by Doris Cipolla

The Marriage Protection Amendment is tabled, but not dead. It wll emerge again. We need to be vigilant and alert to stop this direct assault to our Constitution.

Al Quaida could not have created a better weapon than the Marriage Protection Amendment to destroy our American democracy. The Marriage Amendment is much larger than a “gay issue.” The more serious matter is one of inserting prejudice and discrimination into our Commonwealth Constitution; moreover, amending a particular religious definition of marriage in our civil document is of grave concern.

The proponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment encourage its adoption to our constitution because twenty-seven other states have done so. Twenty-seven states have assaulted and violated a minority group of their citizens with discrimination and second-class status and Pennsylvania should follow suit? This kind of reasoning is frightening. Perhaps then “might does make right?”

“Majority rule” may be acceptable in certain instances such as when addressing issues such as banking or transportation codes, but never for trafficking in human rights and minority discrimination. Lobbying for this purpose is unconscionable. Issues of this nature should be treated judiciously under the “rule of law.” To apply majority rule concerning human rights and discrimination violates and endangers everyone’s rights. Obviously, no one’s rights would be protected. With such reasoning, even slavery could be reinstituted against any group of individuals constituting a minority.

Only the rule of law can protect us when we stand alone against those who disagree with us, or fear us, or do not like us because we are different, provided the rule protects all of us, not just some of us. The very essence of a constitution provides protection for both the majority and the minority. The shielding of minorities in a plural society is integral for that society and its citizens to coexist peacefully. Anything less erodes into divisiveness and sectarianism, and breeds civil clashes.

Moreover, to use an amendment to put a religious definition of marriage into our constitution is a direct violation of that constitution and of the separation of church and state. This amendment has been initiated and supported by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as by various evangelical and fundamentalist religious groups. In America, the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is under God, not “under church/churches” whose members interpret their “God” according to their beliefs and established codes of behavior.

Therefore, to pledge allegiance under Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., first and to America second shakes the very foundation of our democracy. Individuals may give such allegiance, but elected legislators must not do so if they are to uphold their oath to our constitution. They may do so in their personal lives but in their elected legislative capacity their first obligation and responsibility is to the Constitution.

The Tom DeLays who boast of having placed “their religion” in “their government” directly attack our Constitution and democratic ideals. The Mike Huckabees who promise to amend the Constitution if elected President do the same.

Legislators can pledge “under God” only if their God is a universal God, not the “God” of any particular church or religion. The Marriage Amendment would create a precedent that weakens and opens the Constitution to amendment by any powerful religious group or groups to use the Constitution for whatever beliefs/interests it pursues.

Thomas Jefferson was so concerned about keeping religion out of politics that he wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. It states that God has granted individuals freedom of conscience in religious matters and any attempt to limit or restrict it is wrong. Jefferson asserts that the rights described in the Constitution are the natural rights of man. He states that to repeal or narrow an act is “an infringement of natural right.”

For those who do not recognize the dangers of allowing matters of religious beliefs to permeate the law, let them be reminded of the time when interracial marriages were illegal, women were denied the right to vote, blacks were denied civil rights, women and children were denied protection by the law, married individuals were denied divorce and witches were burned at the stake. Throughout history individuals have suffered under institutional religions and their beliefs—beliefs that supported slavery, apartheid, segregation, and even opposition to the Magna Carta.

The state guarantees freedom of religion. If any religion contains the teaching that same-sex unions are sinful, abominable, or repugnant, let it be so. I simply request that those religious leaders and followers not impose that belief beyond their church and do not try to enshrine it in our civil laws and constitution.

Those bishops and religious leaders who encourage this amendment would have one believe that same-sex couples are trying to steal or diminish their doctrinal beliefs of the sacrament of Matrimony. This is untrue. It is a ploy by these church leaders to incite parishioners, who would otherwise not discriminate against same-sex unions, to lobby for the marriage amendment. After all, that sacramental rite belongs to those institutions; however, those institutions have no right to demand the state to deny civil unions. The state’s obligation is one of equality for all its citizens. This is not a theocracy.

This amendment has been deceptively designed to appear an innocuous statement to protect marriage. When, in fact, it is a mean spirited amendment to keep gay and lesbian citizens in the “closets” of second class citizenship and deny them the legal protections and rights afforded married couples. .

Opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment will safeguard the Constitution of our Commonwealth. Let us not allow any oppressed citizenry in a self -declared free country. Only by protecting the rights of others can we insure the protection of our own rights.

Although the amendment is presently tabled, please keep encouraging your local senator and representative to oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment. To do otherwise would set a dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences and threaten the very foundation of our democratic ideals.

Doris Cipolla