Equal Marriage Talking Points in Communicating with the Media
From Keith Kron
Director of the Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns
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! 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that interracial marriage should be legal across the U.S.
- 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 Lambda Legal 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 U.S. 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.
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.
Last updated on Friday, April 18, 2008.
