CLEVELAND (RNS) A group of Cleveland pastors who tried to trigger a referendum to overturn the city’s domestic-partner registry have come up short in their bid for signatures.
The group, led by the Rev. C. Jay Matthews of Mount Sinai Baptist Church, needed to submit about 11,000 signatures by Wednesday (Jan. 7) to put the issue to a citywide vote.
Matthews said only a few thousand signatures were collected. He blamed the failure on a narrow time frame over the holidays.
“We knew it was going to be tough,” he said.
Religious leaders now will focus on a maneuver known as an `ordinance by initiative.’ It requires 5,000 signatures and allows petitioners to submit legislation to repeal the registry. That legislation could be placed before voters if the City Council does not pass it.
In December, the City Council voted 13-7 to create a registry for same- and opposite-sex couples. Supporters said the move would cultivate a gay-friendly image for Cleveland and perhaps help domestic partners obtain benefits, such as health care, typically reserved for married couples.
Matthews’ supporters, however, oppose the registry as a sneaky way for city lawmakers to circumvent a 2004 state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriages and civil unions in Ohio.
The registry, which is set to debut in three months, would not guarantee any rights or mean a couple is legally married. Legal challenges to a similar registry in suburban Cleveland Heights have failed.
Matthews said his group circulated petitions for both the referendum and the ordinance by initiative and is getting close to 5,000 signatures for the initiative. He said he hopes to submit the legislation by April.
Sue Doerfer, head of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center of Greater Cleveland, said activists have launched a campaign to knock on doors to promote the registry.
“People have very strong feelings about same-sex marriage,” Doerfer said. “This is not marriage. I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.”
By Henry J. Gomez
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted January 9, 2009 at 7:33 pm
They oppose marriage, they probably oppose civil unions and now they oppose a simple list. Even I have a better idea of what “Godly” should mean than these clergy.
posted January 9, 2009 at 8:00 pm
These clergy think a list of registered partnerships was a “sneaky thing” to do? So they are trying to start a “mean thing” that encompasses heterosexual, as well as homosexual partnerships. This is pathetic. I think the people in Cleveland have better sense and hearts than these clergy must.
Have you heard nnmns that the AFA, American Family Association, are boycotting Pepsico Co. because they gave a large donation to Human Rights, I think it was Human Rights, one of them, and PFLAG? It’s our favorite drink with pizza. The comments after this article on the Advocate were all for drinking more Pepsi. One comment even came fr. Sweden. This of course is a right group.
posted January 9, 2009 at 8:04 pm
So the “sneaky thing” is to be replaced as the “mean thing”. Cleveland people will come through and this will probably fail. They won’t like that it will affect the heterosexual people, too.
Did you hear nnmns that AFA, a right group, are going to boycott Pepsico because they gave a large donation to a Human rights group, and PFLAG? Pepsi is our favorite drink! I think America likes Pepsi like they like Disneyland, don’t you?
posted January 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm
This is one crazy programming. Which do you like nnmns the long one or the short one?
posted January 9, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“Mount Sinai Baptist Church” says it all. This is probably a fundamentalist initiative. No surprise it failed.
posted January 9, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Henrietta, if you mean your postings, I like them both.
Nate they have a fundamentalist stench about them.
posted January 9, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“Matthews’ supporters, however, oppose the registry as a sneaky way for city lawmakers to circumvent a 2004 state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriages and civil unions in Ohio.”
Some people will always see LGBTs as “sneaky”, it seems. A gay person could be feeding the poor in some third world country and they’d say “oh, you know he/she is just trying to force his/her alternative lifestyle choice on them”. For the record, I’ve never heard a real LGBT person call their sexuality or gender identity an “alternative lifestyle”.
“Did you hear nnmns that AFA, a right group, are going to boycott Pepsico because they gave a large donation to a Human rights group, and PFLAG?”
I know what I’m getting the next time I want a soda.
posted January 10, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Moral of story: When you hear conservative Christians saying that it’s gay [i]marriage[/i], not civil unions, they have an issue with, they’re pretty much lying.
posted January 11, 2009 at 10:40 am
The actions of a few (fewer than 11,000) in one city don’t represent all conservative Christians everywhere, LutheranChik. And since they failed to get the signatures they needed, it doesn’t look like this initiative reflects the attitutes of all conservative Christians in Cleveland, either.
posted January 12, 2009 at 10:29 am
I know we are not big and flashy as are some other denominations. But this guy ought to realize that the headquarters for the United Church of Christ is in downtown Cleveland, and many of the people who work for and with the denomination live there.
In that we are Open about accepting and inviting LGBT folks into the pews and pulpits and Affirm their presence and leadership with us, I think the resistance might be more than he anticipated. We have many (as in hundreds) Open and Affirming congregations around the country. It is this sort of grassroots movement that helps shape our denominational character.
Not all of our congregations are Open and Affirming, and some are even opposed to the entire concept. Our strength as a denomination is our ability to be very diverse and still united in our greater worship, work, and fellowship.
posted January 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm
jestrfyl, the Unitarian-Universalists are with you on this.
posted January 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm
All I can say is, I’m GLAD their little petition failed…and hope their next attempt does too. Opposed to a registry? Getting desperate are they? Golly! That’s SAD.
posted January 17, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Seems this (yet another) Baptist group doesn’t believe in freedom of religioni – at least not for people who believe differently than they do.
In addition to the United Church and the Universalist/Unitarians, you could add the Metropolitan Community Churches, both the Reformed and the (ahem) Conservative branches of Judaism and the Quakers (yes, the Quakers) who perform same-sex marriages.
Why should the Baptists be able to force their belifs and tenets on other people not of their (or of any) faith?
More nutsoid RRR tactics. I’m glad they were defeated.