It wasn’t a public policy change. But it was an announcement that dominated much of the public discourse for the second half of the week: President Barack Obama’s long-expected expression of support for marriage equality. Sharing her insights on the immediate reaction and likely political impact is Religion Dispatches Senior Editor Sarah Posner.

She’s written excellent articles about this week’s events for both Religion Dispatches http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5969/obama_says_his_… and Salon http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/obamas_marriage_epiphany/singleton/

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. To download this audio, click here. Scroll down to read the transcript. To hear the entire May 12, 2012 State of Belief Radio program, click here. To hear Sarah Posner’s previous appearances on State of Belief Radio, click here.

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE STATE OF BELIEF RADIO MAY 12, 2012

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: SARAH POSNER

[REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, HOST]: When the president spoke out in support of marriage equality on Wednesday afternoon, it seemed that every conservative, so-called “pro-family,” so-called “religious” group had a press release ready to go – and everybody hit the “send” button at the same moment. Perhaps Vice-president Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s expressions of support last weekend gave them fair warning of what was coming next. Perhaps they’d been sitting and praying for just such a presidential announcement – confident that it would ensure Barack Obama’s defeat at the polls in November. Well, their prayers have been answered. But what are the possible electoral implications of this president throwing himself into the deafening roar of the debate over this controversial social issue? Well here to answer that question and to analyze the whole situation is our friend, Sarah Posner, Senior Editor at Religion Dispatches. Sarah has a deep understanding of the power and politics of the religious right, and she’s written excellent articles about this week’s events for Religion Dispatches and Salon.com.

Sarah, as always, welcome back to State of Belief Radio.

[SARAH POSNER, GUEST]: Thanks Welton.

[WG]: First, I want to tell you how much I enjoyed the headline of a recent article you’d written about the president’s public stance on marriage equality. The headline read simply: “Evolve, Already!” That went up on Religion Dispatches on Monday, so I think much of the credit for Wednesday’s announcement goes to you.

[SP]: I doubt it.

[WG]: Besides your article, though, what else do you think finally moved Barack Obama to do what he did?

[SP]: Well, I actually think that Obama did not ever have a problem with same-sex marriage, but I think that he saw a political downside to coming out for it. But there has been a remarkably rapid transformation of the country’s public opinion on this issue since just 2008. I mean, if you look at the public opinion data going back to 2000, to 2004, to 2008, to now – it tracks on this remarkably rapid trajectory towards acceptance of same-sex marriage. So during the time that he’s been in office, there has been a great evolution. The public opinion evolved faster than the president’s opinion on this did. So I think that he found this moment to be one in which he could no longer stay in this box that he had created for himself by saying: “Well, I’m for all of these LGBT rights except for marriage.” He could no longer hew to the religious conservative rhetoric of “I believe in traditional marriage,” or “I believe it’s between a man and a woman,” and it became increasingly difficult for him to be in that spot and still be credible about it.

[WG]: Would you believe he came to the office probably already thinking very positively about this?

[SP]: I just think that – it’s hard for me to imagine somebody with his background, and his purported belief system – that he would have a serious problem with same-sex marriage. I think he understood LGBT rights and equality, but I think he also understood that there would be – or he thought that there would be – a backlash against him for coming out for marriage; and I do think that that had something to do with the religious figures that he surrounded himself with when he was campaigning, when he first took office.

[WG]: Well, you know, Biden gets accused of being a loose cannon, and sometimes saying things he shouldn’t have said – but he probably didn’t do anything wrong; he probably ran the flag up the pole intentionally.

[SP]: Well, he came out and made those remarks on Meet the Press on Sunday. On Monday, the administration just tried to parse and prevaricate and somehow come up with some explanation of why Obama’s position was somehow consistent, even though he supported everything but same-sex marriage. And I think that Biden gave him the opening to just realize that there wasn’t going to be a huge political backlash against him except from the religious right – and this is a constituency that isn’t going to vote for him anyway, and he might as well do the right thing.

[WG]: Right. Well, I guess the big unknown at this point is how is this going to impact what happens in November, if at all, and there’s a lot of speculation from: this will energize the youth vote and thus help the Democrats, to: this is going to alienate a part of the African American electorate. What are your thoughts on it?

