Archbishop Chaput: “I Support the Marriage March”

Archbishop Charles Chaput has expressed his support for the March for Marriage, asking his priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to “do all you can to promote it in your parish”.

The Archbishop goes on to say, “I realize the march comes at one of the busiest and most solemn times of the year [Holy Week]. But as Catholics we should avail ourselves of opportunities, whenever we can, to witness to the truth about God’s plan for marriage.”

The Archdiocese will be organizing buses for marchers from all five of its districts.

(full disclosure: I’m proudly part of the team organizing the March for Marriage through the National Organization for Marriage.)

Why the March for Marriage?

On March 26th the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Perry case, which will determine if Proposition 8 – the citizens initiative approved by the people of California in 2008 to protect marriage – is constitutional or not.

More importantly, the question of same-sex “marriage” and the right of Americans to protect marriage will be decided. It is imperative that political leaders, the media, and the culture see that we care about protecting marriage enough to stand up and march for it.

Already the March for Marriage has ten co-sponsoring organizations, including, the Manhattan Declaration, Human Life International and the Family Research Council.

If you are interested in learning more about the March for Marriage please check-out these resources (PDFs):

You can also join the March for Marriage on Facebook (up to 1,600 Likes!).

I hope you can join us in Washington, DC on March 26th!

Here is Archbishop Chaput’s letter:

Archbishop Charles Chaput Letter Promoting March for Marriage by americanpapist463



84 thoughts on “Archbishop Chaput: “I Support the Marriage March”

  1. Greg Smith says:

    You know Thomas, I’ve allways felt our Protestant brethren and sisterern were on to something with “WWJD?” I can’t help but believe that if He were on the SCOTUS, He’d reflect on what scripture says about widows and vote that the IRS needs to give Mrs. Windsor her $350,000 back. ~ Pax, Greg

  2. tranxtian says:

    I will pray that people instead volunteer at their local soup kitchen or homeless shelter. They can help someone at those places instead of marching in the streets trying to harm someone. Additionally, at the homeless shelters they will likely meet one of the millions of homeless gay teens that are living on the street becaus they were thrown out of their homes. They will see the discrimination that these young people face.

    I will pray for Chaput to see his error as well.

    1. Xenophon says:

      Tranxtian, don’t lie. There are not millions of homeless gay teens.

      1. Patrick says:

        OK, so how many homeless gay teens are there, smarty-pants?

        1. Patrick says:

          300,000-400,000 is the answer.

          1. Xenophon says:

            Which is a far cry from tranxtian’s exaggerated “millions,” and is itself still probably off by a factor of ten.

          2. Patrick says:

            i stand by my numbers. i’m not giving you my cite just to make you twist in teh wind a little bit and b/c no fact would convince you. go do your own research. then take your “probablys” and go do something positive for the world.

          3. Xenophon says:

            You’re the one that made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I’m not going to do your homework. It’s clear you don’t have any evidence, so you’re just bluffing to cover yourself. Typical lib blowhard.

          4. Patrick says:

            I did my homework. If you dont like my numbers, I don’t care. More importantly, if you give me your zip code I’d be happy to let you know about volunteer opportunities in your area. You should try to do some good in this world.

          5. Xenophon says:

            Ooh, clever argument Patrick. Because I disagree with you, and ask you for proof of your unfounded claims, you automatically assume I am uncharitable, and therefore your argument must be right. I’ll keep my zip code information to myself, thanks.

          6. Patrick says:

            I don’t assume it, I conclude it, based on your participation here. Enjoy your day.

          7. chris scanlan says:

            Accurate facts make the best case in any argument. There is a need to take care of those that have been cast out of their homes. This is a fact. another fact is that the Catholic Church upholds the dignity of all persons, and that includes those individuals with SSA.
            You are twisting the argument to make a point for separate topic (thought related).

            The point remains that
            1) fornication outside the sacrament of marriage is harmful to those parties involved.
            2)sacrament of marriage is between one man and one woman.
            3) A Civil union is not the sacrament of marriages and does not replace the sacrament of marriage.
            4) We should act charitably towards those that wish the benefits of marriage.

