cf. the somewhat Blanshardian recently proposed 28^th Amendment to the Constitution of 🇺🇸:

28th Amendment
Restoring Voting Sanity

Section 1
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2
The nineteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 3
The twenty sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 4
Only those men, who can trace their citizenship to at least two generations, and who are in natural undissolved original marriages and only those blessed with natural issue shall be eligible to vote in any election in the States, territories, or possessions of the United States.

Section 5
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Clergy and religious brothers would be disqualified from franchise under this prposed amendment. No thanks!

Still would be better than what is in place now. 

It would take a long time to get any traction if it even leaves any committee. There's been 17 amendments (after the Bill of Rights) in almost 250 years, and expecting Congress to do anything will take another 250 years.

True, but the proposed 28th Amendment is still a stand-your-ground counterpoint, even if only as an argument rather than an actual law, to the attempted revival of the Lilith-inspired "Equal Rights" Amendment.

What would be more effective for the souls of Catholics, especially the young adults and young families, would be to relocate into and/or establish small communities where they could agree to live as if the common basis for decision making did indeed operate according to that proposed amendment. Of course, the particulars are easier said than done. Still, it's a worthy goal, I think. (At least in the opinion of this old lady for whom the odds are slim of ever seeing the earthly fruits of such an effort anyway.)

I don't agree with Section 4.  Widowers can't vote?  The barren can't vote?  Those who aren't generationally pure can't vote?  What kind of jooish nonsense is this?

Clergy and religious brothers would be disqualified from franchise under this prposed amendment. No thanks!

Just as they were when the criterion was landownership.

I don't agree with Section 4.  Widowers can't vote?

It allows them to, if they have descendants.

.

Yeah, I was just thinking this. The rules in the beginning of this country allowed only men who owned property to vote. I think that is a better approach than what is done here. Owning property is a better sign of responsibility, frugality, and stability than marriage and children, since anyone can get married and have children but not everyone can buy property. Not that the idea here is bad either, though; I'd be happy with either one, but the property requirement seems more effective.

Exactly.  A closet queer in a fake marriage who manages to produce offspring could vote but a virtuous Catholic man who has neither wife nor children can't.  Likewise with a 3rd generation musloid....this is anti-Catholic legislation.  I must be missing something here.

one man + one woman in a lifelong binding contract

It's not in the amendment--what make you think any government judge in the U.S. would accept this definition?