[SP]: Well, I think that, again, the public opinion polling shows younger African American voters more accepting of same-sex marriage than their elders are. That there are similar demographic changes in terms of views of same-sex marriage in the African American community and the Latino community as there are in the population at large, and it’s less likely to impact the youth voter, the millennial vote, because they’re more in favor of same-sex marriage than older people are. I have a hard time imagining that this single issue is really going to turn a lot of voters. There may be older conservative Christians who would possibly be more motivated to drive their neighbor to the polls on Election Day, or go do phone banking for the Faith and Freedom Coalition or one of those religious right organizations because of what Obama said – but by and large, I think that that’s a constituency that has viewed Obama as quote-unquote “Pro-abortion, waging a war against Christianity, possibly Muslim, possibly not a real Christian, possibly not a real American” – so it’s hard to imagine that this is going to change things a lot for them. In fact, I’m pretty sure that probably a lot of them considered him to be quote-unquote “pro-gay” anyway because of the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court by Obama’s Justice Department – so I just don’t think it really changes that equation that radically.

[WG]: The Washington Post, on the day after the president’s announcement this past week, carried a story of, I think it was, two African American men who had voted for Obama last time, and now said that they could not vote for him because of this. But my question to you is: you’re right; we know the religious right is going to try to make something of this, but who is going to vote against Obama because of this that otherwise would have voted for him? I mean, it’s pretty small, isn’t it?

[SP]: I would think that it’s pretty small. I mean, I think it’s possible to find people who would say that, but when you look at, for example, in Maryland, where there will probably be a referendum on the same-sex marriage bill that passed the legislature and was signed by the governor, because people who are against same-sex marriage are trying to petition to put it on the ballot for the voters to decide, and there was a piece that ran just this morning about the possibility of the African American vote in Maryland overturning the legislature’s law, and there was an African American pastor – whose name I’m forgetting at the moment – but he was talking about how, yes there are African American pastors who are out there saying that same-sex marriage is wrong and we need to overturn this law, but his opinion was that the pastors are behind the people in the pews. That the people in the pews are ahead of the pastors in terms of accepting same-sex marriage in African American churches; so I think there are a lot of unanswered questions there.

[WG]: Yeah. I’m going to sound probably a little cynical with this one, but even though the president has succeeded in some significant policy changes affecting the lives of LGBT people, I guess most notably the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” many gay rights activists see a lot of missed opportunities in areas like the non-discrimination policy for federal contractors that the president simply refused to implement by executive order. Again, not to be cynical, but is it possible that strategically, the private admission was expected to distract from the lack of further progress in public policy?

[SP]: I guess that’s possible. But, you know, remember that Obama did say, very explicitly, that this was his personal belief that he came to; that he believes that same-sex couples should be able to get married legally. He did not signal a change in policy. He did say that he thought that marriage was a matter that should be left to the states and that’s something that some liberal critics have criticized him for, that he basically – well, the Log Cabin Republicans came out with a statement saying that this was basically the Dick Cheney position. So, it’s true, I think that there’s been a lot of focus on the fact that this was not a change in policy at all for the administration. However, as the leader of the free world, making this moral statement was important notwithstanding the fact that he was not announcing any change in administration policy.

[WG]: Yeah.

[SP]: There’s still obviously work to be done in those areas that you mentioned.

[WG]: I guess – my heart palpitated a little when you put Dick Cheney in the same sentence with Barack Obama because what’s interesting to me about this is, and I’m speaking positive when I say this, that the president was out there on many policy issues that previous presidents have not been on – and that came long before he confessed his own personal opinion about that, which I admire as a person responsible for public policy.

[SP]: Right.

[WG]: And Cheney didn’t do that.

[SP]: That’s true, that is definitely true – but the Cheney situation proves something: that when you’re close to somebody, or you know somebody who is LGBT, these things start to really resonate and drive home the point to you. So Cheney has a daughter who’s a lesbian, and so I think that there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who should take a lesson from that, notwithstanding all of Dick Cheney’s many other shortcomings.

[WG]: Yeah. What do you read into Mitt Romney’s reluctance to criticize the president on saying this?

