Amendment 2: It's Discrimination, Plain & Simple

Rev. Abhi Janamanchi

October 19, 2008

Introduction:

This weekend, progressive clergy across faiths are standing together to voice their opposition to Amendment 2, the so-called 'marriage protection amendment' which defines marriage as the "legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Unitarian Universalism has a long tradition of speaking to the great moral issues of the day and standing up for freedom, justice, peace, human rights, women's rights, civil rights, marriage equality, and families. As Unitarian Universalists, we have a special mission with families because our concept of family is broader than many faith communities celebrate or honor.

When we look at UU families today, they come in diverse styles and different shapes. We have mothers who work while fathers keep house and fathers who work while mothers keep house and both fathers and mothers working away from home. We have single parents and second marriages bringing children together from unrelated backgrounds. We have gay and lesbian couples and parents and families. We have biracial families and multicultural families. We have interfaith families of many persuasions. We have single person families and extended families. We have people living together in committed relationships, single parents and couples who are adoptive and foster parents. We have grandparents who take care of their grandchildren. We have friends as family and pets as part of our family.

While in the US and around the world, family relationships are defined either by biological relatedness or by adoption, our UU families are increasingly defined by commitment, by covenantal promises, rather than just by legal structures. In our UU congregations, we believe that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to nurture our families and our family values with the rich diversity of families who add love and often new generations to our communities.

Within our own congregation, we know from our own experience the many blessings that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people bring to enrich and enhance our common life. We know from our lived experience in religious community that differences of faith, of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity need not divide us, that diversity within the human family can be a blessing and not a curse. As the Rev. Bill Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, rightly said, "Unitarian Universalists stand on the Side of Love. [For us], it is homophobia that is the sin, not homosexuality."

Our calling as a faith is to bless all that is holy. And what is more holy than the mutual love and commitment between two human beings be they of the same gender or the opposite gender?

Family, Family Values, & Marriage:

I completely agree with the proponents of this amendment that marriage and family are important. A strong family can help stabilize and strengthen society. Healthy families produce healthy citizens who then create and sustain healthy societies.

I also agree with them that American families today are facing serious threats to their stability. Statistics show that half of all marriages end in divorce, and every year millions of children shuttle between mothers and fathers who are divorced. I am not suggesting that divorce is never an appropriate option, but the hard truth is that divorce, even when necessary, causes disruption in children’s lives. It seriously affects family finances and at times, leaves women impoverished.

But none of these can be blamed on gay and lesbian couples wanting to be in committed relationships, to have children, or to have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.

Indeed, in my eleven years in ministry, I have yet to counsel a single couple who attributed the availability of marriage to same-gender couples as the cause of their marital problems. And, after seventeen years of marriage, my wife and I have never felt threatened by gay marriage.

It is not the fault of gay people that so many Americans, male and female, are neurotically obsessed with their careers that they neglect their children and their marriage. It is not the fault of gay people that straight people decide to divorce because of their marriage is 'boring' instead of working to improve it. It is not the 'gay agenda' that has created a culture where families no longer share a meal together or children spend most of their waking time in front of the 'great indoctrinator' of our time - TV or playing on their PS3s or Wiis or Xboxes. And it definitely is not the fault of gay people that states like Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia have the highest divorce rates in the country (according to the US Census Bureau) whereas 'liberal' Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate!

As the Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, rightly points out, "Religious Right leaders see a gay conspiracy everywhere. They are not, it seems, willing to admit that the fault for fractured American families lie in the American way of life - all consumption all the time, isolating forms of personal technology, and an insistence on work schedules that emphasize duty to the firm and long hours behind a desk over a commitment to family - rather than nefarious attacks by gays."

How unjust and wrong is it that our society turns a blind eye towards all those people who go through multiple marriages or folks like Britney Spears and others who marry on an impulse and divorce the same way but gets moralistic and self-righteous when it comes to affirming and supporting same-gender couples who have been in longstanding, committed, and loving relationships despite all the odds and bias? As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, we heterosexuals have a lot to answer than gays and lesbians given our track record thus far.