            Now we can argue about whether those individuals with SSA should be extended the legal benefits that is offered to those couples in a marriage. But that will open up a new topic to discuss.

            As far as homeless teens that were cast out of their homes, it is our duty to care for them as Catholics. I think we can all agree on that.

          8. tranxtian says:

            I think we can. How is marching against gay teens and their right to be treated with equality under our laws “caring” for them? When they see hundreds or thousands of Americans marching for them to be treated as second class citizens and excluded from legal protections, do you think that will make their lives better?

          9. chris scanlan says:

            I had replied, but for some reason it didn’t post. I won’t try and recreate it.

            In short, the march is about defending marriage. not caring for the outcast, and its not about going against anyone. I don’t know where you get those ideas. And I certainly don’t understand why you are spreading that idea around when you know its not true.

          10. Patrick says:

            Preventing gay people from accessing civil marriage will not protect your marriage any more than opposing the 19th Amendment would have protected voting.

          11. abadilla says:

            “I had replied, but for some reason it didn’t post. I won’t try and recreate it.”
            The same has happened to me but it was explained that I wasn’t banned. It is a defect of the system but folks like Tanxtian and Frantastic1 seem to always manage to appear on the pages of CV. Go figure!

          12. abadilla says:

            My heart bleeds! You are causing more damage to those kids with your unadulterated propaganda than any Catholic bishop would!

          13. Patrick says:

            I’m not twisting the argument: the argument is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, yet, the letter immediately conflates the 2. Read it.
            Also, saying “individuals with SSA” paints you as a person who believes that gay people are sick or suffering from some kind of malady. Science disagrees with that. More importantly, most of society disagrees with that and draws unkind conclusions about people who use that phrase.
            And your first numbered point is shocking in its assumptions. I can tell you from personal experience that its not harmful.

          14. Xenophon says:

            Chris Scanlan’s first numbered point is not at all shocking, at least for Catholics (this is a Catholic website, you know). Fornication is a mortal sin, which if left unrepented will lead to eternal damnation. It doesn’t get more harmful than that.

          15. chris scanlan says:

            Thanks :) you’ve said it better than I could have.

          16. Patrick says:

            Mortal sin and eternal damnation are no more relevant to a discussion of
            civil law than baptism is. Those are very specific religious concepts that do not, and should not, influence our civil laws. It seems you are, like your
            bishop, unable or unwilling to allow Americans to be Americans. Need we be Catholics as well?

          17. Xenophon says:

            Patrick, what makes you think you know who my bishop is? So far you’ve succeeded in filling this combox with multiple instances of blatant ignorance and anti-Catholic bigotry. I would think you would have learned to back away quietly by now.

            And yes, in addition to being an American, you should indeed be a Catholic as well. I wouldn’t be a good Catholic myself if I didn’t think it would do you a world of good. I will pray for precisely that.

          18. Patrick says:

            He’s your bishop in the sense that he’s a RC bishop, you fool. or do you think the locale of your residence matters when it comes to what a bishop proclaims as regards doctrine?
            Ignorance? Name ONE instance. I might disagree with you, but i’m learned and thoughtful. And anti-Catholic bigotry? Bah! Try “pro-American values.” It’s nice to see where your civil loyalties lie. You should move to Saudi Arabia if you want a theocracy.

          19. Xenophon says:

            Actually, friend Patrick, when you say “it’s nice to see where your civil loyalties lie,” that’s probably the first intelligent thing you’ve said on this site. I applaud your perspicacity. I am indeed proud to be a Christian first, and an American second, but the loyalties are by no means mutually exclusive. It’s no coincidence that my being first a Christian makes me a better American.

          20. Patrick says:

            First, the radical Christian right have valid arguments against gay civil marriage. Please use them. But you blow it when you call marriage sodomy. Americans close their ears when you condemn what men and women do in the privacy of their bedrooms. (And yes, protecting what men and women do in the privacy of their bedrooms IS an pro-American value). So, that’s one tip for you — I mean, it’s only a fair fight, if you bring your best game. Please try to do that.

