Standing on the Side of Love with a Broken Heart
Rev. Meg Riley is the director of Advocacy and Witness at the Unitarian Universalist Association.
It is the morning after election day. I went to sleep early last night, when results were still unclear in all kinds of races around the country, and learned about them as I learn about many things now—on facebook. The first posting I saw was from a ministerial colleague—I am heartbroken for Maine.
My stomach twisted and my heart sank.
We have faced so many of these ‘mornings after.’ The people who live in the states where their full humanity and their equality has been shouted about, argued about, snickered about, and ultimately voted upon, now have to get up and go about their business.
Those I feel most for are the parents, preparing their children to go to school this morning. Kids who see elections pretty much as they see sporting events, who want to be on the winning team, must now go to school to face the gloating that losers always face. We who parent send our hearts out into the world each day, and those hearts are broken today.
And yet, I know from parenting my own daughter, the strength and resilience and vision of the next generation is what pulls us through. In my daughter’s short lifetime already, we have moved quantum leaps towards marriage equality, towards valuing all families.
Part of me is amazed that 47% of the people in Maine voted for the rights of less than 10%. The whole notion of putting the rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority is blatantly undemocratic, completely counter to the notion of the Constitution as I understand it. I am incredibly proud of the work that people of faith did in Maine to present families of all kinds with dignity and love.
So, on this morning after the election, I am mostly grateful to know that I am in the company of other people of all ages, shapes and sizes whose still stand on the side of love, even with broken hearts.
(And even while my heart breaks for Maine, it lifts for the folks in Kalamazoo and Washington State, where love and justice triumphed over fear.)
As is so often the case, Meg, your words are both eloquent and so darn down-to-earth.
Thanks for speaking the words so many of us have been feeling oday.
Beth
I am proud to be a Unitarian Universalist. My faith tradition buoys me in such dark times.
I had the priviledge of preaching on the topic of love, including my reflections on gay marriage, at my UU house of worship in June. There’s a link to that sermon here:
http://www.mindbodymama.com/2009/11/mind-body-mama-never-give-up.html
I blogged about my personal reflections on our defeat in Maine here:
http://www.mindbodymama.com/2009/11/mind-body-mama-more-on-maine.html
It is morally unjust that the private moral decisions of women and same sex couples should be subject to majority votes or political trading. See my blog today at http://www.religiousinstitute.org
Our fifth principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and society at large.
As much as we dislike the result, we should respect that it is a product of the democratic process we commit to.
The democratic process includes results we disagree with.
Thanks, Meg, for your wise words. I do believe that it is the next generation who will right this injustice—if we of this generation keep building the foundation!
Meg, Thanks as always, for your words and for your leadership.
“Andrew Fink says: As much as we dislike the result, we should respect that it is a product of the democratic process we commit to. The democratic process includes results we disagree with.”
Hi Andrew,
Under most circumstances, I would agree with you. A “majority wins” approach, on the whole, promotes freedom. However, the democratic process is inappropriate when it is used to restrict the freedoms of a specific group of people. Think of it this way- would you support putting the freedoms of ethnic and racial minorities up to a popular vote? Would you be comfortable with putting the rights of women up to a popular vote? Hypothetically, what if the majority voted in favor of oppressing those groups or others? Our 5th principle is meant to promote freedom, not restrict it.
Taking away the rights of a specific group of people (including through a popular vote) solely based on their identity runs counter to our 1st, 2nd, and 6th principles. At its heart, our faith seeks justice and freedom for everyone. Putting the rights of minorities, including LGBT people, up to a popular vote is always wrong.