[SP]: Well, that brings up another timing issue that I thought was really interesting, that this came pretty close on the heels of the Romney campaign letting Rick Grenell go, the spokesperson on foreign policy and national security issues who was basically hounded out of the campaign by religious right activists, notably Brian Fisher. And so when you contrast that to the president saying: “I’m in favor of same-sex marriage,” which was the very policy thing that Rick Grenell was treated as a pariah over – because it wasn’t just that he’s gay, it’s that he has publicly supported same-sex marriage – it really made the contrast between them seem – not just in terms of policy, but in terms of acting like a human being – seem very, very stark. And then you have this article in The Post, which talks about Romney bullying a perceived gay classmate in high school – and it doesn’t paint a very pretty picture.

[WG]: Yeah. Sarah, you mentioned the states’ rights issue, I want to go back to that just a second. It seems to me if you go that route, you imperil the progress that has been made with the policies in this administration, and I know that many of our colleagues in the non-profit community that work specifically on that issue, are horrified of talking about that as a states’ rights issue. How do you see that playing out?

[SP]: Well, I think probably Obama – I mean, it’s true; the president can’t really get involved in dictating what a state legislature does, or, you know, what issues get on the ballot as a referendum in the states, and perhaps he was just signaling that he wasn’t going to take any federal action in terms of any kind of federal statue, or constitutional amendment, or push anything on the federal level to implement same-sex marriage, he was basically saying this is something that has to be done at the state level, which is true. But the problem is that the number of states that have outlawed it vastly outnumber the states that have made it legal, and that’s a disconnect; but I don’t know that it’s really in the power of any president to do anything about that.

[WG]: As two of the increasingly smaller number of people who seem to be interested in religious freedom in this nation, I made a point – you were nice enough to pick it up in your article – that it’s great that the president comes out and shows that he’s at peace on this issue regarding his faith – but let’s keep in mind that’s not the issue here in the overall structure of things.

[SP]: That’s correct. Nobody’s religion should dictate what the law is on LGBT rights, right? Or any law. So, it’s just as wrong for a liberal to say the bible dictates that we should allow LGBT rights as it is for conservatives to say that the bible prohibits it. However, in this particular instance, I don’t think that he was trying to say that his religious beliefs should dictate the law; I think he was explaining how he got there from a position that was purportedly in line with the conservative position. And I also think it has another political implication, which was that, perhaps, he was sending a signal that the way he’s done religious outreach – which has included more apparently close relationships with anti-same-sex marriage religious figures than pro-same-sex marriage religious figures – perhaps this is a signal that some of that is going to change. The issues with having religious outreach and having a faith-based advisory board and all of those things are indeed things that we should continue to discuss, but just in a purely politics standpoint – standing aside those constitutional issues for the moment, I think this signals perhaps, hopefully, something important, in terms of him having a broader collection of people around him on those issues.

[WG]: Yeah, that’s a very good analysis of that. I want to take – I know we should be quitting, but I’ve got to take one more second here – on what I think was an underreported event this past week. I went on Rachel Maddow and talked about it, I know you are very much aware of it: in the great Statuary Hall of our nation’s Capitol building, with the necessary blessing of the House Speaker, some of the most hateful, regressive theocratic, exclusionary, supposedly Christian figures of our time gathered for an event called “Come Pray With Me.” Sarah, that was some extremist stuff! I mean, I guess some people agree that Satan is coming back as a politician, but to say that separation of Church and State is from communism…

[SP]: These are old talking points, of course.

[WG]: Of course they are – but why, why do we have to put up with that? Why did the media overlook that?

[SP]: I can’t answer that last question, why the media overlooked it; I think that the media has an aversion to reporting on religion, doesn’t really understand where the constitutional lines are with the separation of Church and State, has been convinced that praying in public is an innocuous, perfectly acceptable patriotic thing to do and so, therefore, those sorts of things shouldn’t be questioned. There’s not a lot of questioning of the National Day of Prayer, for example, so I think that the media just tends to look at it as: “Oh, well that’s just some people praying, let them pray, it’s all right, it’ll go away.”

