More Than 100,000 March for Marriage in Puerto Rico

Supporters of traditional marriage are showing up to march all over the world.

Paris saw two enormous marches for marriage this past year. The last one drew close to a million people. Puerto Ricans joined in February 18 when more what media experts estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 people marched for marriage. This is an enormous showing on an island with a population of only 3.5 million.

Despite this, the news coverage outside the religious press was scanty to non-existent.

It’s time for Americans to join in and do our part. The March for Marriage will be March 26, in Washington DC. Be there, or be square.

A CNA article describing the march says in part:

The president of the United Ministry for the Family, Dr. Cesar Vasquez Muniz, said the demonstration came about “in response to threats against marriage and the family.”

The march “is an act to defend our rights and protect children,” he said.

Bishop Daniel Fernandez Torres of Arecibo, who took part in the pro-family march, said that when a society dismantles the traditional family, it is destined for ruin and destruction.

A parallel march organized by gay advocates attracted just hundreds of attendees, according to local media reports.

Puerto Rico’s Senate and House of Representatives are currently debating measures that would legalize gay unions, allow same-sex couples to adopt and change the curriculum relating to gender that is taught in schools.

Organizers of the march said the proposals constitute “a legislative attack against our freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and of religion.”

The passage of these measures would lay the foundation for legal discrimination against the Church and Christians, they said, and would lead to the marginalization of Christian values from the laws that govern the island.

It’s time for Americans to join in and do our part. The March for Marriage will be March 26, in Washington DC. For more information, go here

Be there, or be square.

529037 538385542852704 1861936878 n

  • Dale

    Events in Puerto Rico do not get much coverage in the mainland US press, which is odd considering that Puerto Rico is part of the US (although not a state, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.)

    Last month a similar sized crowd turned out for a march against the proposal to include same-sex couples under domestic violence laws. As Rebecca mentioned, the size of the crowd is astonishing considering the size of the island’s population. Essentially, 5% or more of Puerto Ricans took part in the march! If a similar sized march took place in New York City, drawing only from the population of the metro area, the crowd would be around 1.1 million. I think that percentage speaks to the fervor of belief in Puerto Rico, where 52% of the population attend church services at least once per week.

    The proposed changes reflect a sudden and surprising shift in Puerto Rican politics. However, I am not sure that the change in attitudes of politicians reflects a change in attitudes of the general public. Here is a link to an Associated Press article which provides a small amount of context.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/02/puerto-rico-moves-toward-more-gay-rights-exception-to-hostility-in-caribbean/
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/02/puerto-rico-moves-toward-more-gay-rights-exception-to-hostility-in-caribbean/

  • Paul P.

    A predominently Catholic island protesting for traditional marriage. Didn’t see that one coming.

  • http://jewishcatholicsimplified.blogspot.com/ miriammom

    I’ll be attending!! It’s time to make our voices heard!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bravo!

  • Paul P.

    As with Roe v. Wade, if the Supreme Court rules against California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, then the protests will have no impact on the final outcome. Catholics will be seen as protesting against the constitutional rights of others as with the pro-life demonstrations.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Members of this Court have made statements that sound as if some of them at least are aware that the earlier Court made a huge mistake with Roe v Wade that has done damage to the country. The country is in the process of working this question out for itself. If the Court jumps in with some sort of judicial fiat, I think it would be a mistake. For that reason, it is possible that a march will have an effect on some of the justices.

      As for the idea that people perceive the pro life marchers as being all Catholic and further as protesting against the “constitutional rights of others” I think that opinion may be held by the more committed pro abortion people, but I doubt if it’s held by many others. We have a long tradition of freedom of speech and assembly in the country and I think the marches are viewed through that lens by most of the people. I think a march to preserve traditional marriage is long overdue in this country.

      As for marriage being a “right” that we can stretch like a rubber band as we chose to fit who or whatever we want; that is the question before us with this debate, which you should know Bill.

  • Bill S

    You are quick to complain about First Amendment rights. But you show by your censorship how you would run this country if you were in charge. You can’t even provide freedom of speech on your own blog. How would you ever ensure freedoms to a diverse citizenry? As I said in my very first post: it’s all about freedom.

    I enjoy your articles. You’ve got your finger on the pulse of the struggle between freedom and religious intolerance. I’ll keep trying to add my two cents in a sustainable manner.

    • Dale

      Bill, when I first started exploring blogs I encountered someone who laid out her comment moderating philosophy along these lines: this blog is my home, you are a guest here. I welcome guests to my home, so that we can share thoughts and discuss our concerns. Sometimes we may disagree, but it should be in a manner consistent with being my friend.

      I can’t say that Rebecca follows the exact same philosophy, but I think that is the general idea in the Blog Rules which are posted on the right hand side of every page here. “No name calling. No cursing. No hitting. No spitting.”

      Rebecca makes clear in those rules that she will not accept repeated attacks on the Church, on Christianity or on Christ. I think her position is well in line with a common view among bloggers: if a commenter has an agenda to push, they should start their own blog, not hijack the comments section.

    • Ted Seeber

      You just described why I am a bit of a distributist who distrusts large government. I think diversity is a mistake. The only way to achieve community instead of chaos that diversity causes, is to have *small* governments- geographically and population small.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X