granting unmarried individuals a range of benefits currently provided to married couples such as tax benefits, medical decision-making authority, or family and medical leave.

In most cases the government gives benefits and/or rights to certain groups because these groups do something to help or enhance society. The government provides benefits to married people because they produce and raise citizens. But any person or group can petition elected officials in the government to seek to be afforded benefits/rights in a variety of areas.

The City of Philadelphia and other municipal governments have granted employee health benefits to same-sex couples because, as stated in Philadelphia’s case, it was necessary to compete with private industry for a talented workforce or to encourage economic development. The State Supreme Court ruled that the granting of these specific benefits would not create a legal status that was identical or the functional equivalent of marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment would not change these situations or any future laws as long as those laws do not elevate an unmarried couple to the status of a married couple with all or nearly all of the rights of a married couple.

Can We Succeed In Passing a Marriage Protection Amendment in Pennsylvania?

Because so many Pennsylvanians feel strongly about traditional marriage all across the Commonwealth, this issue has bi-partisan appeal. In the last session of the Pennsylvania legislature, many members of both parties voted in favor of the marriage amendment in the Pennsylvania House. The final vote was 137 to 60. Although the House version was changed in the Senate, time ran out before both versions could be reconciled. Members of both parties privately expressed support for this measure in the Pennsylvania Senate.

Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution is no small task. The same amendatory language must pass two successive sessions of the legislature. Then the amendment goes on a ballot as a referendum for the voters of Pennsylvania to approve. The earliest chance for a referendum vote is 2009.

In order to win, we must be prepared to mount a monumental, well-developed grassroots advocacy effort. This will not be accomplished by professional lobbyists. We need to energize concerned citizens and encourage them to speak up. Most people do not feel this is a real issue that will affect their lives, but we need to have normal constituents understand how important traditional marriage is to the future of their communities.

The “other side” is highly motivated and heavily financed. Now that there are fewer states still engaged in this fight, advocates for same-sex marriage can pool their resources. Pennsylvania will be a target. In Arizona, the only state where a proposed marriage amendment did not succeed, same-sex marriage proponents spent $2.1 million to defeat the measure. The Catholic Conference in Arizona said, “we ran out of money, they put a lot of misinformation out that we didn’t have the money to answer in the media.”

In Pennsylvania, we must be prepared to support a network of manpower to take our message to the streets and meet our opponents in print and on the airwaves.

Concerned Catholics can take action by signing up for the Pennsylvania Catholic Advocacy Network on www.pacatholic.org and sending a message to state legislators urging them to support marriage. You can also work through Pennsylvania for Marriage, www.pa4marriage.org and www.youranswermatters.com. More importantly, personal visits with your local legislators to let them know that their constituents back home want them to protect marriage will be extremely important.

Pennsylvania has the chance to truly shine as the “Keystone State” if she rises to the challenge and preserves our most sacred institution – marriage between one man and one woman.