A statement by Bishop David A Zubik
Vocation is a call from God to a particular way of life. It is a call that demands a response from every man and woman to freely choose God and his plan for them.
Many men and women are called to married life. Implicit in this call is the practical ramification of how married life is to be lived. Married men and women are called to live for others - spouse and children - to form the very backbone of society. This call to a marriage is a tremendous blessing, as well as a tremendous responsibility.
There have been too many sad trends in recent decades that have eroded the quality of life in America. Few stand out more tragically than the disastrous social penalties paid when we became desensitized as a culture to the sacredness of the marriage vocation. Poverty, crime, drug abuse, despair, hopelessness and loneliness are the inevitable results in a society where marriage and family are not valued.
That marriage has extraordinary cultural impact is as old as humanity. That marriage must be considered truly sacred continues to elude us. We have reached the point of a laissez faire view of marriage, a concerted effort to expand its definition so vaguely that marriage essentially becomes meaningless. At a time when we should be engaged in doing all we can to strengthen marriage, we are facing cultural forces that want to so water down the definition of marriage that it could apply to any human relationship, or to no relationship at all.
We know that in other states where the definition of marriage is not constitutionally protected, the fundamental understanding of marriage has been forcefully redefined by the courts. Legislative statutes such as Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act that define marriage as a fundamental covenant between husband and wife, between one man and one woman - though admirable in their intent - can be thrown out if not clearly and precisely protected in state constitutions.
When the definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman is tossed aside by judicial mandate, legislatures are forced to either adopt "civil unions" as a legal equivalent to marriage, which dilutes even further our understanding of marriage, or abandon the defense of marriage completely, allowing its definition to dissolve in a sea of murky moral equivalency that makes little legal, social and ethical sense.
Very clearly, we need to have a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution that recognizes marriage for what it is: a sacred covenant between husband and wife, between one man and one woman. Without such constitutional protection of marriage, Pennsylvania will find itself in the terrible position of struggling to defend marriage after it has been rendered legally and fundamentally meaningless.
We have seen the results of the devaluation of marriage, of using marriage as a testing lab for various agendas. We need now what is best for children, families and society.
Today in Pennsylvania, we need the Marriage Protection Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment