for a Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Joseph C. Hough, Jr., President of Union Theological Seminary

This statement, issued for immediate release on March 30, 2004, has been provided to us by Brian Cave, Co-Chair of the Queer Caucus, Union Theological Seminary, New York [3-30-04]

There have been hundreds of editorials, statements, responses and other commentaries of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution to limit civil definitions of marriage to those unions sanctioned by civil and religious authorities to unions between a man and a woman. In effect, it means that no matter what religious groups think about the matter, the state will not honor even those marriages that we sanctify with legal status if we choose to provide marriages for gay and lesbian people.

At the outset, it is clear that the President of the United States, in pushing this matter to the forefront of public discussion, made what is clearly a political move to distract attention from those issues on which he is so clearly vulnerable in a national election and to satisfy a major segment of his political supporters. And I must add, that the call by the Democratic pretenders to "leave it to the states" is just as great a problem for me. I think that it is more likely that most of the states will pass such constitutional provisions than it is that the proposed federal amendment could ever succeed.

This is not the first time, however, that a constitutional amendment to ban certain types of marriage has been proposed. In December of 1912, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery of South Carolina proposed an amendment that he justified with the same words that the President used. He proposed the amendment, he said, in order "to uphold the sanctity of marriage" by prohibiting any marriage between "Negroes or persons of color" and Caucasians. The truth of the matter was that it was not to preserve the sanctity of marriage that the Georgia congressman offered the amendment. It was to express his utter disdain for the humanity of black people and to preserve the discriminatory patterns of segregation founded on personal and institutional racism. His comments at the time made that clear. As late as 1959, a judge in Virginia justified that state's ban on interracial marriages by declaring that God Almighty did not intend for the races to mix. Most Americans today would find this view incredible. The President's proposal caters to those who have a similar and total disdain for the humanity of gay and lesbian people that is tantamount to a denial of their humanity. It is no more capable of being justified morally than the ridiculous proposals of the Georgia congressman or the Virginia judge.^[i]

In summary, I oppose this Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman for several reasons:

· This amendment is legally wrong. It would violate the rights of gays and lesbians to equal treatment under the law guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. It is important to recognize that what is at issue here politically is not the rights of religious groups to sanction gay unions or deny them. At its base, it is an attempt to force the convictions of certain religious groups who support the President into the Constitution of the United States thus denying for religious reasons basic political rights to gays and lesbians. Even the main moral argument used by the President is not valid. This amendment would not strengthen the family. There are a host of problems that are besieging the American families. There are the growing financial strains created by job losses, rising basic costs in health and education that have exacerbated an already tragic increase in the divorce rates in the nation. In fact, it is financial pressures that are the most common reason given for broken marriages. Furthermore, it is impossible for me to see how a few more people getting married and pledging themselves to each other could ever have a negative effect on families. There is simply no evidence that gay and lesbian couples are less capable of making long term commitments to each other when they are not openly persecuted and prosecuted if they try to keep those commitments in any public way. Since it must take extraordinary strength to move against the stream of hate directed against gay and lesbian couples, legalizing gay and lesbian marriages would in all probability add to the numbers of stable families.

· Therefore, this proposed amendment is morally wrong. Aside from the denial of basic equal rights under the constitution, the proposed amendment would lend support to those people who openly express hatred and disgust with gays and lesbians who dare to say who they are. It is morally wrong to act in such a way to bring great harm to persons just because they are who they are.

· The amendment is theologically wrong from a Christian point of view. The basic ideals that most Christian churches allude to when they speak or write theologically about marriage include commitment to a future of abiding love and care, the maintenance of hope and respect, loyalty and support in times of adversity, and fidelity to those we marry in matters of sexual intimacy. Gay and lesbian couples are certainly as likely as straight couples to honor those commitments. In fact, welcoming to the marriage altar those who have been denied the privilege of marriage for so very long will certainly increase the number of Christian couples who make serious vows to each other and keep them. Therefore, there is no serious theological basis for denying the sanctity of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in the church.

^[1] The information in the foregoing paragraph appeared in a recent column by Nicolas Kristoff in the New York Times.