MLK and Anti LGBT Amendments

There remains so much to do in order to bring more of the dream of Dr King to fruition. I am sure that Dr King would have so much to teach us about the issues of the day. His voice would ring out loudly and he would have so much to say at this time, especially concerning the issues facing the State of North Carolina. He would encourage the North Carolina legislature to turn its attention to living wages; protections for maximum voter turnout; workers’ rights; equal access to good health care; and providing sound basic education for every child.

He would call upon all of us to respect our religious differences concerning family life and personal status. I do not think that Dr King would favor religiously sanctioned gay marriages in his church. I do think that he would have recognized that this is a very difficult and sensitive issue and that good people will have differing opinions concerning this issue.

That being said, I feel that Dr King would have been appalled at any attempt to write into the constitution of this state under the guise of protecting heterosexual marriage an amendment which seeks to restrict the rights of a certain group of people based upon their sexual identity. While King of course headed the SCLC , he deeply respected the NAACP. I mention this because since its founding 102 years ago, the mission of the NAACP has been to “ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons.” I think that Dr King would have been proud of the fact that the North Carolina NAACP has taken a stand against this ill-thought-out amendment.

As Jews, we would respond to his call in this area. We would recall that in 1935, the Nuremberg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Germans or people of kindred blood. Based upon the history of the murder of six million Jews, laws prohibiting marriages might represent a slippery slope towards greater discrimination.

When this country was founded over two hundred years ago, “we the people” included only white males. Since that time, equal protection has been extended to all of our citizens, except for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Laws prohibiting marriages between white people and Negroes were enacted as early as 1872. Such laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967. In South Africa, similar laws were enacted in 1949 and repealed in 1985.

Friends. This amendment will not strengthen the institution of heterosexual marriages in our state or for that matter in our country. Passing this amendment will not make Kim Kardashian's marriage last longer than seventy-two days!

Let us separate the religious issue from the issue of discrimination and civil rights.

When we do that, we will quickly realize that the issue of civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transsexual’s or LGBT’s is not a liberal or conservative issue.

In 2000, David Boies represented Al Gore and Ted Olson who had been the solicitor General for the first President Bush and was the lawyer who represented the second President Bush in the Bush v Gore case. This case was argued all the way to the Supreme Court and eventually determined that President Bush the son had won the election. In 2009, these two men, once opponents, one very liberal and one very conservative, came together to argue that Proposition 8, the amendment which restricted LGBT marriage in California was unconstitutional. Having won in Federal Court, Boies and Olson will likely take this case, this time being on the same side, all the way to the Supreme Court. For their work in this area, Boies and Olsen last month were awarded the Reform movement’s highest honor – the Maurice N. Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award – at the recent Union for Reform Judaism Biennial in Washington, DC.

Last January in an article entitled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage – Why same-sex marriage is an American value” Olsen wrote:

“Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I know that there are those who might feel that this service is not the time to raise this issue but I am here before you to make the case as to why Martin Luther King’s legacy commands us to fight against this blatant infringement on civil rights with all our might and with all our soul. I apologize to my friend Rev. Moffett if I have surprised her tonight with these remarks. I realize that there might be some in her congregation who will support this amendment. Nevertheless, I wanted you to hear why in our community there is such a strong consensus against this amendment, even to the point where in the governing Board of this congregation voted unanimously to oppose it.

The position of the National Conference of Community and Justice, the NCCJ, on this issue is that the true test of fairness is to substitute any of the forms of our differences for the term “LGBT” and ask if we would find it fair and just to deny someone of their rights based on that characteristic. I cannot imagine any situation in which the American people would find it acceptable to deny marriage between two Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, African Americans, simply because of that characteristic. Therefore, enshrining in our State’s constitution an automatic denial of marriage between two LGBT individuals is equally offensive.

When I consider the position of the NAACP against this amendment and when I consider the position of a very conservative lawyer such as Ted Olsen against it, I can only conclude that this is an issue concerning decency and American values.

When I consider and learn of the teaching of Dr Martin Luther King, of blessed memory, I can only conclude that as Martin walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge leading thousands of marchers from Selma to Montgomery on March 21, 1965 for equality and voting rights, Martin would once again raise his sonorous and wise voice for equality and equal rights for all of God’s children.

When I consider the history of my people and how we have been subjected to the denial of civil rights and have been the object of discrimination, I can only conclude that as a Jew, bias, bigotry, and racism must be fought whenever and wherever they are present.

The words of Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel motivate us tonight. Wiesel teaches us that “The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”

His teaching as well as the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King demand of us that we not be silent or indifferent, but that rather we recreate the coalition of goodness which led to walks across bridges and rides on buses for the freedom and dignity of all who, as human beings, are created in the image of God.