UU
Perspective on the
The UUA has been one of the most vocal religious groups supporting gay marriage rights. As you may know, several of the people involved in the original Massachusetts suite are active UU members. The UUA has joined the "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry" campaign (www.rcfm.org), and UUA president William G. Sinkford issued a statement opposing the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Gay Marriages. In April, this will be the topic of the "Issues of our Times" evening, and Linda Anderson has agreed to help lead the discussion. We will also sponsor a letter signing campaign opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages at an upcoming Sunday service. The Social Action Committee has the ability to go a step further. We have, by general agreement of the SAC members, submit a joint letter from the UUCC SAC to local newspapers expressing our opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and promoting their legalization within NY State. Linda Anderson has also submitted her own "letter to the editor" on this topic to local papers discussing the UUA position on this matter. Links to additional information, including a copy both the SAC and Rev. Linda Anderson's recent letter to the editor on this topic can be found at the SAC page on the UUCC web site (www.uucckingston.org). You are also invited to participate in the signature collection campaign being sponsored by the "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry" (www.rcfm.org). Freedom to Marry, for all People - A History of UUA Support At the 1996 General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly to call for the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Unitarian Universalist Association has a long-standing and deeply held commitment to support full equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people, going back 33 years to 1970. The Association, through action of its General Assembly and congregational actions, has advocated for nondiscrimination and hate crimes legislation; our ministers have performed ceremonies of union for same-sex couples; and now, the Association directs its attention toward the support for legalized same-sex marriage. Notable among these actions are: * Non-discrimination in ministerial employment, in 1980 * Support of gay and lesbian services of union, in 1984 * Supporting legal equity for gays and lesbians, in 1987 * Opposing legalization of discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, in 1992 * Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples, in 1996. On December 21, 1999, then-UUA President John A. Buehrens wrote to then-Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in support of the Vermont State Supreme court's unanimous decision that Vermont must guarantee the same protection and benefits to gay and lesbian couples that it does for heterosexual couples. In March, 2000, Unitarian Universalist ministers and lay people wee active in giving testimony and providing support for an action taken by the Vermont legislature in April, which established Vermont's landmark Civil Union Bill. On April 11, 2001, seven gay and lesbian couples (including seven Unitarian Universalists) brought suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts Superior Court , asserting that the couples had all been denied marriage licenses and seeking to gain the legal recognition "that same-sex couples -- whose relationships are as loving and as committed as those of heterosexual couples -- have an equal right to civil marriage." On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and gave the state of Massachusetts six months to remedy the situation. We should note that this case is named after one of the plaintiffs, Hillary Goodridge. who is currently the Program Director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program which gives away just under $1 million each year to denominational and social service and justice programs across the country. UUA president William G. Sinkford's Statement In response to yesterday's announcement that President Bush will back a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-gender marriage, UUA president William G. Sinkford issued the following statement: "Amending the United States constitution to deny same-gender couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be to enshrine discrimination into the document that provides the foundation for our democracy. While the constitution has been amended in the past, it has never been altered with the express intent to deny equal protection to an entire class of citizens, and now is no time to start. Instead, successive generations of Americans have found new ways to honor the spirit of the constitution by extending its promise to an ever-widening circle of American citizens. The document that granted freedom and full citizenship to African Americans and gave women the right to vote must not be used as a weapon with which to attack the families of our country's gay and lesbian citizens." The UUA has also recently joined an Anti-Federal Marriage Amendment coalition here in DC, which consists of a broad group of civil organizations all opposed to amending the Constitution to promote discrimination. You can expect to hear a great deal more from us! For more information on the UUA's work on civil marriage equality, please visit http://www.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/ Action Alert from the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy President Bush has moved incrementally over six months toward embracing a ban on gay marriage... The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." If you have been thinking about taking action on this, now is the time! If you haven't, please do! Momentum to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (HJ56/ S26) is gaining speed. Energized by the Massachusetts decision and the upcoming elections, Congress is pushing hard to bring the amendment up for a vote. We need to flood our newspapers' editorial pages with letters and op-eds reinforcing our opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Let them know you support marriage equality for same-gender couples, but most especially defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman! The UUA has joined the Anti-Federal Marriage Amendment Coalition. We are now part of a growing group opposed to amending the Constitution to promote discrimination. Whether or not they support same-sex marriage, these groups see this as a civil rights issue requiring immediate attention. Additionally, other groups view it as an issue of religious liberty, separation of