Statements by Bill Sinkford, President of the UUA

February 4, 2004: "I enthusiastically applaud today's opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. As they did in the Goodridge decision, the court once again has resoundingly affirmed the right to equal protection and due process for all Massachusetts citizens as guaranteed under the state's constitution. Unitarian Universalists are delighted by the Court's refusal to create 'a second-class of citizens by status discrimination.' As we learned through our country's bitter history of racial discrimination, separate but equal does not work. As the large banner on the side of our Beacon Hill headquarters building proclaims, Unitarian Universalists believe that civil marriage is a civil right."

February 19, 2004: "On behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Association, I am delighted to extend congratulations and blessings to the same-sex couples who have been married recently in San Francisco. I applaud the courage of the mayor and citizens of San Francisco in taking this bold step forward for civil rights. It is my fervent hope that the events in San Francisco and the recent rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts mark the dawn of new day of justice and equal rights for all citizens. The Rev. John Marsh and the Rev. Margot Campbell Gross, co-ministers at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, have officiated at several of the marriage ceremonies for Unitarian Universalists in San Francisco, and I am grateful for their efforts. For decades, Unitarian Universalist ministers have performed religious services of union for same-sex couples, and it is a joy to realize that civil marriage is now an option for our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. I realize that these recent events are just the beginning of a long struggle for equal rights, but I assure you that Unitarian Universalism is committed to this work. Unitarian Universalists know that civil marriage is a civil right."

One of the categories I've been meaning to make is a Unitarian Universalist one, and I came across the material for its inaugral post, so I had to make it! I love my church. I love the UUA. I love Bill Sinkford. I think he's cute (for an old guy!) ;), but that's not why I love him: I love him 'cause he's very cool.

Also, a couple of weeks ago the UUA headquarters hosted a day of activities for the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. Leaders from the Episcopal, Jewish, UCC/Congregational, and UU churches attended a prayer breakfast in the morning followed by a press conference. They had a training on lobbying techniques before walking next door to the Massachusetts State House to inform their elected officials of their support for same-sex marriage and their opposition to a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage.

I'm so glad to have been to GA last year and to the UUA headquarters, because now I can picture all of them there, and I know how the State House is right next door (there's a statue of Ann Hutchinson, but you can't get close to it, because the whole place is surrounded by a black wrought iron fence). All of this is up on a hill, Beacon Hill, overlooking the lovely gardens below. Boston is a lovely city. :) And it's filled with fascinating history. And the UUA is there—what could be better than that?! ;)

I tend to assert a lot of things based on what I think mixed with bits of knowledge gleaned here and there. Maybe everyone does that, I don't know, but I definitely do! Thanks mostly to my intelligence (as I'm really not the most widely informed or well-read person!), it generally works out pretty well, but nevertheless, it's always nice to have my assertions validated by those more learned and credentialed than myself! First I was reading the bonobo book description, and there was exactly what I'd been saying to Steve about procreation not being the only "natural" function of sex, and then I did a Google search on the words "sex" and "procreation", just curious to see what was out on the Web on the subject, and I came across a page on legal commentary site (FindLaw's Writ), with an article by a law professor, Joanna Grossman, "Are Bans on Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional? New Jersey Says Yes, But Massachusetts, In a Landmark Decision, Says No", and lo and behold, the MA supreme court said just what I've been saying:

Like the New Jersey case, the Massachusetts case began with seven couples in committed relationships, four of whom have children, trying to enter into a civil marriage in their home state.

The trial court ruled against the couples, claiming that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts' marriage laws, is procreation. The court concluded that the state thus could rationally distinguish between couples that are "theoretically . . . capable" of procreation and less likely to rely on "inherently more cumbersome" non-coital reproductive methods and other ones.

The problems with this ruling, of course, are legion: What about opposite-sex couples in which the woman is over childbearing age, or that are infertile? Could the state also "rationally" tell them they cannot marry? Certainly, it cannot. Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court later noted in its opinion: under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry," and infertility is not a ground for divorce.

Why should the state care if a couple relies on easy or cumbersome reproductive methods? And why should reproduction for, say, a lesbian couple, be less likely at all? A couple made up of two women, both of whom might be fertile, has double the chances of procreating.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court was wiser. It interpreted the state's marriage law to mean the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others"--invoking the interpretive principle that a statute of dubious constitutionality should be construed in such a way that it is constitutional.

Does this mean I'm qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? hehe ;) But really, though, it's only perfectly obvious! The only people to whom it's not perfectly obvious are those who are blinded by an irrational fear of same-sex marriage and its "dangerous" consequences!

Speaking of which, I surfed on "FindLaw" to an AP news article describing how the California judges are basically following the simple logic that says that same-sex marriages are a "threat" to no one!

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said. ...

Chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

I also learned from this article that, "On Friday morning, Newsom officiated at the wedding of Carole Migden, who leads the state's Board of Equalization, and her partner of 19 years, criminal defense attorney Cris Arguedas." For the benefit of those who think gays and lesbians are somehow a threat to children, I would like to point out that both Migden and also Sheila Kuehl, another prominent lesbian in California politics, in addition to advocating for women and for gays and lesbians, have been strong advocates for children's issues during their careers. Kuehl is particularly well-known as a children's issue advocate and has authored quite a number of bills to protect and benefit children.