Memorial Day: What is Defended?  What is Remembered?

May 28^th, 2006

A Sermon offered at the Unitarian Universalist Church, Lafayette, IN

By Rev. Hilary Landau Krivchenia

Readings

This is part of a statement from Americans united for Separation of Church and State:

Within the next several weeks, both the United States Senate and House of Representatives will vote on passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment (also known as the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment”).

Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue of marriage between people of the same sex. However, each religious body has a constitutionally-protected right to decide, based on its own religious mission and teachings, whether or not to sanction marriage of same-sex couples. The federal government should not write one religious definition of marriage over any other, much less to write such a preference into the Constitution itself, and impose that definition on all Americans by constitutional fiat. The Federal Marriage Amendment is deeply disrespectful to the preservation of separation of church and state, particularly on an issue of such central importance to almost every religion as the definition of marriage

The Federal Marriage Amendment would mark the first time in history that an amendment to the Constitution would restrict the civil rights for an entire group of Americans, rather than expand them. Exploiting our nation's most treasured legal document for this purpose would weaken the enormous influence it holds as the key document that binds our nation together and expresses Americans’ deepest civil values. The Federal Marriage Amendment would stand in stark contrast to our proud tradition of expanding Americans’ rights by constitutional amendment, not restricting them.

These are the words of the Reverend Rob Hardies, Unitarian Universalist Minister of All Souls in Washington DC.

There is not anyone in this room or on this hill who is naïve enough to believe that the introduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment now in two consecutive election cycles is anything but a politically motivated effort to win votes by demonizing a class of citizens.

There are those who say to me, "Well, Rob, that's politics. In an election year you can't blame us for tossing a little red meat to our base." I say to them, "When your red meat are my parishioners—people I love and whom I'm responsible to God for caring for—then you'd better believe I'm going to blame you and point out your hypocrisy."

For a United States Senator to write discrimination into the Constitution for political gain is shameful, and a violation that Senator's stewardship of the Constitution. But to use a class of human beings as part of that political game is beyond shameful. In my religious tradition we believe that human beings—all of us, not just some—are created in the image of God. Therefore we believe every human being possesses sacred worth and dignity. And therefore to demonize a human being for political gain, to use them as a means to political ends. Well that's not just shameful, that's the very definition of sin.

Sermon

It’s memorial day weekend – all week I’ve been hearing people share their travel plans – even my husband, Mark, and my daughter, Chava are off visiting family.  But it’s still Memorial Day weekend -- a time of remembrance of those who gave their lives in service to this nation.

This past Monday I was in Washington, DC, city of memorials.  I can’t praise war and yet I have questions about whether humanity can do what Martin Luther King, Jr. called for when he said: “We must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

            I question war – but as an American – I’m grateful that our nation ended the barbaric practice of slavery.  As a person of Jewish descent – I’m grateful that there were courageous persons who stood against Hitler and ended his atrocities.  And I feel a deep loyalty to each person who, in sincerity, volunteers to serve our nation and puts their precious life in trust to our government.

            Last Sunday, as I flew toward our capitol, I reflected upon the idea I learned and fell in love with in elementary school – a nation that stood as a beacon of liberty and justice.  I remember saying the pledge of allegiance and the discomfort I felt pledging to a flag – as though it were a pagan idol and of saying “under god” as we pledged to our nation.  Yet, I always felt devotion when I heard the words liberty and justice for all. 

            I still feel that love even through the disillusion that I’ve experienced since grade school.  I felt it as the Washington monument came into view from the airplane window.  On the ride to the hotel I felt like a kid as lights from the Jefferson memorial shown on the Potomac and as we bumped over Constitution Avenue.  I was alive with excitement – a mixture of love, pride, wistfulness, anger, and even hope.

            The next morning I got to my meeting at the offices of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. There I met articulate and passionate people young enough to be my children.  They sparkled with energy and excitement.  We were joined by clergy – more than 35 of us from the Episcopal Church, the Reform Jewish movement, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ, the Baptist church, the Sikh tradition, the Unitarian Universalist Association, even a Catholic sister – there were chalices, yarmulkes, crosses, a turban, lots of black suits – and clerical collars on shirts of red, ivory, grey, hot pink, black -- variety that spoke clearly of our diversity.

            We’d gathered by invitation from our respective national offices of social action to come lobby our Senators.  It began with a phone call from our office for Justice and Advocacy.  A year ago I saw a picture in the World magazine of a church which had hung a banner that said “Unitarian Universalists Support Marriage Equality.”  I’d suggested the idea to our social action committee who’d been interested.  I tracked down a banner that had hung in front of seven other churches and had it sent to us.  Our Social Action Committee produced an event that got us local press.  The banner was a good message as it hung across from the public library.  Because of this the UUA had called. They wanted an activist minister from Indiana to come to DC and lobby. 

            So I found myself preparing, with other clergy to meddle with politics in order to take a message to politicians not to meddle with religion.  And in one week – on June 5^th – the Federal Marriage Amendment will go to the floor of the Senate for a vote. 

