Archbishop Cordileone backs State Marriage Defense Act
January 15, 2014
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, has expressed strong support for the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, a bill sponsored by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX).
Federal agencies, said Archbishop Cordileone, “have chosen to ignore the law of the state in which people reside in determining whether they are married. The effect, if not the intent, of this choice is to circumvent state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in United States v. Windsor, however, requires the federal government to defer to state marriage law, not disregard it,” the prelate added in his letter to Rep. Weber. “Your bill would remedy this problem by requiring the federal government, consistent with Windsor, to defer to the marriage law of the state in which people actually reside when determining whether they are married for purposes of federal law.”
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
- USCCB Subcommittee Chairman Strongly Endorses State Marriage Defense Act (USCCB)
- Full text of letter (USCCB)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: florentine -
Jan. 15, 2014 8:03 PM ET USA
May God bless and protect Archbishop Cordileone ... it takes a lot of courage to stand up for marriage as union of one man and one woman, and the states' right to protect it in the city of San Francisco.
-
Posted by: Defender -
Jan. 15, 2014 2:46 PM ET USA
This administration has no idea if there is even a 10th Amendment, let alone any others. (Religion, who needs it unless you're the right one? We'll take all the guns! NSA can bug you all they want!) Notice how the Democrats are quick to defend "rights" that don't exist in the Constitution (e.g., abortion, SSM) but not the ones explicitly contained in it?
