As bicker said, the President of the UUA represents the UUA. For example, the current president of the UUA,
Rev. William G. Sinkford, attended the interfaith breakfast for President Obama's inauguration, along with the representatives of other faith denominations. President Sinkford often makes public statements on social justice issues, such as supporting comprehensive sexuality education and calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. He also preaches in various UU congregations across the continent and sends out pastoral letters on a regular basis for UUs consider. He "leads" Unitarian Univeralists the same way that UU ministers lead congregations - by keeping in mind a bigger picture of what Unitarian Universalism should be and guiding us in that direction - but he has no binding power over UU congregations. If you disagree with him, that's fine. UUs have never been shy about disagreeing with their leaders.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Who does he vote with?" The president does not vote. We vote for the president,
IF we agree with his or her vision of what the UUA should be. Btw, there is a presidential election coming up at General Assembly this June in Salt Lake City. The two candidates for the next UUA president are
Laurel Hallman, the minister of the UU Church in Dallas, TX, and
Peter Morales, the minister of the UU church in Golden, CO.
The president of the UUA is also bound by the official social justice
statements of the UUA, which are determined by a (largely) democratic process. So even once elected, he or she can't just do anything she or he wants. Their public positions have to be in keeping with what UUs have said that we believe.
Which brings us to your other question.... who made the vote to explicitly include the transgendered community into our Beloved Community?
Two statements were passed at the 2007 General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale: a responsive resolution called "
Confronting Gender Identity Discrimination" and an Action of Immediate Witness called
Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with Transgender Inclusion and Protection. The votes approving these two statements were made by delegates attending that particular General Assembly. The delegates represent the interests of the congregations who sent them. A "responsive resolution" is something that is introduced at General Assembly in response to something that came up at General Assembly. An "Action of Immediate Witness" (AIW) is something that is introduced at General Assembly in response to something urgent happening in the country or world.
In addition, we also have "Statements of Conscience" (SOCs) which address bigger, more long-term issues and are adopted after a four year process. The current SOCs on which we are working are
Peacemaking (which will be voted on at this upcoming GA) and
Ethical Eating.
The general consensus is that SOCs carry more weight than AIWs and responsive resolutions because SOCs have gone thru a longer, more rigorous process. But in reality, UU congregations and individuals give more weight to the statements with which they are concerned and less weight to the statements with which they are not so concerned, or disagree.
None of the statements are actually binding. But they do represent the views of Unitarian Universalists in general, as determined by a (largely) democratic process.
Hope this helps.
