ACTION ALERT!

• Stop the Constitutional Amendment Now!

• Equal Access to Civil Marriage in Massachusetts

• PFLAG Canton St. Lawrence County Unitarian Universalist Church of Canton's Church Council 

• Unitarian Universalist Church of Canton's Church Council Letter of Support

In response to the court rulings in Canada and Massachusetts in support of equal access to civil marriage for same-gender couples, bills have been introduced in both the US Senate and House of Representatives which would amend the US Constitution, forever restricting states from recognizing same gender marriages as well as other initiatives such as civil unions and domestic partner benefits. If this amendment were to pass, it would be the first time in our history that the Constitution has been amended to remove rights from a group of people. It would make permanent the discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, making them second-class citizens.

  Now is the time to contact Congressman McHugh and Senators Clinton and Schumer and let them know your opinion on this attempt to amend the Constitution.  You can find their addresses and voting records on the www.hrc.org website in the Take Action Resource s section.  

See the following web sites for more information on this critical issue:

www.hrc.org                Human Rights Campaign (national advocacyissues)

www.espany.org                Empire State Pride Agenda (New York issues)

www.lambdalegal.org                Lambda legal Defense and Education Fund (national litigation)

www.uua.org                Unitarian Universalist Association (marriage position and action of Uus)

www.glad.org                Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (Massachusetts decision)

www.pflag.org                Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (national issues, family focus)

ADDRESSES FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE SENATORS & REPRESENTATIVES:

Senator Charles Schumer (D)

313 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-3203

Phone: (202) 224-6542

Senator Hillary Clinton

476 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-3204

Phone: (202) 224-4451

Representative John McHugh (R-NY 23rd)

Washington Office:

2333 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-3223

Phone: (202) 225-4611

Fax: (202) 226-0621

Main District Office:

120 Washington St., Ste. 200

Watertown, NY 13601-2576

Phone: (315) 782-315

Asm. Darrel Aubertine (D-NY 118th)

631 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12248

Phone: (518) 455-5545

Fax: (518) 455-5751

Main District Office:

200 Washington St

Watertown, NY 13601

Phone: (315) 786-0284

Fax: (315) 786-0287

Senator James Wright (R-NY 48th)

 915 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247

Phone: (518) 455-2346

Fax: (518) 455-2365

Main District Office:

 317 Washington St

Watertown, NY 13601

Phone: (315) 785-2430

  Senator Raymond Meier (R-NY 47th)

 944 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247

Phone: (518) 455-3334

Fax: (518) 426-6921

Main District Office:

207 Genesee St., 4th Floor

Utica, NY 13501

Phone: (315) 793-9072

***PFLAG ACTION ITEM***Stop the Amendment Now!***

You have an important opportunity to let your elected representatives know how you feel about the proposed Constitutional Amendment this month!! With the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts in November, those in Congress who support a Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage equality for same sex couples are reenergized and pressing forward.  Our first best strategy for stopping the amendment from going anywhere is to make sure enough members of Congress do not vote to support it. We will be working with you to "Stop the Amendment Now!" and to preserve this critical Massachusetts ruling.  Here are some key strategies and talking points:

Call, write and visit your elected officials. The timing is urgent. Tell them your personal story and put a face on the real people and families this amendment would harm. And let those officials you've supported in the past know that your future support depends on their vote on this issue. Visit www.senate.gov or www.house.gov for contact information for your elected officials (or see attached list).

  The Federal Constitution Marriage Amendment (HJ Resolution 56 and SJ Resolution 26) which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, was introduced on May 2003 by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and five co-sponsors.  As of October 15, there were 97 bipartisan cosponsors in the House.  Shortly after the Massachusetts decision, Senate co-sponsors introduced their version of the resolution. The amendment reads as follows:

  Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

November's historic ruling in Massachusetts has energized anti-gay organizations who have now made the passage of this amendment a top priority and cornerstone of their 2004 electoral strategy. Their campaign of fear, hate and misinformation is already in high gear as they attempt to sway the opinions of elected officials and the American public.  It is imperative that we speak up now to stop this assault on the Constitution and on our families and loved ones!  Write an opinion piece or letter to the editor. Get the PFLAG "family voice" out there to counter the hate and fear generated by our opponents. Tell them about the effect of this kind of discrimination on your family and friends.

The following talking points below will help you craft your message:

  This amendment actually writes discrimination into the Constitution, a document that is supposed to ensure equal rights for all Americans.  It would, in effect, codify second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian Americans.

  This would be the first time in history that the Constitution was amended to restrict the rights of a whole class of people, in conflict with its guiding principle to provide equal protection for all.  Since the passage of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended to expand people's rights, such as extending to women and African Americans the right to vote and abolishing slavery. It should not be used to single out a group for discrimination.

  This amendment would take away the constitutional powers of the courts to protect individual rights.  Many of the major civil rights advances in this country have been the result of courts ensuring that all citizens are provided equal protection under the law. If Brown v. Topeka (school integration) or Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) had been put to referendum, they would probably have been overturned.  The judicial system in our country is charged with assuring that the rights of a minority are not trampled by an uninformed majority. The decision to extend equal rights to a group of Americans should not depend on the vote at the ballot box;

  The amendment goes beyond defining marriage and seeks to deny gay families fundamental protections such as hospital visitation, inheritance and health care benefits. Currently, people in same-sex relationships are denied legal benefits including access to partnerís social security, adoption rights, immigration rights, shared medical insurance, and the right to inherit from a partner without estate taxes. There is nothing pro-family about the amendment; indeed, it would hurt families.  It would restrict the ability of states and municipalities to extend their own system of protections.  It would prevent states from exercising their own discretion in matters related to marriage.

