The Rev. Joseph Hough
Union Theological Seminary
A Personal (not Institutional) Statement on the Proposal
for a Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment
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.[1]
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.
Brian Cave
Union Theological Seminary
Master of Divinity Student
Without love we could not survive. Human beings are social creatures, and a
concern for each other is the very basis of our life together. - The Dalai
Lama
[1] The information in the foregoing paragraph
appeared in a recent column by Nicolas Kristoff in the New York Times.