How Does Amendment 2 Help Families in Economic Distress:

Personally, I am appalled that we are focusing on this issue today rather than supporting people who are struggling to make ends meet or trying to live lives of integrity and purpose in these troubled and troubling times.

I want to ask the promoters of this amendment:

In these tough economic times, what would this amendment do to help families that are struggling with serious financial problems? What would this amendment do to help families who can't find housing or health insurance, for people struggling to find jobs or keep their houses or have enough savings left to send their children to college? 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?

The answer is an unequivocal 'NO.'

I believe this amendment if passed would do nothing to stabilize the institution of marriage or strengthen families and instead, would help write discrimination, prejudice, and second-class citizenship into the state constitution. In fact, because of the ambiguous wording and narrow interpretation of marriage, this amendment would not only be an assault on the rights and privileges of same-gender couples but also on all opposite-gender couples, particularly seniors, who choose to be in loving, committed but 'unmarried' relationships.

Why I am Opposed to Amendment 2:

I believe this amendment needs to be defeated for the following reasons:

1.   Amendment 2 is an assault on religious liberty and promotes religious discrimination.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution ensures for Americans that they can profess any religion they choose, or no religion at all. And it guarantees that the government will not favor one religion over another.

The United States today is, in fact, the most culturally and religiously diverse nation in the world. Americans are not only Lutherans, Evangelicals, and Methodists but Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs; not only Catholics and Baptists but Buddhists, Baha'is, and Taoists; not only Jews but Jains, Wiccans, and Zoroastrians; not only believers but agnostics and atheists. Additionally, about a quarter of all Americans consider themselves "unchurched."

As members of a pluralistic society, we belong to religions (or none) that are accepting of different family structures and relationships. We have different views and opinions on marriage. And we can and do disagree about what constitutes marriage. That's part of the blessing of living in a free and religiously diverse nation such as ours.

While interpretations and rules and prescriptions about marriage vary among religions, the enforceable laws - the civil laws - do not vary.

It is quite easy for religious leaders to mistakenly assume that the religious laws and values we invoke at wedding ceremonies are decisive particularly because we get to say at the end of the service, "By the authority vested in me as a religious leader of a particular faith tradition, I now pronounce you married." But the marriage license we sign is a civil marriage license, not a religious one. And by signing it, we are acting as an agent of the state thereby transforming a religious marriage into a civil ceremony that will thereafter be governed by the rules of the state.

We confuse religious and civil marriage at our peril. The danger is that we will end up enshrining one religious point of view in laws intended to govern and protect us all.

Now, there are folks like the Rev. Lynn Breidenbach (a co-panelist with me on the Kathy Fountain Show about Amendment 2 last week) who argue that state recognition of same-gender unions would infringe on the rights of houses of worship such as hers and that they would be forced to perform same-gender unions against their will. It is a completely erroneous assumption.

First of all, this kind of coercion is forbidden by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which protects houses of worship to make any decision in performing rites of religion consistent with faith traditions.

Every house of worship in this country has the right to determine its own parameters for would-be married couples. For example, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have to marry non-Catholic couples. A church can refuse to perform the marriage of an interfaith couple or divorced individuals. Or it can require that a couple undergo premarital counseling. According to the Rev. Barry Lynn, these conditions are absolutely protected under the First Amendment. And these are the only protections of religious autonomy, including decisions regarding marriage that our country and our state need.

If anything, it is the effort to curtail same-gender marriage through a constitutional amendment that does a serious disservice to religious liberty. Amendment 2 would "constitutionalize" the definition of marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman. It would say to ministers like myself in the Unitarian Universalist tradition, or ministers of the United Church of Christ or Unity or MCC, or reform rabbis that even though we have ecclesiastical authority to perform same-gender marriage rituals, the state will not recognize them.

People's religious reasons to be for or against same-gender marriage are hard to sway. As deeply as I believe that the God of love I acknowledge welcomes all people -- gay or straight -- who wish to enter into a lifelong covenant to love, support, and take care of each other, someone else will be just as convinced that their God will not. But the religious benefits and blessings of marriage are not that big a problem - there are many congregations and synagogues today that will provide a religious blessing to a same-gender couple who wishes to be married; no, the biggest problem, the greatest discrimination, comes from the government.

