Tykes Left Fending for Themselves
We returned home to unboard the windows, put out the lawn furniture and tried to achieve some semblance of normalcy in our lives. But then the pictures began to appear of the damage done to our fellow Texans in East Texas and to the residents of Southwestern Louisiana and somehow the shock and horror of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina coalesced with that of Rita so that the month of September seemed to be one continuous experience of trauma, trauma unrelieved by any comic relief, even though one cynical commentator did say on television that at least for a few weeks we were spared having to look at Cindy Sheehan every night on the evening news.
As bad as the flooding was in New Orleans and as bad as the physical damage done to homes and businesses, the aspect of the tragedy that held us spellbound as we watched the televised scenes from New Orleans, was the human suffering of the poor people. Can we ever forget the scenes of people being rescued from rooftops and trees? Can we ever forget the scenes of horror we witnessed in the Superdome or the Convention Center?
Indelibly imprinted in my memory are the scenes of all the people stranded on the elevated portion of I-10 close to the Superdome. They remained there day after day in the broiling sun without food or water or shelter. One of the scenes I will never forget was the interview conducted by Fox News Reporter Shepherd Smith. Smith and his cameraman were approached by a six-year-old boy walking along the elevated interstate. The boy was holding a 5-month-old child and was surrounded by 5 toddlers who followed him as if he were their leader. They were holding hands. Three of the children were about two years old, and one was wearing only diapers. A three-year-old girl, who wore colorful barrettes on the ends of her braids, had her 14-month-old brother in tow. The 6-year-old boy spoke for all of them and when asked, he told Smith that his name was Deamonte Love. When Smith asked if he knew where his parents or other members of his family were, the boy answered simply “no” without any trace of emotion.
In the following days we saw other children wandering around looking for other members of their families. The number of children who seemed lost for the moment, for the day, for the week or longer was a true indication of the horror of what was unfolding in New Orleans.
Those scenes were not repeated in Texas following Hurricane Rita's assault on Beaumont and Port Arthur. Why? Without wishing to appear to be boasting, credit must be given to the state and local authorities in Texas who prepared carefully for Hurricane Rita, following emergency plans prepared well in advance of the storm and implemented effectively. The Rita response, combined with the extraordinary response in Texas to the needs of Katrina's victims, should make all of us proud of what was accomplished in our city and state.
I believe that it is legitimate to ask the question, why were there such a seemingly disproportionate number of children lost or abandoned in the immediate aftermath of Katrina's arrival over New Orleans? Part of the answer surely lies in the manner in which many people were rescued by helicopter. Separation of members of a family was almost inevitable during such a rescue effort. But even allowing for that factor, why were there so many children lost or abandoned for days on end?
I do not have statistical evidence, only anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that the fundamental reason was because of the social character of the poor in New Orleans. In those families in which there was a mother and a father, strong family bonds were in evidence as parents clung to their children. But I suspect that they were in the minority. Too many of the children belonged to single-parent households. Too many children had neither parent but were instead being brought up by grandparents or other relatives.
The poor of New Orleans in the last half of the 20th century, when compared with the rest of our nation, were probably disproportionately affected by the drug culture, crime, AIDS, divorce, and the sexual revolution which has produced so many children born out of wedlock. The poor quality of family life or even the non-existence of traditional family life was a problem of the poor of New Orleans which contributed to the suffering of so many children.
Family Must Never Be Undermined by Law
Lest we feel comfortably smug in the realization that we are so much better off in that regard than the poor of New Orleans, let me quote from the annual World Message of Peace that Pope John Paul the Great addressed to the world at the beginning of this year. The Pope said,
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 challenges 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.
Pope John Paul the Great was undoubtedly thinking of Canada when he wrote that message. Canada has legalized same-sex “marriage.” He was probably also thinking of Spain and Germany, because in those countries there are plans to enact laws recognizing same-sex “marriages.” But most of all, the pope must have been thinking about the Netherlands.