  Failure to extend access to marriage to same sex couples puts children at risk; failure to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to partners jointly parenting children can result in the inability of the non-custodial parent to act on the childís behalf in an emergency or in the case of death of the other parent.

  Same-sex couples cannot legally marry anywhere in the U.S. (Not even California, Vermont, or Hawaii). Vermont's civil unions, while a good first step and valid within Vermont, constitute a separate but unequal system that is not portable when the couple travels or moves. Only marriage will lead to equality under the law anywhere in the US.

Equal Access to Civil Marriage in Massachusetts

ACTION ALERT

From Human Rights Campaign:

On November 18, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts declared it unconstitutional†to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.†In February, the same court ruled that a separate system of civil unions will not pass Constitutional scrutiny. Same-sex couples†have won marriage equality in Massachusetts --†now we have to help them†keep it.

The radical right has targeted the state. Armed with more money and foot soldiers than we could ever have imagined, they'll reach over one million Massachusetts households with their anti-LGBT message in the next few days. They are flooding the State†Legislature†with calls to amend the state Constitution to prohibit marriage for same-sex couples.

On Feb. 11 and 12, attempts to amend the state constitution to prevent equal access to civil marriage failed; another attempt to pass a restrictive amendment is scheduled for March11. If we lose this vote, same-sex families may be second-class citizens for years to come.

Human Right Campaign (HRC) is partnering with Mass Equality to save marriage for same-sex couples. Marriage equality depends on you! Please forward this email o anyone and everyone who may know someone in Massachusetts; old high school buddies, college roommates you haven't spoken to in years, distant relatives. Ask them to call their state legislator.

Also,check out www.glad.org  and www.MassEquality.org to see how you, your friends and families can help today!

How You Can Help In Massachusetts

1. Get more information at www.MassEquality.org and www.glad.org 

  2. Forward this email to family and friends in Massachusetts, ask them to do†the following:

• Attend organized phone banks in Boston to call members and legislators.

•  Call their state legislator

•  Write letters to their state legislators telling them to oppose an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

3. Make phone calls to family and friends in Massachusetts. Make a personal plea for them to call their state†legislators and tell them to oppose any attempt to amend the constitution

PFLAG Canton St. Lawrence County

Legal Updates Related to Sexual Orientation: February 2004

  Recent Legal Achievements:

June 2000                    Hate Crimes Legislation passed: New York (inclusive of sexual orientation)

July 2000            Civil Unions legislation enacted, subsequent to Baker v. Vermont decision (December 1999): Vermont  

December 2002            Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act passed: New York

June, 2003            Term Sodomy removed from sexual assault law: New York

June 2003            Legislation enacted requiring college campuses to address bias-related crimes: New York

June 2003            Lawrence v. Texas: U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down sodomy laws nationally

November 18, 2003            Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling by Massachusetts Supreme Court, holding that it is unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to discriminate in the issuance of marriage licenses based on gender and sexual orientation of the parties seeking to marry; in February 2004, the Court reaffirmed that civil unions would not satisfy the constitutional issues involved in the restrictions of access to civil marriage; State House in Constitutional Convention in February and March seeking to amend Mass. Constitution

Issues on the Horizon:

Marriage            Outcome of the Massachusetts marriage decision; attempts in the State House to pass an amendment to the state constitution that would nullify the Court's action.

                        Attempts to amend US Constitution to restrict marriage

                        Recognition in New York of marriages from other states and countries

                        Attempts in New York to pass Defense of Marriage  legislation

Safe Schools            Work to pass the Dignity for All Students Bill (New York); relationship to Safe Harbors Bill

                        Local non-discrimination and anti-harassment work

Non-Discrimination            Work to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (US), known as ENDA (federal)

Judicial Appointments              Monitor judicial appointments through the  Court Network Project

Resources for the latest news:

www.hrc.org            Human Rights Campaign (national advocacyissues)

www.espany.org            Empire State Pride Agenda (New York issues)

www.lambdalegal.org            Lambda legal Defense and Education Fund (national litigation)

www.uua.org            Unitarian Universalist Association (marriage position and action of Uus)

www.glad.org            Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (Massachusetts decision)

www.pflag.org            Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (national issues, family focus)

www.glsen.org            Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (safe schools issues)

www.tolerance.org            Southern Poverty Law Center (resources for anti-bias school work)

Home              Return to top of page.

                                                                                    July 2, 2003

To the Editor:

  We, the Church Council of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Canton, applaud the recent U.S. Supreme Court 6-3 decision declaring the Texas (and by extension, all other) sodomy laws unconstitutional. As a religious body which affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, Unitarian Universalists have been working for equal justice for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons for decades.  It was heartening to hear that the highest court in the land also believes that everyone should be treated with full equality and respect, regardless of sexual orientation. 

  Justice Scalia, who voted with the minority, protested that the court’s decision will open the way to gay marriage.  We certainly hope he is right!  Although our denomination has been officially on record in favor of legalizing marriage for same-gender couples since 1996 (and has been performing services of union for much longer), other faith communities may not agree.  That is their right, and no one can force churches to perform any wedding they do not wish to perform.  Marriage, however, is also a civil institution, with accompanying benefits and responsibilities conferred by the state.  The list of these benefits and responsibilities is long -- inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, adoption and child visitation, social security benefits, tax status, and much more.  Differences in religious beliefs should not be allowed to keep segments of the population from enjoying these rights of  citizenship. Extending these rights to all is a matter of justice, equality, and civil rights.

Moreover, our whole society has an interest in encouraging caring, stable families.  We believe that love makes a family -- nothing more and nothing less.  The gender of partners and parents should not matter.  We look to the day when all loving, committed partners who wish to do so may legally marry. 

Signed by all the members of the 2003 Church Council,

Unitarian Universalist Church of Canton