[WG]: And for me, the implicit problem with that is that not only, then, did the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress affirm that group – so did the media, by giving it a pass. We just have to put up with that?

[SP]: We don’t have to, but…

[WG]: But there have to be writers like you that take it on, and so that somebody understands.

[SP]: Well, it’s good that Rachel Maddow did a segment on it.

[WG]: Well that’s true.

[SP]: Yeah.

[WG]: Well, it’s clear our work is not going to be done, and I want to direct our readers to the work that you’ve been doing with a great article at Religion Dispatches, and an insightful piece posted at Salon.com on the subject of Barack Obama’s expression of support for marriage equality.

Sarah Posner is Senior Editor at Religion Dispatches, and the author of God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters.

Sarah, this is a big story, I know it’s going to stay with us, I’m grateful for you helping us better understand this moment in our nation’s history today, and we’re going to be calling again soon to get you to help us again. But thank you for consistently being willing to come on State of Belief radio and help us.

[SP]: It’s my pleasure. Thank you.

———————–

State of Belief is based on the proposition that religion has a positive and healing role to play in the life of the nation. The show explains and explores that role by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in America – the most religiously diverse country in the world – while exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion for partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government for sectarian purposes.

Each week, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy offers listeners critical analysis of the news of religion and politics, and seeks to provide listeners with an understanding and appreciation of religious liberty. Rev. Gaddy tackles politics with the firm belief that the best way to secure freedom for religion in America is to secure freedom from religion. State of Belief illustrates how the Religious Right is wrong – wrong for America and bad for religion.

Through interviews with celebrities and newsmakers and field reports from around the country, State of Belief explores the intersection of religion with politics, culture, media, and activism, and promotes diverse religious voices in a religiously pluralistic world.

———————–

The host of State of Belief, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, leads the national nonpartisan grassroots and educational organizations, The Interfaith Alliance and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana. Welton is one of 20 international religious leaders on the Council of 100 Leaders, a group created by the World Economic Forum to improve dialogue and understanding between the Western and Islamic worlds.

While ministering to churches with a message of inclusion, Welton emerged as a leader among progressive and moderate Baptists. Among his many leadership roles, he is the immediate past President of the Alliance of Baptists and is a twenty-year member of the Commission of Christian Ethics of the Baptist World Alliance. His past leadership roles include serving as a member of the General Council of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, President of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Chair of the Pastoral Leadership Commission of the Baptist World Alliance.

Prior to the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, Welton served in many leadership roles in the SBC including membership on the convention’s Executive Committee from 1980-1984 and Director of Christian Citizenship Development of the Christian Life Commission from 1973-1977.

Welton received his undergraduate degree from Union University in Tennessee and his doctoral degree and divinity training from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

It wasn’t a public policy change. But it was an announcement that dominated much of the public discourse for the second half of the week: President Barack Obama’s long-expected expression of support for marriage equality. Sharing her insights on the immediate reaction and likely political impact is Religion Dispatches Senior Editor Sarah Posner.

She’s written excellent articles about this week’s events for both Religion Dispatches http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5969/obama_says_his_… and Salon http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/obamas_marriage_epiphany/singleton/

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. To download this audio, click here. To read the transcript, click here. To hear the entire May 12, 2012 State of Belief Radio program, click here. To hear Sarah Posner’s previous appearances on State of Belief Radio, click here.

Electoral Implications of a Change of Heart
When the President spoke out in support of marriage equality this week, it seemed that everyone – on both sides of the debate – had a press release ready to go and they all hit “send” at the same time. Each had its own theory about what this meant for President Obama at the polls in November. Who’s right?  Joining us this week to analyze that is our friend Sarah Posner, senior editor at Religion Dispatches. Sarah has a deep understanding of the power and politics of the religious right, and has written excellent articles about this week’s events for both Religion Dispatches and Salon. Click here for the extended interview, video and transcript.

Religious Context for a Change of Heart
The President this week cited his faith as a key factor in his evolution to supporting same-sex marriage. On State of Belief this week is Jay Michaelson, associate editor at Religion Dispatches and founder of Nehirim: GLBT Jewish Culture & Spirituality, to share his thoughts on the religious aspects of this historic event. Jay is the author of God vs. Gay?: The Religious Case for Equality as well as one of the most articulate responses to President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage.