            Secondly, I disagree with you. When you proudly say that your own religious zealotry trumps your neighbors’ civil. rights you are living in the wrong country. Gays can’t have marriage because God gave it to you? I’ve heard your religious zealot argument before: the Palestinians can’t have the Holy Land because God gave it to the Jews. My religious zealotry trumps my neighbor’s civil rights is contrary to American values.

          21. Xenophon says:

            Patrick, please don’t tell me I’m going to have to explain sodomy to you. I feel stupider just thinking about having to do that. You see, you can’t randomly change the age-old definition of a word just to match your deviancy-of-the-day. Sodomy is sodomy, and merely acquiring a fake “marriage” certificate does not alter that fact–it only devalues the certificate. It’s like a counterfeit $20 bill, which purports to represent a value, but is only a fraud, and by the fact of its very existence, it devalues all other $20 bills–even legitimate ones.

          22. Patrick says:

            Actually, the definition of sodomy varies from state to state. Like the definition of marriage. But why are you talking about sodomy in a discussion about civil marriage? And why are you saying that marriage = sodomy? That’s an insult to married people. Marriage isnt sexual contact. Is that really what you think marriage is? No wonder you’re so out of place in this country.
            And your $20 bill analogy is so poor that it operates to support the counterargument!!! To wit: if the law says that X is a valid $20, then X is a $20. And if the law says that X is a valid civil marriage, then X is a civil marriage. Thanks for helping.

          23. Xenophon says:

            But you see, Patrick, I never said marriage is sodomy–you did, throughout this entire post, when you claimed that support for gay “marriage” is a “pro-American value.” I said the opposite. Gay “marriage” is an oxymoron, it is “marriage” based on sodomy, unlike true marriage, and I was trying to explain this to you by pointing out that a “marriage” certificate does not legitimize a homosexual relationship and make it a true marriage any more than calling a counterfeit $20 bill a real one actually makes it a real one (regardless of what a spurious law might say; ever read the history of hyperinflation in pre-WWII Germany? Oh, never mind…). I’m sorry that either your hurt feelings or your willful ignorance prevent you from understanding what I thought was a fairly simple concept. I will try to use simpler words next time so as not to confuse you.

          24. Patrick says:

            1. Nope, you’re the one who brought up sodomy in a discussion of civil marriage. It’s irrelevant. When my wife and engage in certain acts, that’s sodomy. And you don’t need to use simpler words. I write the fine print for a living, so I can read the read fine print quite well.

            2. You’re engaging in only half the analysis. (And the half you’re doing continues to support the argument for gay marriage!! ) To answer your question: if a particulae law says that a black man counts as only 5/8 of a human, then then that black man COUNTS as only 5/8 of a human UNLESS that particular law is unconstitutional.

            Similarly, DOMA says that civil marriage is an arrangement between one man and one woman, and therefore civil marriage IS an arrangement between one man and one woman UNLESS that law is unconsitutional. On that front: See you on March 4th!
            See how our law works? It’s brilliant … and it works!

            (P.S. Your 5/8ths analogy is even weaker than you know, because in using it you equate the word “counts” as a man with the word “is” a man. And those are 2 separate words with 2 separate meanings. You need to think more critically.

          25. abadilla says:

            “When my wife and engage in certain acts, that’s sodomy.”
            Well, thank you for sharing!

          26. abadilla says:

            “you fool.”
            What Patrick, are you beginning to lose it and now you are resorting to name calling?

          27. abadilla says:

            Patrick, to Catholics the teaching of the Church on marriage or any other subject is “ALWAYS” meaningful. Sorry you don’t see it that way.

          28. abadilla says:

            Call it “civil unions,” not marriage because in or outside of the Catholic Church or any other religion “marriage” will always be between a man and a woman, period!

          29. Xenophon says:

            If you want any of these numbers to be taken seriously, you need to cite a reliable and neutral source (i.e., not a homeless gay teen advocacy group). Otherwise one can only assume you’re pulling them out of thin air to support political aims or simply confuse the situation.

      2. tranxtian says:

        I see. We shouldn’t care about homeless gay teens that were kicked out of their homes becuse there are only 300,000 – 400,000 of them in the United States? That’s your point?