The Netherlands was the first country in the world to recognize same-sex partnerships. In 1998, registered partnerships, or civil unions, were introduced into law. Marriage and adoption was opened to same-sex couples in 2001.
On September 30, the Netherlands legalized polygamy in all but name, granting a civil union to a man and two women. This follows the announcement by the Netherland's government this week that rules will soon be promulgated for the euthanizing of children. I can think of no better example of how when one sets foot on a slippery slope one soon ends at the bottom.
But surely Pope John Paul the Great must also have been thinking of our United States when he issued his World Day of Peace Message, for we are witnessing an intense period of attack upon traditional marriage from gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups throughout America. The 2000 census showed 600,000 same-sex couples in the nation, while the 1990 census found 150,000 same-sex couples. As the number of same-sex couples increases in the United States, the pressure has built for the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages.
So far, only the state of Massachusetts has by judicial fiat granted legal marriage status to same-sex unions. More than 6,100 gay and lesbian couples have “wed” since May 2004 in that state.
The only way that traditional marriage between a man and a woman can be protected is through the enactment of an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage in that manner. In 2004 President Bush called upon Congress to initiate the process of amending the Constitution. On July 14, 2004, 50 Senators (37 Democrats and 13 Republicans) led by Senator Ted Kennedy rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment. The 48 votes in support of the amendment were 19 votes short of the 67-vote majority needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.
The House of Representatives took up the Amendment on September 30, 2004. It received 227 yea votes and 186 nay votes; well short of the 290 yea votes needed for adoption. The failure of Congress to approve the Federal Marriage Amendment left the American people with only one poor alternative: adoption of the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment as an amendment to their state's constitution.
Following the model of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows the states to enact similar legislation, 42 states have enacted state laws, not constitutional amendments, following the Federal model. But since state laws are easily declared unconstitutional by activist judges, some have already been voided by judicial fiat.
Our Only Legal Solution
There is only one solution remaining available to American voters in the absence of an amendment to the United States Constitution, and that is the adoption of an amendment to state constitutions using the wording of the amendment which Congress failed to approve. To date 18 states have passed state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.
Notwithstanding a heated debate during May of this year, the Texas Legislature approved a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution “between one man and one woman.” The people of Texas will have a historic opportunity to vote on this state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 2 in an election which will be held on November 8 of this year. The biggest obstacle this amendment will face is that it is a little-known “Special Constitutional Amendment Election” which does not have state or federal candidates or parties on the ballot. Consequently there is typically only a 7.5 percent voter turnout, perhaps not enough to assure passage of the proposition.
Marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, established not by the state and not by the Church, but by God; as such it must be respected by the laws of a nation. The bishops of Texas and the United States have addressed this issue of marriage and same-sex unions in various documents at the state and national level. There is no lack of appreciation for the prayerful and thoughtful considerations many have given to this issue. The statement of Texas Bishops on the issue says:
Marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation nurturing, education and protection of children.
The defense of marriage must focus primarily on the fundamental importance of marriage for children, families, and society, not on other matters. Support of Proposition 2 should not be motivated by animosity or discrimination toward any group. The Church's teaching about the human dignity of every human person, including homosexuals, is clear. Homosexual persons are to be treated with respect and compassion. Our respect for them means that we must condemn all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse.
All Texans are encouraged to vote on November 8. Responsible citizenship is a virtue and participation in the political process is a moral obligation. All believers are called to a faithful citizenship. It is vital that they become informed, be active and responsive participants in the society in which they live. There should be no separation between one's faith and life in either public or private realms. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to protect children, and one way we do that is to protect the true nature of marriage.
With the images of the children of New Orleans, victims of Hurricane Katrina, still fresh in our minds, and conscious of the breakdown of family life among the poor of New Orleans as one of the contributing causes of the suffering of those children, I urge all Texans to vote on November 8 in favor of Proposition 2.
The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida, D.D., is Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas.