            Now, friends, I’m not talking about law – I’m talking about an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -- the document that above all documents in our nation could be considered sacred.  It’s sacred to me.  It’s called the Miracle at Philadelphia – an event, in part, of its time and beyond its time. 

            A group of white men looked to the lessons of history – which they were aware that they themselves were making and they designed a democracy that protected the individual, the state, the call of justice, and the church.  In their framing they showed the limit of their own will to freedom and thus they did not impede slavery and at the very same time they left a crucial sign post for future generations.  They set in motion, as Supreme Court Justice Marshall once said, the evolving nature of the Constitution: We the people: in those words they didn’t intend to include women, the poor, or the enslaved.  The rights they granted were for white, propertied males – but they awoke in every soul the hope and the striving for those rights and freedoms.

After a struggle of more than one hundred years on June 4^th 1919 – the senate signed the Women’s Suffrage Amendment and it was ratified one year later in 1920. 

            The sign pointed toward freedom and generations have struggled and died for it.  That freedom was extended in the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments and laid the foundation upon which the civil rights movement would stand.  Remember Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

            This week on the 700 club Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell spoke to Pat Robertson.  McDonnell attended the law school that Robertson founded and he spoke of what he learned there:  “It gave me insight into what our Founders believed about government and their view of the Constitution that I am carrying forth. It gave me a great understanding of the limited role of government and the important role of the church and the family and the other institutions in society and what happens if government tries to take on those roles and can often make a mess. But it also gave me the real importance of being a Christian elected official.”  Well – Mr. Attorney General – you sure got that backward.  It was in Virginia that James Madison helped draft and pass a declaration of religious freedom and to secure the non-establishment clause.  So – at Regent University they “recognize and seek the biblical foundations of law” – but they aren’t teaching American history or the intent of the founding fathers – even from their own state.

            At every turn – against every labor toward wider freedoms – as the people have worked to be accorded their rights – religion has blocked the way – and, while religion has sometimes played role in liberation – it has too often been the agent of repression.

 Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy said: "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible…from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, and has been found among people of the highest civilization." Rev. Furman of South Carolina preached "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."  The pulpits of our nation rang with hatred and praised oppression – just as they do today.

            When women worked to be of the People opponents cited the Bible.  One wrote: "Who demands the ballot for woman? They are not lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ."  Religious voices have fought the freedoms of women – pointing ever to the letters of Paul and then to the tradition of the churches.  

            These were the same arguments that were used to make illegal the marriage of people of different races. In good old Virginia a judge said in 1959 "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents.... but for interference… there would be no cause for such marriages." In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down laws in 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage. 

Opponents of expanding freedom often claim a religious right to their beliefs.  And they are protected by the first amendment which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

In the case of the Federal Marriage Amendment it’s important to understand that – the first amendment stands as Thomas Jefferson said: a wall between church and state.  A vital wall built so that diverse faiths could find common ground and the people would never again be crushed by crown or by cross.  Any time that wall is breached is a danger to all of us.  The constitution sets precedent – if you trample the rights of others – the same may be done to you.  Yet, in every era there are religious folk who would breach that wall to establish power – today we see this again. 

            These people of suspect faith – are right – marriage is, on one hand – a sacred rite – rite.  It holds the force that conquers evil – the sacrament of love made real. Each faith is free to define their idea of marriage.  As the Constitution stands right now -- no matter what is made law by any state or the government -- even one that legalized same sex marriage -- no one can be forced to perform a rite which their faith does not recognize.  

            But marriage is also a civil right.  Those who want to prevent civil rights put forth views which are not based upon science, not upon nature, not based upon the human heart, or upon – God Forbid! – Reason and experience – they’re based only upon a few poorly interpreted, ancient texts taken out of context as they are distorted.  Their views are based solely upon faith – which ought to remain out of bounds in civil law, as claimed in the first amendment – which protects their right to hold such ideas in the first place.           

            It was with relief that I stood with the Rev. Dr. Kenneth Samuel -- an eloquent Baptist preacher and student of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.  In a sermon he’d said:

More than God is law, God is love.
More than God is judgment, God is love.
More than God is doctrine, God is love.

            Far too often people parade piety publicly while utterly betraying the faith they claim and the God of love they pretend to worship.

            It was like water in the desert on Monday as each religious leader spoke from a different perspective and yet were united in opposition to this amendment.  We were united.  Rabbi Craig Axler, speaking from the long, painful history of Judaism in a Christian world said: “When one group is singled out for discrimination, it’s not long before other groups will be singled out, too… we see the Constitution in danger of enshrining discrimination against one class, and to remain silent as a Jew is unconscionable.”  For a day in Washington, religion seemed to be a force for good: for democracy, for justice, and compassion in human relationships.

            Heartened, we went on to a Senate Staff briefing where more speakers gave witness to love.  I could hardly wait to go to our Senate offices and speak truth to power.

And for the remainder of the day that was what we did – I lobbied in a team with a rabbi and two clergy from the United Church of Christ.   We spoke of the people in our congregations whose lives were affected by this possible amendment.  That marriage was not under attack and that no one would be forced to perform same sex unions – but to make them illegal as well as non-legal seemed extreme. 