        How many homeless gay teens are there in the world? Millions I suspect. We should care about every one of them and not attend hate rallies that seek to foster discrimination against them.

        1. Xenophon says:

          Nope, not my point at all. You’re creating a straw man to attack, and you’re blaming ME for the fact that you are unable to assemble a coherent argument.

          My point is that it serves no one’s interests to present inaccurate or inflated data to support an argument. Exaggerating your numbers simply eliminates your credibility. When you make stuff up, any other arguments you might make, EVEN IF ACCURATE, are immediately called into question, because no one knows whether they can believe you or not. “Millions I suspect” is not a trustworthy argument coming from someone whose other data has already been shown to be blatantly false.

      3. Grisha357 says:

        World wide, maybe there are. BTW, my parish supports a shelter for formerly homeless gay teens.

        1. Frantastic1 says:

          Doubtful. More smoke.

          1. Grisha357 says:

            What is doubtful? A million gay teens world wide or my parish supporting the housing program?

    2. chris scanlan says:

      Yes we should all be spending more time volunteering at local soup kitchens or homeless shelters, but taking time to show support for an issue that is important to you is equally important.
      If all Catholics followed the reality that you wish us to, then no one would ever take to the streets and our voice as a leading voice or morality in this world would not be hear.

      We are called to evangelize and sometimes that means supporting a political issue that can negatively effect the morality of our culture.

      1. chris scanlan says:

        By issue, I mean taking a side that will prevent a negative effect on the morality of the nation. (in case there was confusion)

      2. tranxtian says:

        Discriminating against gays is important?

        1. chris scanlan says:

          Where, in all that was said, did you pull discriminating against gays?? Its about marriage and how it is being weakened to mean nothing more than a lubby dubby social contract. It’s being reduced to fluff with tax benefits. I’d much prefer my marriage to mean something a little more than that.

          1. Frantastic1 says:

            Because the march is about supporting a law that discriminates against gay people. What don’t you understand about that?

          2. chris scanlan says:

            This issue is about marriage and what it means to be married. Its not about folks with SSA though they are apart of this. This is about finally standing up to defend what marriage stands for. We stood by silently when divorce was an issue because wanted to help those women in abusive relationships. but now we see that an unintended consequence is the divorce rate has skyrocketed to almost 50%. Marriage is weakening, and if we wait any longer to defend it, all marriage will be is a contract to get some tax benefits and God will be left on the wayside.

          3. Patrick says:

            Chris, I have OSA. Should I see a doctor about that?

          4. Patrick says:

            Update: Chris, my doctor says that my OSA is a naturally occurring phenomenon in most mammals and that I should go with it.

          5. abadilla says:

            And Tranxtian comes from a family, I’m sure, the family she is now willing to “discriminate” against. Isn’t that rich?

      3. abadilla says:

        You are trying to use reason whith an ideologue who is under the delusion she is a Catholic as she openly attacks the Church in a Catholic forum. She is a gay activist, nothing more. I’m just waiting for the moderators to lower the axe.

    3. abadilla says:

      “I will pray for Chaput to see his error as well.”
      And I wish I can pray for you but an exorcism would be more adequate given your rantings against the leaders of the Church.

  3. hdtex says:

    Well at least it takes the focus off all of those pesky child molestation trails! I’m sure Her Eminence has all those altar boys working overtime pressing her gowns , but which one says”I don’t know a thing about all of those priests diddling young boys behind the sacristy”?

    1. Patrick says:

      With respect, this post doesn’t add to the argument and is unnecessarily offensive.

      1. tranxtian says:

        With respect, the original post is offensive and doesn’t add to the argument either.

      2. hdtex says:

        With respect…go fuck yourself you pedophile enabling child rapist.

        1. Patrick says:

          Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

          1. hdtex says:

            With due respect….go fuck yourself you pedophile enabling child rapist.

          2. abadilla says:

            I hope you report this message to you. No one, and I mean no one, deserves such disrespect.

  4. hdtex says:

    Why not support an anti-divorce rally? An anti-pedophilia rally? Why is it always the gays that the child-raping pedophile enablers vilify? This is getting beyond old. And Catholics wonder why people are leaving their cult in droves.

