(the congressman's website)
----------
United States Representative Mike Pence, Sixth Indiana Congressional District
426 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Representative Pence:
I am most distressed by your endorsement of H.J. Res. 56 last year, and your avowed support for the codification of “traditional” marriage into the United States’ Constitution. You, echoing those of the Republican leadership, speak of activist judges legislating from the bench; the desire to create strong families for American society; the fact God himself has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman; and finally, the overwhelming cultural precedents for monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Unfortunately, each one of these premises is questionable: there is no such thing as an activist judge; the desire to create strong families through such legislation is misplaced; legislating Christian values is immoral; and there is no cultural precedence for such marriage beyond societies influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Rather than attempting to continue such lawmaking, I humbly suggest you turn your sights rather to fixing the shocking plight of marriage in American culture by overturning the traditional marriage laws, creating a clear distinction between marriage as ordained by church and God and marriage as sanctioned by the government, and instead defining marriage as a simple outgrowth of contract law.
Activist judges do not exist: judges are prohibited by the Constitution from creating law. A judge who overturns a law, or rules a law unconstitutional and then requires changes to be made in the unconstitutional law, is not legislating, but instead carrying out the duty of the judicial branch: to interpret the law. Instead, congressmen, and other masters of rhetoric, have apparently created the term “activist judge” in order to cast voters’ fear and suspicion upon another branch of government. I suggest you break with Republican leadership: such use of the term is dishonest and misleading.
I commend your desire to create strong American families. Such families are, indeed, the basis of a strong nation. However, creating a strong nation through legislation ought not be the role of government; rather, the government should create laws which allow the people to create the strong nation. A strong nation is thus founded upon the freedom of the people, rather than restriction, by the government, into a single path perceived by those in power to lead to strength. If given the opportunity, the people will leap forward and find their own path to strength. Thus, even in the interests of strengthening the nation, codifying traditional marriage into law is uncondonable. Furthermore, no study has shown children raised by a homosexual couple are in any way inferior to children raised by a heterosexual couple.
God may have declared same-sex marriage illegal; God may have sanctioned the marriage of man and woman. However, I point you to the First Amendment:
Establishing traditional marriage because, even as an ulterior motive, God commands it, is nothing less than a violation of the separation of church and state. I further remind you of the text of the treaty between Tripoli and the United States in1797, signed by John Adams, as another example of the law of the land:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The United States government is, and ought to be, in no way Christian; and no legislation may thus pass which is founded upon Christian principles.“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Furthermore, the very act of legislating Christian values is a contradiction with the most basic of moral principles: do to others as you would have them do to you. I remind you, Mr. Pence, of the outrage you would justifiably feel should fundamentalist Muslims gain control of the government, and pass laws based on the Quran, or a Constitutional amendment banning Christian behavior. Why, then, do you support the current Christian majority imposing its religious will on others, in such blatant violation of the Golden Rule?
There is not, in contradiction to your claim, a widespread cultural precedent toward monogamous heterosexual relationships -- in essence, “traditional” marriage. In Africa, before European conquest and the importation of European religious norms, homosexual expression was the norm; in many nations, long-lasting sexual relationships with same-gender members was the norm. In Asia, homosexual love was widespread. Chinese same-sex relationships have been recorded since 600 BC; Japanese same-sex relationships were commonplace, giving rise to literature and artwork devoted to the subject. In Europe, before the rise of Christianity and its cultural taboos toward it, homosexual relationships were the norm between ancient Greek men; Roman culture also regarded it highly. All over the world, long-term homosexual relationships -- gay marriage in all but name -- were widespread and normal before the rise to dominance of the Judeo-Christian European culture and its religious taboos.
In fact, homosexuality is also widely observed among animals. In the bonobo chimpanzee, a species which separated from humanity’s ancestors scant millions of years ago, homosexual sex is regarded as normal and is as much a part of social interaction as heterosexual contact. Species ranging from penguins to chimpanzees engage in homosexual behavior, indicating it is also the norm in humanity.
I therefore urge you, Congressman Pence, to change your sights from legislation protecting “traditional” marriage -- and, effectively, banning gay marriage -- and shift to legislation designed to rehabilitate the civil nature of marriage, itself. Separate civil marriage from religious marriage, thus continuing to enforce the wall of separation which has served our country for so long, and support bills which will make marriage into nothing more than a legal contract. This, and other measures like it, may serve to slow or halt the epidemic of divorce sweeping the nation, creating stable homes, rather than traditional ones, to foster the children of America, who are indeed our nation’s future.
Most sincerely yours,
Neal --
