Letter from member of Harry Reid's church illustrates wide rift

Politicians are used to getting harsh letters critical of positions they take, but a recent letter to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid from a high-ranking member of his church shows the depth and passion that some Mormons feel about the need to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Reid, leader of the Senate's Democrats, says he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and he voted for a state ballot question placing that language into the Nevada Constitution, yet he opposes placing the ban in the U.S. Constitution. He said he believes Republicans raised the amendment as a political ploy to help them during the upcoming election season.

"This is another one of the president's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems," he said in a Senate speech on June 5 before the vote. Congress should be addressing the war, high gasoline prices and other serious issues instead of debating the banning of gay marriages, he said.

His opposition to a federal constitutional amendment puts Reid at odds with top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who asked church members to support the amendment and to encourage their congressional delegation to support it.

Some weeks after a Senate vote on whether to end debate on the amendment, Reid wrote a letter to Nevada Mormon bishops explaining his position. That letter sparked a letter from James Howard, president of the Las Vegas East Stake between 1994 and 2005, who wrote to Reid in the strongest possible language.

Howard wrote that by not supporting the constitutional amendment, "You chose your party's agenda over Nevadans', over your Prophets' wishes, and defied God in the process. ... You have sold out for power and position. Whining about how offended you are that your 'Brethren' are not supportive of you anymore is not becoming of a leader of such high position. Justifying your weak stance in direct opposition to your Church's position is lame. You fear your party more than God."

Howard concluded: "But having sold out your Church, your State and possibly your soul for political power, I will have a hard time supporting you or voting for you in the future, should you attempt to hold on to your seat. Your soul is vacant, and you have lost your moral compass."

Howard said he never intended the letter to become public and regrets that it has.

"This was a personal letter. I was not speaking for anybody else. I was not speaking for the Church. It was my opinion," he said.

Howard's letter shows the depth of feeling that many people have about a gay marriage amendment and the delicate tightrope Reid walks in balancing his faith with his political positions. While gay rights activists consider Reid a friend because of his position, he clearly has lost support among Mormons.

Reid never responded to Howard's July 30 letter, nor did he have any comment for this column. Instead, his office provided a copy of his original letter to the bishops. He reminded them that he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriage and not require a state to recognize other states' marriage laws.

"I understand that others differ with me on this issue, and that their opinions are sincerely and deeply held," Reid wrote.

"I respect their right to hold and express those opinions. I expect those who differ with me to give me the same consideration," he wrote. "I have been shocked and offended at the malice and rancor with which many who disagree with me on this issue have personally attacked me. Frankly, I expect better of my fellow saints who share with me reverence for Jesus's example of forbearance, patience, and love."

It's impossible to know whether Howard's position is held by a majority or a minority of LDS church members, so it's impossible to evaluate whether Reid's position is more of a political gain with gay rights activists or a political loss among his church's members. But it can't be easy receiving a furious letter like Howard's, knowing you are in a no-win situation that never will be resolved or go away, and that nobody's opinion ever will be changed, which is why it's the perfect wedge issue.

I've never considered Reid or any Democrat to be a paragon of Constitutional virtue....but in refusing to support a Constitutional Amendment, he is, in fact, upholding the ideals of the Founders. Here's an excerpt from Federalist No. 84(apologies for the length, but worth the read), written by Hamilton:

"...It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...."

And the same can be said for an injudicious zeal for a Constitutional Amendment "banning" Gay Marriage. The Federal Government was never supposed to meddle in family affairs or "regulate every species of personal and private concerns." Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over family affairs....this is the exclusive purview of the states.

The Defense of Marriage Act purports to exempt states from recognizing gay marriages from other states....purports to suspend the operation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I question if that will withstand Constitutional muster, but I am convinced this is just election year theater...written, choreographed and costumed to incite the conservative base, which has been disaffected, disillusioned and disinclined to vote in the upcoming election.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.