A Life-changing Change of Heart
Last year, Welton talked to Louis J. Marinelli, once a rising start in the so-called National Organization for Marriage, effectively helping to lead the fight against marriage equality. Then he had a change of heart and walked away. Louis joins us this week to talk about his new book: A Change of Heart: Working for the National Organization of Marriage Led me to Support Marriage Equality. A portion of the proceeds from the book will be donated to Marriage Equality USA.

Every 10 years, the Association of Religion Data Archives publishes the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies’ 2010 US Religions Census: Congregations and Memberships Study. One of the contributors is Dr. Dale Jones, director of research services at the Church of the Nazarene Global Ministry Center in Kansas, and he joins us this week on State of Belief Radio. Be sure to turn in to learn with us about the 150 million Americans who do not identify with a house of worship at all and which denomination is growing the fastest. The full study, including state-by-state and other geographic breakouts, is available online atwww.thearda.com.

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. Click here to download it. Transcript coming soon. Click here for the full May 5, 2012 State of Belief Radio program.

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. Click here to download it. Transcript coming soon. Click here for the full May 5, 2012 State of Belief Radio program.

As the primary target of Rome’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, chooses to stay silent on the matter as they prepare to formulate a response at a meeting later in the month,  Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, joins us this week to talk about the far-reaching impact of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Faith condemnation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. Click here to download it. Transcript coming soon. Click here for the full May 5, 2012 State of Belief Radio program.

“Pastors Against Amendment One”
On Tuesday, North Carolina voters go to the polls. Even without a crystal ball, we can predict that Mitt Romney will win the Republican primary, and President Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary. So it’s tough to imagine many voters going to the trouble, except that the voters who do turn out will hold the future of many North Carolina families in their hands. They’ll be voting on Amendment One, a mean-spirited and broadly restrictive measure that is redundant in banning same-gender marriage in that state, since it’s already illegal. This week we’re joined by The Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, who is the Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina, to talk about “Pastors Against Amendment One,” the coalition of faith leaders he joined to opposition to the amendment. Welton and Bishop Curry discuss the work the coalition has been doing and some of the headlines we’ve seen out of North Carolina, such as the Baptist minister who suggested to his congregation it’s ok for a parent to punch children who don’t conform to standard gender roles. For more on Pastors Against Amendment One, you can visit: www.pastorsagainstamendmentone.org.

Click the “play” button above to hear the extended interview. Click here to download it. Scroll down for transcript. Click here for the full May 5, 2012 State of Belief Radio program.

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE STATE OF BELIEF RADIO MAY 5, 2012

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BISHOP MICHAEL CURRY

[REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, HOST]: This coming Tuesday, Wisconsin voters will cast their ballots in the highly-publicized recall election of Governor Scott Walker. That’s going to get a lot of media attention, guaranteed. Meanwhile Indiana, West Virginia and North Carolina voters will head to the polls for their states’ primary elections, and even without a crystal ball I can predict that each state will choose Mitt Romney on the Republican side and Barack Obama for the Democrats. Add some delegates for the presumed nominees, call it a day. Tough to imagine many voters going to the trouble of voting – which is why it is so troubling that in the Tar Heel State, the voters who do turn out will hold the future of many North Carolina families in their hands. They’ll be voting on Amendment One, a mean-spirited, broadly restrictive measure that is redundant in banning same-gender marriage in that state – since it’s already illegal in that state – but has found campaigns on both sides of the issue that saw North Carolina Catholic Dioceses spend $100,000 to, in the language of such debates, “defend marriage.”

Because there really is no rational argument for restricting the rights of certain families, the only and – sadly effective – approach is to endlessly pervert the language of religious values. That’s why it’s so important to argue against things like North Carolina’s Amendment One in the same language – and doing just that has been a coalition of faith leaders in that state working through a website called pastorsagainstamendmentone.org. And I’m very pleased to welcome one of those faith leaders to State of Belief Radio right now, The Rt. Rv. Michael Curry, who is the Episcopal bishop in North Carolina. Bishop Curry, welcome.

[MC]: Well thank you.

