参议院在进行同性恋婚姻的立法，通过后为将来各种奇葩婚姻铺平道路
具体就是只要一个州立法承认某种婚姻（同性，多人，人畜, 等等），联邦必须承认。
请大家写信给你的参议员，表达反对意见。参议院需要10张共和党票才能通过，所以如果你的参议员是共和党，请务必行动起来。下面的连接有现成的模板和连接，只要填写地址就能送达你的参议员。
中文报道：
一封反对信：
Dear Senator:
As chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I am writing on the committee’s behalf to express our concerns about H.R. 8404, the “Respect for Marriage Act.” I urge you to oppose this bill should it be considered for a vote in the Senate.
作為美國天主教主教會議平信徒、婚姻、家庭生活和青年委員會主席，我代表委員會起笔寫这封信来表達我們對H.R.8404"尊重婚姻法"的擔憂。如果它被考慮在參議院進行投票，我敦促你反對這項法案。
It is not lost on us that this bill comes in apparent response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which returned to the people the right to protect preborn children and their mothers from abortion.
我們不是不知道，這項法案顯然是對美國最高法院最近在Dobbs v. Jackson婦女健康組織案中的裁決的回應，該裁決將保護早產兒及其母親免於墮胎的權利歸還給人民。
It is unfortunate that Congress has not responded with a meaningful effort to help women in need with unexpected or difficult pregnancies. Rather, it is advancing an unnecessary bill to create a statutory right to same-sex civil marriage, which some claim is threatened by Dobbs, even though the Supreme Court’s majority was explicit in its Dobbs holding that the decision had no bearing on the issue. There is also a question as to whether H.R. 8404 would grant federal recognition to civil marriages of more than two people performed in any state that would allow for them.
不幸的是，國會至今沒有做出任何有意義的努力來帮助在意外或危難的懷孕中有需要的婦女。相反，它却提出一項完全不必要的法案，以建立同性公證婚姻的法定權利。儘管最高法院的多數意見在其Dobbs案中明確表示，該決定與該問題無關，有些人仍聲稱這受到Dobbs的威脅。還有一個更严重的問題是，只要有任何一州允許進行多人婚姻，H.R. 8404可能會要求聯邦給予承認。
People who experience same-sex attraction should be treated with the same respect and compassion as anyone, on account of their human dignity, and never be subject to unjust discrimination. It was never discrimination, however, to simply maintain that an inherent aspect of the definition of marriage itself is the complementarity between the two sexes. Marriage as a lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman, and open to new life, is not just a religious ideal – it is, on the whole, what is best for society in a concrete sense, especially for children.
我们應該對待同性恋像對待其他任何人一樣，出于人的尊嚴，同性恋應該得到同樣的尊重和同情，任何时候都不应受到不公正的歧視。然而，婚姻中兩性之間的互補性是其定義本身的一個固有性质，認定这一点從來都不是歧視。婚姻是一男一女的終生、排他性結合，對新生活持開放態度，這不僅僅是一種宗教教条——从社會最基本的意义上来说，它對社會，尤其是對兒童，是最优的。
The health and socioeconomic benefits of stable family life with a mother and a father are well-established, as are the positive outcomes for children raised in such a home.1 This corresponds with Pope Francis’s recognizing children’s right to a mother and a father.2 Echoing this and responding to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, the USCCB president at the time, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, observed: “The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.” Same-sex civil marriage has further diminished the fulfillment of that right, both directly and indirectly as it further disassociates marriage and sexual actions from the responsibilities of childbearing. This, in turn, reinforces existing negative phenomena in our society that have already done so much damage, such as fatherlessness.
有一对父母一起而有穩定的家庭生活，这在健康上和社會經濟上都具有显著的效益，这是社会各界所公認的。事实上，在這種家庭中長大的兒童显现出明显的正面成效.1 這與教皇弗朗西斯承認兒童對母親和父親的權利相一致。當時的USCCB主席約瑟夫·庫爾茨（Joseph Kurtz）大主教在2015年做出霍奇斯的決定說："法律有責任支持每個孩子的基本權利，那就是在可能的情況下由已婚母親和父親在穩定的家中接受撫養。“ 同性婚姻直接或間接得進一步削弱了這一權利的實現，因為它進一步使婚姻和性行為與生养教育的責任脱节。這反過來又強化了我們社會中現有的負面現象，例如無父家庭，這些現象已經造成了如此大的破壞。
Advocates for marriage redefinition claimed it was a matter of “live and let live.” Yet governments continue to use marriage redefinition laws to threaten the conscience and religious freedom of individuals such as wedding vendors, and entities such as foster care and other social service providers, who seek to serve their communities without being punished for their longstanding and well-founded beliefs. This bill would lend weight to those efforts and further marginalize millions of “reasonable and sincere people.”4
婚姻重新定義的宣導者聲稱這是一個「自己生活也讓别人生活」的問題。然而，政府繼續利用婚姻重新定義法來威脅個人的良知和宗教自由，如婚禮供應商，以及寄養和其他社會服務提供者等實體，他們尋求為社區服務，而不會因其長期和有根據的信仰而受到懲罰。該法案將為這些努力增添分量，並進一步邊緣化數百萬"理性和真誠的人"。4
The “Respect for Marriage Act,” would do the opposite of what its name implies, codifying a demand for states and the federal government to honor whatever may be deemed “marriage” by any other state. The concern that the bill could require federal recognition of “marriages” of more than two persons is not far-fetched, as at least three cities in Massachusetts have already legally enshrined so-called polyamorous domestic partnerships. By making federal recognition of such relationships automatic upon their recognition by any state, the bill would create a massive incentive for radical activists to concentrate their efforts in a single state – further lending plausibility to this potentially disastrous scenario. For all of these reasons, I must urge you to vote “no” on this measure.
"尊重婚姻法"將與其名稱的含義相反，將州和聯邦政府的要求制成成法律，以承认任何其他州可能被視為"婚姻"的任何內容。該法案可能要求聯邦政府承認兩人以上「婚姻」的擔憂並不牽強，因為馬薩諸塞州至少有三個城市已經在法律上規定了所謂的多角戀家庭伴侶關係。通過使聯邦政府在任何州承認這些關係時自動承認它們，該法案將促动激進活動家將精力集中在一個州以制造全国性的巨大影响。 進一步為這種潛在的災難性情況提供可行性。出於所有這些原因，我必須敦促你對這項措施投反對票。
Thank you for the opportunity to articulate our concerns in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church and considerations for the common good. I pray for you as we all work together toward a more just society where families are well supported and empowered to welcome all children.
感謝你們給我这个機會，根據天主教會的教導和對社会共同利益的考量，来闡明我們的關切。我為你們祈禱，因為我們都出于共同愿望和努力来建立一個更加公正的社會，在這個社會中，家庭能得到良好的支持和能力来迎接我们的下一代。