    1. Xenophon says:

      Actually, the Catholic Church in the US is growing, in a number of indicators, thanks be to God.

      1. tranxtian says:

        Actually it isn’t. Immigration has slowed, and the only reason that the Catholc Church was previously growing in the US was from Hispanic immigrants.

        1. Xenophon says:

          Wrong again, tranxtian. According to the latest report (2011) of the National Council of Churches (not a Catholic-friendly organization, by the way) the number of US Catholics was up .57% over the previous year, to 65.5 million. It was one of the rare increases among the 15 largest ecclesial communities in the US. This is despite the fact that Hispanic immigration has actually fallen considerably in recent years. Worldwide, the Catholic population grew by 15 million (up 1.3%) and the number of priests grew for the 10th straight year (2012 Anuario Pontifico). Diocesan and religious seminaries are also continuing to grow, and many seminaries (such as my local one) are bursting at the seams with seminarians, and engaging in capital fund raising to build more dormitories and facilities.

          The future is very bright indeed for the Catholic Church.

          1. hdtex says:

            YAAAAA! More little children to rape!!!

          2. abadilla says:

            Hi Troll, that’s all you can say because that is the only argument you have against us, right?

        2. abadilla says:

          Gee, is this “Catholic” Tranxtian once more defending church teaching?

      2. hdtex says:

        “God” has nothing to do with you evil pedophile cult. Period.

        1. abadilla says:

          Hey troll, get off your high moral horse, Why do you think you are morally superior to 1.200 million Roman Catholics?

    2. abadilla says:

      “And Catholics wonder why people are leaving their cult in droves.”
      Gee, are you writing about the Church of 1.200 million Catholics. Not bad for “leaving it in droves!”
      As for “cult,” that shows me how much you know about the Catholic Church, but I certainly can spot a troll when I see one.
      Do you have any good arguments about this issue or just insults?

  5. Frantastic1 says:

    From what I am seeing, this looks like a anti-gay rally. It’s not something anyone in the church should endorse. I also think it’s going to be an embarrassment and a liability the next day. Like that rally a few years ago where the guy brought the sign of the two nooses saying it was the solution to gay marriage. Didn’t help anyone’s cause. Hate never does.

    1. tranxtian says:

      Same group throwing this one. Add in the hate group that said gays should be exported, who is now co sponsoring the march. The “got hates f*gs”Westboro Baptist Church will also be in attendance. This march is nothing more than a disgusting excuse to spread some hate and fear against gay people and to get a bunch of prejudiced homophobes together in one place. I can’t remember when a bishop ever called on the faithful of the church to participate in such blatant un-Christian behavior. I hope Chaput just doesn’t know the reality of what this march is. It’s not about marriage, it’s about discriminating against gays.

      1. chris scanlan says:

        The letter says nothing of the sort. I don’t know where you get your information.

        1. abadilla says:

          Of course that’s not what the letter says but when ideology trumps Church teaching, that’s what happens to some folks!

  6. David Hart says:

    What a shock. If it makes you feel good, go for it but it sure isn’t going to make a difference. National marriage equality is inevitable. The simple truth is that your legal argument, “responsible procreation,” is baloney. Regardless of whether gays can marry or not, the same hetero couples are going to crank out no fewer, no more and no different children.

    1. Patrick says:

      I think you’re right. In my opinion, the BEST legal argument against gay marriage (and really the logic of the Church’s argument) is that civil marriage should be a liefelong institution involving 3 or more people. Not 2 people. 3 or more. And those 3 or more people are (1) a man, (2) a woman and (3) their child/children. But we all know that our thousands of marriage laws and laws related to marriage don’t support that arrangement to the exclusion of others and, in fact, that arrangement, is of secondary imprortance. Our laws support the idea that a marriage is, at its core, a joining of 2 people in a committed relationship of mutual care. And frankly, I’m pleased that my laws recognize the value of my civil marriage with my wife, regardless of whether we do now or may ever add children to our family.

    2. abadilla says:

      What a shock that David Hart would speak against the Church in the name of a false sense of equality and openly disagree with a wonderful Archbishop!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.