Sinkford Lobbies House of Representatives on Marriage Amendment
 |
| The Rev. William G. Sinkford spoke to a briefing of
House staff and representatives in Washington, DC, on July 11 to express
opposition to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. |
(July 12 - Washington, DC) UUA President William G. Sinkford was one of five religious leaders who yesterday called on members of the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Sinkford participated in a morning briefing for staff from the House of Representatives on the role of religious liberty in the U.S. Constitution and other issues raised by the proposed amendment. As the only denominational president at the morning briefing, Rev. Sinkford gave the concluding speech. Speaking to a packed room of Congressional staff, Sinkford drew on both the historic role of Unitarian Universalism and on his own personal experience:
"Within Unitarian Universalism, we know from our own experience the many blessings that gay and lesbian people bring to our congregations and communities. We know from our lived experience in religious community that differences of faith, of race and of sexual orientation need not divide us, that diversity within the human family can be a blessing and not a curse. Unitarian Universalists affirm that it is the presence of love and commitment that we value. For Unitarian Universalists, it is homophobia that is the sin, not homosexuality. Unitarian Universalists Stand on the Side of Love...
"I ask you: what does this amendment do to help couples that are struggling, more likely than not, with financial problems? What does this amendment do to help families who can't find housing or health insurance, for people struggling with addiction? Would this amendment do anything—any single thing—other than discriminate against a group of deserving families, singling them out as worthy of less support than other families? No. The result of passing this amendment would be discrimination. It would be the creation of second-class citizenship, which is something I know a little about.
"As an African American living in the United States, I know all too well what second-class citizenship can feel like. It was not so long ago that Congress and the Courts were deciding what rights I should have. Without the just application of law to all people, regardless of race, I might still be drinking from segregated fountains rather than serving as the first black President of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Were it not for the Supreme Court's 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia—so aptly named—I might not been able to marry my wife, who is white. Imagine what would have happened if, later in 1967, the U.S. had approved a Constitutional Amendment banning interracial marriage? Imagine how destructive that would have been for our nation, if, rather than accepting the Court's decision, we had written a whole group of people out of our Constitution, simply for loving people of a different skin color? Simply because of our prejudice?..."
In closing, Rev. Sinkford made clear the hypocrisy of the upcoming vote in Congress on this issue:
"...No one expects this amendment to pass, because its consideration is not about what the amendment says, but what it does: scapegoat a group of American families in the service of electoral politics. And while some Representatives may see this as a free vote, without consequences, I see it differently. I see it not as a free vote, but a vote about freedom. A vote that requires Representatives to choose which side to stand on—the side of rashly amending the Constitution for electoral gain, or the side of upholding the integrity of the Constitution and the dignity of all Americans. I urge you to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."
Following the morning briefing, Rev. Sinkford participated in a private meeting with more than twenty members of the House of Representatives to discuss religious opposition to the amendment.
"I felt it was a very productive meeting," said Sinkford. "Several members said that they had learned important things that affected their views on the amendment. Hearing religious arguments from religious leaders was particularly important." Sinkford also noted that the concerns he expressed in Washington over a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment extend to the actions of Massachusetts legislators, who today will vote in a Constitutional Convention on whether to permit state voters to decide to amend the state constitution to end marriage equality in that state.
A vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Federal Marriage Amendment is expected during the week of July 17. The UUA Washington Office for Advocacy is encouraging interested Unitarian Universalists to participate in a national call-in day against the amendment on Monday, July 17. Half-page flyers  with background information and talking points are available online.
For all the resources from the UUA's "Standing on the Side of Love 2006: No Discrimination in the Constitution" Campaign, including one-page background flyers, talking points, and the UUA's official letter of opposition, visit the online campaign headquarters  .
Freedom to Marry, for All People
| 
