Discussions continued today in the U.S. Senate on the need for a federal marriage amendment; a vote is expected later in the week.  Catholic League president William Donohue urged support for the amendment today:

“No society in all of human history, up until very recently, has ever given a second thought to the propriety of two men getting married.  Indeed, it was considered so taboo that only the deranged would voice such nonsense.  Sadly, things have changed.  There is a small band of mostly well-educated white people who think that the wisdom of the ages is all wrong about this matter.  Remarkably, it does not give these people pause to note that there are very few aspects of culture that are this universally embraced—encompassing all of Western and Eastern civilizations from time immemorial.

“The question for most Americans is not whether we should sanction gay marriage—they haven’t lost their senses—but whether a constitutional amendment is the right remedy.  It is the position of the Catholic League that such an amendment is indeed required.

“We need the amendment because those who support homosexual marriage have already proven to be ruthless in the pursuit of their goal.  To be explicit, more than a few judges have shown nothing but contempt for the democratic process by sanctioning gay marriages.  Because these judges have arrogated to themselves powers nowhere found in law, they must be stopped.  Unfortunately, there are so many of these despotic judges in the states that nothing less than a constitutional amendment will work.  That is why we urge every senator to affirm the traditional understanding of marriage by supporting this amendment.”

On Sunday, the Dubuque, Iowa Telegraph Herald printed an interview with Senator John Kerry.  When asked about abortion, Kerry responded, “I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist… who doesn’t share it.”

Commenting on Senator Kerry’s remark is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“It is morally outrageous and ethically indefensible for Senator Kerry to publicly acknowledge that life begins at conception, and then state that he is prepared to do absolutely nothing to safeguard innocent human life at every stage of development.  He cannot have it both ways; if life begins at conception, then the newly formed human being is entitled to the full panoply of rights afforded all Americans.  The time has come for Senator Kerry to follow the logic of his biological observation and rethink his position on abortion.  In any event, this is one issue he cannot flip-flop on without crashing.”

On July 6, the Senate will hold a six-hour discussion on the nomination of J. Leon Holmes to the federal bench; a vote will follow.  Holmes was nominated by President George W. Bush over a year ago to be a district judge for the eastern district of Arkansas.  His nomination has been held up by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Catholic League president William Donohue urged the committee to vote for Holmes on the basis of his qualifications:

“Senator Patrick Leahy jumped down the throat of Vice President Dick Cheney this week for allegedly being tagged an anti-Catholic by some Republicans; the vice president then denounced Leahy with an obscenity.  What continues to irritate Leahy is the fact that he, along with his fellow Catholic pro-abortion colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, have been criticized for subjecting pro-life Catholics like Leon Holmes to a de facto religious test.  To be specific, when Holmes was considered for the federal bench last year, Leahy, Durbin and Kennedy, along with non-Catholics like Chuck Schumer, ganged up on Holmes because of his orthodox Catholic beliefs.

“When this issue first arose, the Catholic League made it clear that we were not accusing any senator of being anti-Catholic.  But we hastened to add that religious profiling, even when indirectly invoked, was anathema.  In the case of Leon Holmes, some of the Democrats are upset with a biblical remark the judge previously made about gender roles.  They would have been on more persuasive grounds had they been able to point to a single instance when the private religious beliefs of Holmes had unfairly colored his ability to render a fair judgment.  Their failure to do so speaks volumes.

“If Leahy and company want to rid themselves of the charge that they have made it all but impossible for orthodox Catholics to get on the federal bench, they have a grand opportunity on Tuesday to do just that.  They can vote for Holmes on the basis of his credentials, and nothing more.”