[WG]: The debate over gay marriage has been awash in religious rhetoric from conservative voices – how do you answer them?

[MC]: Well, I have to say that that the debate that’s being engaged in here in North Carolina around Amendment One, while in many respects and corners it’s being presented as an issue of gay marriage, in fact, here in North Carolina, the issue is not gay marriage; the issue, really, is a potential amendment to our state constitution that, in fact, will hurt and harm numerous people, including children. And so, we’ve had to engage the question of the amendment to our constitution on the issue of humanitarian grounds. This amendment’s going to hurt children; it’s going to hurt unmarried couples; it’s going to hurt senior citizens; people who are in relationships and yet unmarried are going to be potentially and in fact jeopardized by this piece of legislation. So we’ve had to engage that question as, really, the question that we’re dealing with here.

[WG]: What is it, Bishop, in your own personal faith tradition and the values in your ministry that moved you to become involved in such a very controversial piece of legislation?

[MC]: You know, the truth is, it was the fact that, when I realized how profoundly and significantly people were going to be hurt by this amendment – it became very clear to me that, as a Christian and as a follower of Jesus, our task is to bring healing, health and goodness into the world, not to bring harm and hurt. And this amendment is going to bring harm and hurt to just many, many people – and uncertainty to many, many others as well. And I can give you a few examples.

[WG]: I wish you would.

[MC]: For example, this amendment has the potential – although it’s up to debate – but it has the potential to make people who are in relationships without the benefit of marriage, for whatever reason, possibly no longer protected under domestic violence protections that are currently afforded here in the state of North Carolina. There’s some debate about that in the legal community, but from what I can tell, the overwhelming response of law professors here at the law schools in the state of North Carolina is that this amendment could jeopardize protection that unmarried people currently have in domestic violence situations. You know, I was a parish pastor for almost 25 years before I became bishop, and in that time I spent a great deal of time on helping to extricate – it was always women – women and their children from abusive situations, and the protection that law enforcement can give to prevent stalking is critical to these women having a sense of safety and well-being – and for their children. That is why I say this amendment puts in danger women, usually, and their children. As a Christian, I cannot stand by idly, while anybody is being hurt by a law in this land. The constitution of any stat,e as with the federal constitution, does not exist to take away rights – it exists to protect them.

[WG]: Bishop, you’ve done an excellent job in describing the breath of the legislation, and the potential impact of the legislation, in a way that goes beyond my understanding of it. What I am wondering is: there are many people who are positioning this as just a referendum on same-gender marriage. So is it possible that all of the implications that you’ve just mentioned may become such subsidiaries to people’s focus on same-gender marriage that it is defeated for that reason?

[MC]: Well, yeah. It is my hope that if the broad spectrum of people – regardless of what their stand happens to be on marriage equality or same-gender marriage – but if a broad spectrum of people begin to understand that this amendment could actually do harm, regardless of whatever good some may think it’s intended to do, that many people could vote against it who are also against gay marriage. I mean, people can be pro- and con- on that question. I would think that we, as Christians – and I would pray that we, as Christians – who follow a Master who told us, I mean, pastor, you know the parable of the last judgment as well as I do, and Jesus was very clear in that parable that, you know, the nations are arrayed before the King on judgment day, and He really doesn’t ask them what their denomination is, he doesn’t even ask them what their religion is. What the Master asks is: “When did you feed me, did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked, visited me when I was alone, did you care for me as a fellow human child of God?” And Jesus says in that parable: “As you did it to the least of these, you have done it unto me.” I would suggest that for Christian people, in particular, that command: to do unto the least of these, in this particular context, needs to be lived out by making sure that the law protects the least of these, and does not harm. And it is my conviction that Amendment One will harm the least of these, and I say that as a follower of Jesus.

[WG]: Bishop, have you had to – I mean, you’ve got a very impressive coalition of pastors working on this alongside you – have you all had to rehearse going through all of the traditional difficult texts related to same-gender marriage and these kinds of votes, or has it been a matter of talking about the issue at large without having to argue scripture?

