• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UU Ministers Travel to DC to Advocate Against Discrimination in the Constitution

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/060522_dc.html


When the Revs. Mel Hoover and Rose Edington, co-ministers of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Charleston, WV, sat down with their Senator's staff to lobby against the federal marriage amendment, they started by telling their own story. An interracial couple, Hoover and Edington had a unique perspective to communicate to Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). "I might not be here if there had been a popular vote about my rights," said Hoover, an African American and a former director of the UUA's Department of Faith in Action. "When we got married in 1970, the last miscegenation laws were still on the books. Those laws remained in place until 1973. My wife and I would hear the same arguments used around interracial marriage that we're hearing now about same-sex marriage. But the nation didn't collapse. Religion didn't collapse. Marriage didn't collapse."

Hoover , Edington, and Kelly Kaufman, a Unitarian Universalist seminarian finishing her coursework at Vanderbilt Divinity School and the third member of the West Virginia delegation, were three of nine Unitarian Universalists to participate in an interfaith "fly-in" lobby day against the federal marriage amendment. The UU religious presence was organized by the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy in partnership with other religious and secular groups that oppose the proposed federal "Marriage Protection amendment."

The interfaith clergy activities included advocacy training, a press conference, a religious leaders' briefing for Senate staff, and lobby visits with Senators from ten states. Besides the West Virginia delegation, six other UU ministers made the trek to DC: the Rev. Dr. Mykel Johnson (Allen Avenue UU Church in Portland, ME), the Revs. Hilary L. Krivchenia (UU Church of Lafayette, IN), Chester McCall (UU Church of the Restoration in Philadelphia, PA), Betty Grace McCollum (a Professor at Southern Arkansas University in Magnolia, AR), Kathleen Rolenz (West Shore UU Church in Cleveland, OH), and Mary Wellmeyer (UU Church of Manchester, NH). The full group of more than thirty included religious leaders from the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church-USA, Union of Reform Judaism, and United Church of Christ.

At a late morning press conference, the Rev. Dr. Mykel Johnson highlighted her congregation's advocacy efforts. Responding to a question from a New York Times reporter, Johnson lifted up a large envelope and told the crowd, "I brought more than 350 letters from my congregation [in support of equal marriage]. This is something that they really care about." The UUA was named in a May 23 New York Times story, "Clergy Group Aims to Block Gay Marriage Amendment", at www.nytimes.com.
At noon, the UU group sat in on a "Religious Briefing on the Federal Marriage Amendment" for Senate staff. The briefing included an appeal from the Rev. Robert Hardies, Senior Minster of All Soul's Church Unitarian, in Washington, DC. Rev. Hardies started by talking about couples in his congregation, and how he views this as a religious issue:
"It's my belief that the church's calling is to bless ALL that is holy. And what is more holy than the mutual love between two human beings? We affirm that the nurturing and fulfilling love that same sex couples find in their relationships is, indeed, one of the innumerable expressions of God's love."
Later, Hardies got more explicit on how he viewed the timing and nature of the Amendment:
"In Washington we call proposals like this 'tossing red meat to your base.' Everyone energizes their base with legislation that excites their passions and gets them out to the polls. But when that red meat is another human being—and their worth and dignity and love—then the stakes become much higher, and what politics calls "energizing your base" is called something else from the perspective of nearly every world religion. It's called a sin. Denigrating a human being for selfish gain is a sin.
"And that's why so many religious leaders—no matter what we believe about gay marriage—nonetheless oppose this amendment. Let's not enshrine this sin in the Constitution of the United States of America."
At each of the twenty Senate Offices visited yesterday, delegations presented a one letter against the amendment signed by twenty-three religious organizations, and another signed by more than fifteen hundred individual clergy nationwide. The letter will be delivered a second time just before the Senate votes on the amendment during the week of June 5; interested clergy may sign at www.clergyforfairness.org.

With the vote just weeks away, congregations and the UUA are gearing up for a final push. "We've got work to do at home," said Rev. Edington. The Charleston congregation has already planned a "Standing on the Side of Love" Sunday for June 4, as part of the UUA's "Standing on the Side of Love 2006: No Discrimination in the Constitution" campaign.

How you can help:
The UUA will also host two phone trainings for lobbying against the 'anti-marriage' amendment, which will walk participants through the issue, the amendment, and basic lobbying skills. The training sessions will be held on Thursday, May 25, at 4:00 PM Eastern Time; and Monday, May 29, at 8:00 PM Eastern Time.
If you would like to participate, please send your name, email and UU congregation to Elizabeth Bukey of the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy: [email protected]. YOU MUST RSVP TO PARTICIPATE! Those who RSVP will receive instructions via email on how to access the presentation and dial-in.
Statement of the Reverend Robert M. Hardies, at the Religious Briefing Against the Federal Marriage Amendment for Senate Staff Members
Freedom to Marry, for All People
 

uumckk16

Active Member
Maize said:
When the Revs. Mel Hoover and Rose Edington, co-ministers of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Charleston, WV, sat down with their Senator's staff to lobby against the federal marriage amendment, they started by telling their own story. An interracial couple, Hoover and Edington had a unique perspective to communicate to Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). "I might not be here if there had been a popular vote about my rights," said Hoover, an African American and a former director of the UUA's Department of Faith in Action. "When we got married in 1970, the last miscegenation laws were still on the books. Those laws remained in place until 1973. My wife and I would hear the same arguments used around interracial marriage that we're hearing now about same-sex marriage. But the nation didn't collapse. Religion didn't collapse. Marriage didn't collapse."
This is slightly off topic, but I'm curious about this statement. Back when interracial marriage was being fought over, were the arguments really similar to those used for gay marriage today? "Protecting the sanctity of marriage" and all that? Did people try to back it up with scripture?

I also find it interesting that there isn't a huge debate over divorce. Certainly divorce has been around for a while, so I suppose many people who oppose it within their religion have accepted that those outside their religion have a right to it. But what threatens the "sanctity of marriage" more than divorce? Why aren't they trying to prohibit divorce in a marriage protection act, rather than banning more people from getting married?

Not that I'm advocating a ban on divorce. I just don't understand the logic of it.

My own parents are divorced. My boyfriend's family is interracial. An aunt of mine is lesbian, and she and her partner live together. All these families are just families...the differences between the families, from what I can perceive, are due more to the people and their personalities than to sexual orientation or race. It's impossible to categorize a group of people or deem them "unworthy" of marriage based on such seemingly arbitrary differences.

My opinion, of course.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
I know I've read parallel arguments against both interracial and gay marriage. Let me see what I can find....

From this article:


Here are four of the arguments they used (against interracial marriage):
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."


Sound familiar?

Why aren't they trying to prohibit divorce in a marriage protection act, rather than banning more people from getting married?

Because it's not about protecting marriages, it's about imposing the will of one religion into the laws of our country and gaining political power.
 

uumckk16

Active Member
I found that article extremely interesting. Shocking :eek: and saddening, but interesting to learn about all the same.

It was only recently that I learned that interracial marriage wasn't allowed until 1967. It struck home for me because my boyfriend is half Thai...When I try to picture that mattering at all, I just can't grasp it. It makes no sense. :confused:

Maize said:
Because it's not about protecting marriages, it's about imposing the will of one religion into the laws of our country and gaining political power.
I agree with you 100%, of course. But I think they're calling it the "Marriage Protection Act"? My point was that I don't understand how they can argue that they are "protecting marriage" by banning a certain group from marrying while ignoring the 50% divorce rate (or that's what it's rumored to be, anyway).

Sigh.
 
Top