Important Information for Ministerial Professionals
Talking Points for Religious Professionals in Communicating with
the Media
From Keith Kron, Director of the Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian
and Transgender Concerns:
December 23, 2003
Dear Colleagues,
More than a month has passed since the historic decision by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court to support marriage for all couples.
Unitarian Universalism continues to make our good news known in
the wider world, with our longstanding and lived beliefs in support
of equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people.
The debate continues nationally, and will for a while, around same-gender
marriage.
Some of you have been, or will be, talking to the press and have
asked for a few suggestions about what to say to the media. If
you do make news, let us know ! If you have others to contribute,
please send them to Deborah
Weiner in our Office of Electronic Communication or to
me. Here are are our top three suggestions for having
those conversations in a positive, focused manner:
- This is truly about equality for all people
in the area of civil marriage . No religion will be forced to
marry people. Religions that wish to, like ours, can. But this
action is about providing the same equal protection with equal
access to same-gender couples that married couples now enjoy.
- Unitarian Universalism has been blessed by
over thirty years of experience of working toward equality for
bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender couples .
We have had ministers perform ceremonies of union for over
30 years, and our congregations are richer, better places as
a result. We believe that homophobia is the sin and not homosexuality.
- On
May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘separate but
not equal' was unconstitutional in matters of race . Fifty years later, on May 17, 2004,
same-gender couples will stop being second-class citizens in
Massachusetts and will be equal for the first time in any state
when they will be allowed to marry. This will be a
day of celebration, when justice is served, when love and commitment
are honored, when people of the United States can take pride
in this remarkable and equitable moment in history.
Other things to know:
- In 1948, California became the first state, also
on 4-3 Supreme Court vote, to rule in favor in interracial marriages.
Both that action and the one taken in 2003 by the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court, are about people being able to marry
the person of their choice. Further, in 1967, the US Supreme
Court ruled that interracial marriage should be legal across
the US.
- Seven of the fourteen plaintiffs in the Massachusetts
case brought by GLAD are Unitarian Universalists.
- There are over
1,400 rights that come from being legally married in the eyes
of the government.
- With the divorce rate soaring, it is curious
that none of the divorcing couples ever cites same-gender marriage
as the reason their marriage ended in divorce.
- The Netherlands
has had 2 years of legal marriage for any two same-gender people.
The country still exists and marriage still exists there for
heterosexual people!
- If you do not reside in Massachusetts
and you have same-gender couples in your congregation or area
who ask you about marriage, please ask the couple to check
with www.lambdalegal.org
 or
with the ACLU or a local attorney as well.
- The lead complaint
made by some concerning the Massachusetts decision is the phrase ‘judicial
tyranny' -- saying that the voters should decide this matter.
In two separate polls, by a 5-4 margin, Massachusetts residents
favor same-sex marriage. Additionally, the folks who complained
about judicial tyranny were resoundingly silent the US Supreme Court
decided whose vote counted in the last presidential election.
- The Goodridge decision was about civil marriage, not religious
marriage. Religious institutions are not required to recognize
marriages or perform marriage ceremonies. Nothing changes with
the court decision.
- Religious
faiths should not dictate public policy. John F. Kennedy faced
opposition because he was a Catholic when he ran for president.
That was wrong, and so is the insertion of religious beliefs
into matters of civil rights and liberties.
- Separation of Church
and state is what makes this country great and allows us all
to practice our own religions freely. While some faith
traditions believe unions between same sex couples are immoral,
others do
not. To deny gay and lesbian couples access to both the protections
and responsibilities of marriage is a violation of the establishment
clause of the Constitution and should be viewed as a threat to
freedom on religion.
- Marriage is a gateway to hundreds of important
legal protections. To deny families these protections simply
because they are formed by same-sex couples is cruel and inhumane.
Particularly hard hit are elderly lesbian and gay couples, couples
raising children, and families in crisis.
- The courts have always
played a critical role in history in protecting civil rights
and striking down discrimination. That's exactly what the
SJC did in the Goodridge case. And that's what the Supreme
Court did in
Brown v. Board of Education.
- The Massachusetts Constitution affirms
the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the
creation of second-class citizens. Amending the constitution
would insert discrimination into the constitution which
affirms the equality and liberty of all citizens.
- In Massachusetts,
poll after poll has shown that a majority of voters support
the marriage decision and oppose amending the constitution.
People understand that real people and real families are being
hurt by
being excluded from the protections of marriage.
- Children are
being raised by gay and lesbian parents and, like all children,
need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a
secure, protected family unit. Marriage provides important
safeguards
for parents and their children, such as the ability to make
medical
decisions in emergencies. If their parents are not protected,
these children
do not have the same rights and protections that other children
have.
- For more in-depth information please visit GLAD's site,
http://GLAD.org.
Talking Points From Evan Wolfson, Executive Director, Freedom
to Marry
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did not say "fix
it." The Court said here is what the constitutional command
of equality requires marriage to be ("voluntary union of
two persons," etc. -- the penultimate paragraph). That's
done.
- The Court gave the legislature time to react -- if they wish
-- but regardless the civil marriage licenses must begin to issue
in 180 days, consistent with the above constitutional command.
The legislature may embrace this ruling and take action by changing
the law, or may change
other laws to make adjustments, or may do nothing. Or legislators
may choose to fight equality by trying to amend the constitution
(altering John Adams' charter of liberty, the oldest constitution
in the world, to write discrimination into the document for the
first time ever).
- If they go the route of discrimination, any proposed amendment
must pass in two successive legislatures, then go to the voters
for possible ratification (and current polls show strong majorities
favoring marriage equality, including majorities among women and
men, Catholic voters, voters under 65, etc.). The soonest that
vote can take place is Nov. 2006, by which time the voters will
have had months of firsthand witness that allowing gay couples
to marry helps families and harms no one. Voters will vote with
full information on the reality of marriage equality, not just
a hypothetical and scary right-wing rhetoric.
- Of course, in any discussion, it is important to preface this
explanation by reminding people that this is about love and equality
and the needs of real families; that there is no good reason for
excluding committed couples from civil marriage and the protections
it brings to their loved ones, families, and kids; that there
is a distinction between civil and religious marriage; and that
ending discrimination in marriage will harm no one.
UUA President
Issues Statement on Massachusetts Court Decision in Support
of Same-Sex Marriage (November 18, 2003)
UUA Report
on Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling (November
18, 2003)
Comprehensive
website: Freedom to Marry, for all People
|