[MC]: Yeah, in this case, in this particular situation, we’ve focused on the issue at hand – of the harm that this amendment will do – because there are, you know, in the coalition there are Christians of diverse perspective; there are some Christian pastors who would very much be adamantly opposed to marriage equality and gay marriage, but who understand that this amendment will do harm. And so we’ve really stayed focused on the impact of this amendment on people’s lives, and that, it seems to me, is common ground for – certainly for us as Christians, and I believe for people of faith, and people of goodwill, generally.

[WG]: There are so many people that have heard the words of the Baptist minister from Fayetteville, Shawn Harris. I’m sure you’ve heard those words yourself. We’re going to play just a little bit of that sermon that he preached and what he said for our listeners right now:

[SEAN HARRIS CLIP]: Dads, the second you see your sons dropping the limp wrist – you walk over there and crack that wrist! (laughter) Man up! Give him a good punch, ok? You’re not gonna act like that! You were made by God to be a male, and you’re gonna be a male!

[WG]: Now, since that clip went viral, Harris has apologized to those that he “unintentionally offended.” My question to you is: how many voices like his are there in North Carolina? In the same sermon, he urged his congregation to vote on May 8^th – and it’s pretty clear how he wants them to vote. Is that common, or is that uncommon?

[MC]: Reverend, I really don’t know the full answer to that. I haven’t done a poll. My guess is, the level of that language, and the volume of it, probably is more, I would hope, uncommon than common. It may be that the sentiment in opposition to gay marriage may be more common, but I would hope that the spirit of that sentiment is not that common. I’ve got to tell you, it’s hard for me – and I don’t make any judgment on anybody else except myself – but it’s hard for me, as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, who himself, frankly, was executed on the cross because of his radical inclusion, not exclusion; because of his radical love, not hate. I mean, that’s what got Jesus killed, and we follow Him. So I don’t know how you follow a Lord like that. We have a hymn in the Episcopal tradition: “The King of Love My Shepherd Is Whose Goodness Faileth Never.” Well, how can you follow the King of love and spew hatred? And so I would hope and pray that that’s not common in pulpits throughout our state.

[WG]: Well I can tell you, bishop, I grew up in the Southern Baptist Convention, and I could tell you a lot of pastors that can straighten you out, if you want to be straightened out on that. How much difference, how much impact will come from Billy Graham’s alleged announcement that he is in favor of the amendment?

[MC]: I mean, Billy Graham is a much respected and revered person here, and a great man in his own right. I would still content that if we are passing an amendment to a constitution that’s going to hurt or harm one child of God – that is one too many, and that amendment doesn’t need to be in the constitution. This amendment that we’re talking about will strip away – certainly for all public employees who are presently unmarried but allowed to have health insurance and pension benefits because of domestic partnerships and that kind of thing, public employees in eight jurisdictions in the state of North Carolina – will lose those benefits because of this amendment, and people on both sides of the debate agree that that happens to be the case. There is some debate about employees in private corporations, whether or not they will lose their benefits, but it’s going to be complicated and messy, and corporations are going to have to do all sorts of gymnastics to make it possible for them. We cannot, as Christian people who follow Jesus, who said: “The two commandments that are the greatest are to love God and to love your neighbor” – how can we support something that doesn’t love our neighbor? The parable of the Good Samaritan? Who is your neighbor? When that question is asked of me – that neighbor is the other person. That neighbor is the person beaten up on the side of the road. That neighbor is the least of these that Jesus talked about. That neighbor is an abused woman who may not have protection of the domestic violence legislation. That neighbor is a senior, a couple, an elderly couple who can’t afford to get married less they lose their social security and pension benefits, who will no longer be able to be afforded the opportunity and the rights to visit their loved one if they happen to be in the hospital. Who is my neighbor? I certainly respect Dr. Graham. I really do. But on this question, I have to stand with answering: “Who is my neighbor?” by how I vote.

[WG]: Bishop Curry, aside from this particular election, what is it going to take for our nation to get beyond this polarization, and even the faintest justification for hatred and discrimination to be a part of Christianity?