Government should not arbitrarily and capriciously favor one faith's interpretation of marriage over another. Again, quoting the Rev. Barry Lynn, "That preference for state 'blessing' of only certain marriage rituals seems clearly to violate the idea of equal treatment of all faith traditions in America."

One wonders why the supporters of this amendment -- people and groups who claim to support religious liberty -- disappear when it's not their own religious liberty that's in question?

The answer is simple: because their 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 folks 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 about equality, morality, and religious liberty. A vote that requires citizens to choose which side to stand on -- the side of rashly amending the Constitution for political gain, or the side of upholding the integrity of the Constitution and the dignity of all Americans.

It is good to remind ourselves from time to time that we live in a country that is dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal; that all people have certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from them, including the pursuit of happiness; and that, in the eyes of the law all are equal. We should continue our proud national tradition of expanding equality and fairness through our laws -- not creating categories of second-class citizenship.

2.   Amendment 2 would write discrimination against one group of Floridians into the Constitution and could cause serious harm to all Floridians.

In fact, a group of over 150 FL attorneys including UUC members Mark Brandt and Roberta Watson, issued a statement outlining their concerns about how the ambiguity in the amendment language is likely to cause "unanticipated and serious economic and legal repercussions" for all Floridians.

They believe that passing the amendment could lead to potential loss of existing legal protections and benefits for all Floridians including alimony, domestic violence protection, private property arrangements and estate planning, domestic partner benefits, and hospital visitation rights. In particular, this could hurt many senior citizens who enter into domestic partnerships by choice and share pension benefits or other government benefits they have earned.

The attorneys feel this amendment could result in costly litigation as vested interests challenge shared health plans or defend domestic abusers or governments seek clarity to the undefined language in the proposal. They conclude by saying, "Adding such a provision to our Constitution is unwise, especially when adopting the amendment will not alter our state's current laws banning 'same-sex marriage.'" [Currently there are four laws that ban same-sex marriage in Florida.]

3.   Finally, Amendment 2 promotes division and fear, not equality and love.

We know from our religious experience of worshipping and being together that what unites us as families and as people is much greater than what divides us.

Our religious commitment requires that we encourage decisions that are grounded in love, compassion, and an appreciation of our common humanity.

Conclusion:

In a society where the forces most consistently allied against the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons and families, and who are most active in fostering fears and misunderstandings about GLBT persons and families, are also forthrightly claiming a religious identity, we need welcoming religious communities such as ours to promote a different vision. We need religious communities such as ours willing to stand up and be a counterpoint to the homophobic religious voices that are out there. We need religious communities such as ours that are willing to stand up for freedom, equality, and justice; that affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of all people. We need religious communities such as ours which believe that love has no boundaries; that where love is, we have a responsibility to affirm and support it, even with our own doubts, against all bias. We need religious communities such as ours that believe that two same-gender people in a committed love relationship deserve the same benefits, privileges, and rights those of who are heterosexual now enjoy and take for granted. And we need religious communities where we are called to honor love, serve, and when necessary, struggle for all of God's children, not just the few.

My own argument is simple. We’d all be better off if our society just encouraged loving relationships, whether between male and female, male and male, or female and female. It shouldn't matter who you love or how you love -- but that you love. I believe that where love is - we have a relationship that must be affirmed and supported. Where love is - is a good place to be. Where love is - there is holy ground.

I hope you will be stand with me on the side of love and say "NO" to discrimination, prejudice, and Amendment 2 not only today but on Oct. 26 at the public rally in Lowry Park in Tampa, and most importantly, on Nov. 4, election day.

REFERENCES:

Websites:

www.flclergyforfairness.org

www.fairnessforallfamilies.org

Piety And Politics by Rev. Barry Lynn

Whom God Hath Joined Together by Rev. Bill Sinkford from Getting On Message: Challenging The Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel

Freedom To Marry Resources from the UUA