church and state, and/or states' rights. This is an arena of public policy in which Unitarian Universalists can have a HUGE impact. While many religious people in the United States support marriage equality, there are very few denominations that have official policy to that effect, or enough supporters in a given congregation to take collective action. While there is by no means universal support among UUs for gay marriage, we are one of the only faith groups that has the potential to really mobilize at the institutional level. If we take this opportunity seriously, and really work to organize religious support for marriage equality, we could very well tip the balance. On behalf of the Rev. Meg Riley, Rob Keithan, and the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy, I hope that you'll choose to take action. What we can accomplish together is so much greater than what we can curse alone. Civil marriage is a civil right! In Faith, Kierstin Homblette, Legislative Assistant UUA Washington Office for Advocacy ACTION: Write a letter to your local newspaper. Identify yourself as a person of faith (or religious person, etc) belonging to <name of your congregation>. State clearly in the letter that you oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. ... Better yet, organize a meeting at your congregation to discuss this issue, share your personal beliefs, and then all write letters. Better yet, develop some common talking points and host a letter-writing table on Sunday. Better still, organize a lobby visit to your Members of Congress. An Open Letter to President Bush February 24, 2004 Dear Mr. President, This morning you felt compelled to encourage passage of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being. Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fourteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us. You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knows only that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known. Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church. Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too. I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family. Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss. Sincerely, The Rev. Meg A. Riley Unitarian Universalist Association Washington, DC Lawmakers have responsibility to enlighten their constituents By Aaron R. Payson I have been intrigued of late by responses from a variety of the commonwealth's legislators who have argued, in the days leading up to the Constitutional Convention, that their support for an amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage is in direct proportion to the number of constituents who have urged the same. Some have premised their response saying that it is of such grave concern that it should be put to the people on the ballot. I for one, however, find this kind of response inadequate. We have developed a system of democratic representation and a constitution that from its inception sought to curb the potential tyranny of the majority. It is not with a bit of irony that we might recall such civil sensitivities were a direct result of the religious persecution many had suffered in Europe. In the face of what some suggest is mounting support for a constitutional amendment, I find a lesson from my own religious tradition instructive. In the latter part of the 18th century, the Rev. John Murray set about the Middle Atlantic and New England states preaching a new form of religious piety, then called Universalism, which taught the belief that all people were saved and would eventually be united with their creator. This was in opposition to those who espoused a doctrine of predestination, teaching that only a chosen few were to be saved and the rest were condemned to eternal torment. Rev. Murray, it is not surprising, faced a great deal of opposition from more conservative brethren. Some argued that the sheer number of clergy in opposition to his teachings should tell him something about the falsity of his preaching. In one instance he records this response to such a query. "I have no apprehensions upon this head; someone might have questioned, in the days of Elijah, when he was opposed by eight hundred and fifty prophets: `Do you not tremble to see all these holy and reverend priests on the one side, and you alone on the other? Either they must be wrong, and you right, or you wrong, and they right.' " So in Jerusalem, [Jesus] might have been asked: "Are you not appalled at beholding all the ministers of God, all the rulers of the people, in opposition? Either they must be wrong, and you right, or you wrong and they right; and which, pray, is the most probable!" A more contemporary account might include the majority opposition in many states once to the abolition of slavery, to women's suffrage and civil rights when these were first demanded by those who had been legally marginalized in our commonwealth and nation. The fact that a majority seems to exist is not in and of itself an adequate reason to represent a particular position on any issue. Important also is the need to listen to large silences, to discern whether a pile of letters or a host of e-mails represents a true majority or simply a well-organized lobbying blitz, and ultimately to discern the most constructive way to protect one's entire constituency from systemic oppression. And to admit that one of the roles of public leadership is to educate apparent majorities about their shortsightedness, especially when their actions denigrate the legitimate claims of other citizens to be fully recognized and protected by government. Our forebears were both eloquent and prophetic in the establishment of constitutions that seek to protect all citizens from tyranny, both civil and religious. The operative word here being "all." And as my theological ancestor, John Murray once reminded his followers, all means ALL! The Rev. Aaron R. Payson is the pastor of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester. And Finally... I couldn't resist one last humorous note, though it's only indirectly related to this issue. Last year, shortly after the the Episcopalians ordained their first openly gay bishop (who has appeared in public with his partner), the following letter to the editor appeared in a Tennessee paper: The actions taken by the New
Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am
just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife
Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane
Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard,
and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this
assault on traditional Christian marriage.
|