[MC]: Yes, sir. Well, you know, at the heart of Christianity is the story of the Incarnation of God coming among us as a human person, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And I have a feeling that principle of Incarnation may be one of the keys. It’s easy for me to have attitudes or negative attitudes towards a group of people if I don’t know those people, and know them as living human beings; but I think, for most of us, when we get to know other people, a lot of our preconceived notions, a lot of our stereotypes, a lot of our assumptions get overcome when we actually get to know a person. You know, I mean, truth is, every one of us is a child of God. The Book of Genesis, in the first chapter, says: “We are created in the image of God, male and female he created them,” which I think is the Bible’s way of saying, “That includes everybody.”

[WG]: I think you’re right. Well listen, you know North Carolina well, and you’ve been there long enough to know it well, and you’ve watched it during this campaign. What have you seen and heard that gives you any sense you know how this vote’s going to come out?

[MC]: I don’t really know how it’s going to come out. I do have a sense that the more people learn about the actual impact of this particular amendment, the more there is a greater understanding that this is not the appropriate way for us to go as a state. About a month ago or so when a poll was taken – I’ve forgotten which one it was – but that particular poll said that 58% of likely voters were expected to vote in favor. That was over a month ago. The most recent poll, just, I think, a week or two ago, said that number has gone down to 54% – so it’s heading – that the more people understand what’s in this particular legislation, the more they realize this is not the way to go. Now, again, that, from my perspective, is hopeful; but I don’t know that it will stop the amendment. There is a chance. There really is a chance; and I’ve got to tell you, pastor, ten years ago there wouldn’t even have been a chance.

[WG]: Exactly.

[MC]: So, there’s progress. Remember how Doctor King often said: “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it is bent towards justice.” And I believe that justice will out; that God’s Kingdom of righteous justice and peace will be realized in time.

[WG]: Well, your comments on our show today are important in relation to North Carolina; but as you well know, there are people in the other parts of the country that are going through this very same thing, and I think that as they look to you and to your colleagues there, and the way you’ve handled this – and you have given a good model for the way in which to meet hatred with love and to meet exclusion with inclusion – and we’re very grateful for you doing that.

[MC]: Well, I’m grateful to be on your show, and thankful to you for helping to spread the word; because love is the way. It’s the only way.

[WG]: I’ve been talking With Rev. Michael Curry, the Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina, one of the faith leaders who signed on to the campaign Pastorsagainstamendmentone.org. This initiative is on Tuesday’s primary ballot in that state. Bishop Curry, as I’ve said, thanks for being with us, thanks for helping all who will benefit from this. We appreciate you being on State of Belief Radio.

[MC]: Thank you Reverend, it’s been an honor.

———————–

State of Belief is based on the proposition that religion has a positive and healing role to play in the life of the nation. The show explains and explores that role by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in America – the most religiously diverse country in the world – while exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion for partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government for sectarian purposes.

Each week, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy offers listeners critical analysis of the news of religion and politics, and seeks to provide listeners with an understanding and appreciation of religious liberty. Rev. Gaddy tackles politics with the firm belief that the best way to secure freedom for religion in America is to secure freedom from religion. State of Belief illustrates how the Religious Right is wrong – wrong for America and bad for religion.

Through interviews with celebrities and newsmakers and field reports from around the country, State of Belief explores the intersection of religion with politics, culture, media, and activism, and promotes diverse religious voices in a religiously pluralistic world.

———————–

The host of State of Belief, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, leads the national nonpartisan grassroots and educational organizations, The Interfaith Alliance and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana. Welton is one of 20 international religious leaders on the Council of 100 Leaders, a group created by the World Economic Forum to improve dialogue and understanding between the Western and Islamic worlds.

While ministering to churches with a message of inclusion, Welton emerged as a leader among progressive and moderate Baptists. Among his many leadership roles, he is the immediate past President of the Alliance of Baptists and is a twenty-year member of the Commission of Christian Ethics of the Baptist World Alliance. His past leadership roles include serving as a member of the General Council of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, President of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Chair of the Pastoral Leadership Commission of the Baptist World Alliance.

Prior to the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, Welton served in many leadership roles in the SBC including membership on the convention’s Executive Committee from 1980-1984 and Director of Christian Citizenship Development of the Christian Life Commission from 1973-1977.

Welton received his undergraduate degree from Union University in Tennessee and his doctoral degree and divinity training from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.