Gay Marriage Amendment `Shamefully Political,' Congressman Says

By Matt Stearns

WASHINGTON - If there’s one thing U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri knows, it’s marriage.

Over his career as a Methodist minister, he’s performed nearly 400, and one phrase has passed his lips each time: “Marriage was instituted by God and signifies to us the uniting of this man and this woman in the church of Jesus Christ.”

So with the House of Representatives expected to vote this week on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, you might expect Cleaver - the only practicing minister in Congress - to stand firmly behind the effort.

Think again. The whole thing makes him spitting mad.

“This is shamefully political and sinfully divisive,” Cleaver said during an interview in his Capitol Hill office. “It’s bad theology because there is nothing biblical about creating divisions between people.”

Bad theology, perhaps. But many Republicans see it as good politics.

The House vote will have no substantive impact. There aren’t enough supporters to win the two-thirds vote necessary for a constitutional amendment to pass. Even if the House did pass it, the Senate’s rejection of the measure earlier this year means it won’t become law.

But the measure is part of the conservative “American Values Agenda” unveiled by House Republicans earlier this year. Republicans see the issue as one that will fire up a disaffected base before tough mid-term elections this fall.

“This is a vote many members asked for,” said Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “It’s an issue folks feel strongly about and they want to have a vote.”

Cleaver’s background as senior pastor of St. James United Methodist Church in Kansas City gives him a unique perspective among members of Congress on his opposition to the amendment: He says government shouldn’t meddle in a religious sacrament.

“Marriage is a spiritual issue,” said Cleaver, a Democrat. “That’s not for the Congress to dictate, no more than it’s appropriate for Congress to dictate how much bread should be used in communion. Communion is a sacrament. Marriage is a sacrament. Why not just put all the sacraments in the Constitution?”

To be sure, many Americans marry outside any church. And marriage, in addition to a sacrament, is a societal contract.

If states want to regulate whether public officials who perform marriages can do so for gays and lesbians, Cleaver said he’s fine with that: “I do believe that the state ought to be able to impose its will on its institutions.”

And if Congress wants to address unions between gays and lesbians, then it should do so through “civil union” legislation dealing with issues such as inheritance laws and property rights, he argued.

“But the institution of marriage is holy and sacred,” Cleaver said. “And this body is not one that ought to come within 100 miles of sacredness and holiness.”

Those on the other side of the argument who share Cleaver’s deep faith disagree.

Congress required that Utah renounce Mormon-sanctioned polygamy before it became a state in 1896, noted Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and devout Roman Catholic who led the unsuccessful fight in the Senate for the amendment against gay marriage.

“I would rather we not be involved in it,” Brownback said. “But it has such enormous cultural and societal impact, I don’t think there’s a way of us avoiding it. It would be wrong if we did. It’s a foundational thing that you’re building a culture and a society on. I wish it weren’t that way.”

But here’s the thing, Cleaver said: Gay marriage has no cultural and societal impact.

“I have never been approached by two men or two women saying, `Please marry us,’” Cleaver said. “This comes up all the time with ministers. I don’t even know of a minister who’s been asked. My colleagues, my friends. ... There is no crisis. ... This country overrun with gays and lesbians wanting to get married? It is not the case.”

If a gay couple did come to Cleaver asking to be married in the Methodist church, he would decline, because the church doesn’t permit such unions. (Cleaver supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.)

Cleaver’s frustration with the bill was palpable during the interview. He opened up a Bible several times to show passages he thought showed the absurdity of the effort, and at one point he slapped the big book against his thigh in exasperation, muttering, “This place ... I don’t know.”

Later, he burst out: “I cannot tell you how angry this makes me.”

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/15049058.htm