            We went to Senator Lugar’s office and sat amidst Hoosier paraphernalia with his aid, who listened and was non-committal about the senator’s vote.  We then went to Senator Evan Bayh’s office and his aid told us he was grateful we’d come – because they had hundreds of emails daily from people who really think that marriage is under attack and want an amendment to protect it.  It’s another mythical weapon of mass destruction.  I suggested that religious liberals tend to be quieter because the preacher – me – does not stand in the pulpit and tell the congregation who to vote for or how to think.  You wouldn’t stand for it anyway.   I won’t tell you how to think – I will tell you how I think.  I think this amendment is a danger – not only to the families it will undermine but because it will compromise the health of our constitution.  However you feel about same sex marriage – I urge you to send a letter or make a phone call in the next week to our Senators and let them know that to enshrine religious prejudice in the Constitution is dangerous and that you object on both civic and religious grounds.  I ask you to stand on the side of love and on the side of government free of coercion of one faith over another.

            Monday I was moved by the words of the Reverend Rob Hardies.  He said: “It is our belief that the church's calling is to bless ALL that is holy. And what is more holy than the mutual love between two human beings? We affirm that the nurturing and fulfilling love that same sex couples find in their relationships is, indeed, one of the innumerable expressions of God's love.” 

            Jeffrey Lusk and Charles Coley, please come forward and stand before me and this assembly. We will share the blessings you exchanged on April 3, 2004 when you were married by the Rev. Felicia Urbanski at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Stillwater, Oklahoma. 

Minister

Jeffrey and Charles, your commitment to each other will need to be re-expressed in many different ways in the coming days and years. Keep alive your strong commitment to care for each other. Work hard toward creating a home where you are honored and nourished. Respect each other’s viewpoints, knowing that there will be times when you disagree, but never let your differences diminish either of you. Listen to each other. Today is but the beginning in what will be a long and beautiful journey that you make together.

Jeffrey and Charles, you two together have stood apart and now stand together, you have come to declare your love and be united. You are here in the presence of these, your family and friends, and before them, I ask you to affirm your willingness to enter into this covenant.

Jeffrey, will you have Charles to be your husband? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health, in sorrow and joy, and forsaking all others, keep only unto him, so long as you both shall live?

Jeffrey

I will.

Minister

Charles, will you have Jeffrey to be your husband? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health, in sorrow and joy, and forsaking all others, keep only unto him, so long as you both shall live?

Charles

I will.

Minister

You have witnessed the promises made by Jeffrey and Charles one to the other.

Step forth, therefore, into a new life, Jeffrey and Charles, and rejoice in your love.

            If this amendment were passed it would be illegal for them to marry and for the minister to perform this wedding that our own faith affirms. It would violate our religious civil liberties.  I have staked my life and work upon the first amendment that provides us all with religious freedom. 

            My friends – I find this outrageous and unacceptable.  I feel doubly strongly because we also have such an amendment proposed for our state constitution.  I know that people of good faith differ on the issue of same sex marriage.  I wish everyone agreed with me – but I cherish the right for our differences to exist and for our democracy to encourage us to talk out those differences.  A bumper sticker I like says – democracy isn’t something you have it’s something you do.  So I’ll never tell you who to vote for or what party to endorse.  I will tell you that in our principles we affirm that we are faithful to democracy and we must practice it.  Two years ago Amy French suggested we put together curriculum for young people to encourage them to participate with their principles in our democracy.  Let’s make time to put that curriculum together, share it with our young people, and take them to Indianapolis and Washington, DC so they can put their principles into action.  I know that, in line with our principles, we would never violate the deep spirit of the Constitution and we will ever honor all the people.  I want our young people to be able to feel that fierce and durable love that I have felt.

            As I flew to Washington I wrote: The federal marriage amendment is an ungrounded fear, an unneeded amendment for there is no danger to marriage as the constitution stands today.  Worse, the amendment hobbles our sacred articles of freedom and will set a precedent that can remove other liberties in the future  If you hope to speak freely, if you value the pluralism of our society, if you have ever stood or fought for the land of the free you’ll see the danger of this amendment.

Rev. Samuel said: “If we want to protect marriage the answer is not in discriminating against a class of people. The answer is in putting our energy and our resources… at ensuring a decent public education, decent health care, and economic opportunities for all citizens. To discriminate against a class of people is wrong because a threat to justice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere.” He was quoting his teacher, who had, truly died in service to our nation.

            A minister I met Monday had brought her 19 year old daughter to DC with her.  Sunday they’d walked to the Vietnam Memorial and her daughter had touched the names. She’d turned to her mother and said: Mom – didn’t they die to defend this constitution?

            There’s nothing distinctive about our nation if we erase the heart of our sacred documents.  Nothing to honor, no beacon of liberty, nothing to defend.  So, as part of your Memorial Day celebration I ask you to write in protest of these constitutional amendments -- on both the state and national level.  Do it for the memory of those who have died – in the revolutionary war, in the civil war, in the streets of Selma, in wars abroad and struggles at home – those who fought believing that there was here a special spirit – creative democracy.  And there were those who died that we might continue the project of democracy into the future.  May we honor their memories.