Press Teleconference, October 16, 2008
Click here to download an audio recording of the teleconference.
Welcome and thank you for joining us today. I am the Reverend Kent Siladi, and I serve as the Conference Minister for the Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ.
Following brief statements we will open this call up for your questions.
I am one of six clergy members here this morning representing diverse religious backgrounds. We are part of Florida Clergy for Fairness, a new and fast-growing coalition of more than 150 clergy from across Florida who oppose Amendment 2.
We are here today to release a public statement currently signed by 170 clergy members and religious leaders, who represent a variety of religious backgrounds, including United Church of Christ, American Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Unitarian Universalist, Reform and Conservative Judaism and others.
Those of us who have signed the Florida Clergy for Fairness statement hold different beliefs about the issue of marriage, as a religious matter, but we all agree that our religious beliefs and practices – including whom we choose to marry — should not be dictated by the State of Florida. Members of this coalition have signed a public statement expressing in clear terms our opposition to this attempt to write a definition of marriage into the Florida Constitution. We will preach our opposition to Amendment 2 and our ranks will grow between now and Election Day.
The Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ has urged its member congregations to work to defeat Amendment 2 this Election Day. The United Church of Christ has a history of working for justice and equality for all of God’s children. We do not believe that the State of Florida should step into the business of defining marriage from a religious tradition’s viewpoint. There are differences of opinion among people of faith in regards to marriage, and the separation of church and state ensures that religious bodies be allowed to make their own determination in reference to covenantal relationships between two people. To assume that there is one religious viewpoint on marriage is a misinformed judgment that is being promoted by some religious leaders in our state.
The United Church of Christ believes that “God is Still Speaking” and because of that we attempt to provide an extravagant welcome to all of God’s children. We have historically supported equal protection under the law (something this Amendment would eliminate) and have found numerous ways to support and affirm our LGBT sisters and brothers. We believe that Amendment 2 would result in the loss of existing domestic partner benefits and would allow for constitutional discrimination against residents of the state. The UCC Statement of Faith declares that as members of the UCC we should have “courage in the struggle for justice and peace”. We believe that this Amendment is an unjust amendment and I urge its defeat.
Good morning. My name is Reverend John H. Hayner and I am a Visitation Pastor with the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd (ELCA) in Seminole.
I believe that Amendment 2 is a mean-spirited attempt to legislate morality that has no business being on the November ballot in the state of Florida. Under the guise of “protecting marriage,” it does no such thing. Rather, it has the potential of penalizing and doing great damage to other civil relationships across the spectrum of our society.
I concur wholeheartedly with the remarks of a local rabbi who said, “It’s critical for us not to succumb to the politics of fear and exclusion and to stand up for people’s freedoms and rights . . . and reach out to people in love. That’s the true religious response, as opposed to a reactionary response which unfortunately is what many religious leaders are evoking from their congregants.”
The red flag that is being waved by the conservative right is all about “gay marriage.” This amendment is so much more than that – especially the wording which says that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The danger here is that a court might throw out domestic partner benefits or other kinds of perfectly reasonable things which are now in effect, especially for unmarried partners. This risk is unacceptable, and Amendment 2 must not pass.
From a theological/pastoral perspective, it all boils down to loving your neighbor as yourself. We are all God’s children with the capacity to love and to be loved. In the Lutheran tradition, we are “sealed by the Holy Spirit and marked with the cross of Christ forever” when we are baptized. Whom God accepts and receives into his own family, who are we to reject or ostracize?
Hello, my name is Father Frank Corbishley, and I am an Episcopal Chaplain at the University of Miami, Coral Gables.
Every day I work with students, many of whom who are still grappling with how they feel about God, about religion, about morality.
What I hope is that I can guide them to see that Jesus’ Summary of the Law is to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves. His New Commandment, given at the Last Supper, is that we love one another as He loved us.
Hatred and bigotry do not figure anywhere in the Summary of the Law or the New Commandment, and yet I believe that is what is behind Amendment 2.
People of faith embrace their beliefs and observe the practices of their religion each and every day without infringing upon others. But, this Amendment would force one religious view upon all other religions, threatening the free exercise of many religious people.
I truly hope voters will look in their hearts and see the dangerous messages Amendment 2 is sending – about intolerance, about hate.
We Christians need to remember that we worship a God who lived among and loved those who were judged by society. We must follow His example and obey the New Commandment, without discrimination, and love each and every one of our neighbors.
Good morning. My name is Jack Romberg and I am the rabbi at Temple Israel in Tallahassee.
I have 2 basic objections to Amendment 2. First, this represents an intrusion of government into a religious arena. At its core, Amendment 2 dictates which kinds of unions are to be sanctified and which are not. These decisions should be made by individual religious communities, led by their clergy, not by the government, and not by public referendum. That is tantamount to an infringement upon our religious freedom. What makes this even worse, the definition of what is sanctified, according to Amendment 2, is being forced upon us by a very specific religious perspective. Passing this amendment denigrates those of us who have deep seated religious reasons for wanting to sanctify same sex unions.
This brings me to my second point. My faith dictates that I serve God by pursuing justice, just as stated in Deuteronomy, “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” Is it just to place the civil rights of same sex couples in jeopardy? Is it just to deny health insurance, visitation rights, not to mention the simple courtesies of human decency? I think not. If all of us are indeed created in God’s image, then we are required to accept all the variations of that image reflected by human diversity. To pass Amendment 2 is to use religion to demonize another human being. That is simply unjust and immoral.
Hello. My name is Reverend Doctor Harry Parrott, and I am a retired pastor with the Church of the Beatitudes Baptist Church in Penney Farms.
We talk about marriage as something “sacred”, rightly emphasizing that marriage is a matter for religious traditions to discuss, debate and decide. But the fact is that even within the Christian community there is no unanimous agreement about marriage.
Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate for a public vote to be taken to force every church (and every citizen) to submit to one particular viewpoint on this matter.
Amendment 2 must be defeated. It is yet one more attempt of some divisive religious leaders to force every citizen to live according to their rules and their religious understanding, and its passing would erode one of our country’s founding principles – the separation of church and state.
Good morning, I am Rev. Phillip Miller-Evans, I am the last speaker of the morning and following my remarks all of us will be open to entertaining your questions.
I am the senior pastor at the American Baptist Church of the Beatitudes in St. Petersburg. We are a diverse congregation that serves a traditional retirement community in worship. We have a Spanish speaking worship and we have a Contemporary/Emergent worship reaching the marginalized and younger generation. Diversity is very important to our expression of faith.
Amendment 2 clearly is a response to the fear in this country by some that America, as they see it, looks different to them and may change from where they are comfortable. It is an attempt to homogenize us into a single world view. The suggestion of supporters of Amendment 2 that this amendment will strengthen traditional family values does not recognize the reality that our religious communities have no unified agreement about what defines traditional family values.
America is at its best when we embrace the diversity of our cultural backgrounds, racial complexity, and multiplicity of values. Central to our historic standing has been to remain strong in the separation of church and state. I oppose Amendment 2 which would take away the conversation of strong marriage and healthy relationships from the religious communities and would narrowly restrict our view through legislative action.
Thank you for listening to our positions. Now, let us respond to your questions of us.