An open letter to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah

Rep. Jason Chaffetz
1032 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

December 17, 2009

Dear Rep. Chaffetz:

Although I do not live in your district and am not among those voters who elected you, I am a former resident of Utah and I share a common religious heritage with you and the majority of your state’s citizens. It stands to reason, therefore, that I feel a sense of obligation to discuss with you the concerns I have over your publicly stated intention to lead an attempted overturn of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

To be sure, I am keenly aware that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution vests in the Congress authority to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, and that all regulation passed by District residents and elected officials is subject to Congressional review. I also trust that you understand the difference between public policy and the law. While the law provides you the option of District governance, good public policy indicates that Congressional authority to override should not be used except in extreme cases.

Less than a year into your first term as a legislator, I can understand the temptation to make a name for yourself by taking a firm stand on a publicly divisive issue that speaks to the conservative base of those who elected you. I also recognize that the “House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia” is not likely the most prestigious committee on which to serve, and as a freshman representative, the temptation to make a name for yourself must be great. I would, however, appeal to your sense of humanity that you are inflicting the views of an electorate that is literally 2000 miles removed from the citizens your legislation threatens to impact.

I am well aware that you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as are most of the people who voted for you. Therefore, having a strong knowledge of my own LDS roots, I’d like to share with you some facts from the annals of Church history which you may find particularly relevant in relation to the District’s predicament. History, after all, is the lens through which all legislative activity should be viewed.

The Mormons, a minority in all places except Utah, first began to experience discrimination at the hands of the majority in June of 1830 when their prophet, Joseph Smith, was arrested in Palmyra, New York, and charged with “being a disorderly person” simply because he was preaching non-traditional Christian views. Although Smith was acquitted of the charges, the persecution continued and eventually prompted Smith to leave New York and settle in Kirtland, Ohio where his small band of followers began to grow.

But the non-Mormon residents of Kirtland (the vast majority) also saw ill in Smith’s teachings. They believed that what he and his followers were doing in the privacy of their own homes was immoral, unnatural, and an abomination. In 1832 a resentful mob of “God-fearing” locals tarred and feathered Smith in front of his own home.

And so the Mormons left Ohio, just as they had left New York. They migrated first to Missouri, and then to Illinois in search of a place where their neighbors would understand that they were good and decent citizens, who worked hard, cared for their families, and simply wanted rights equivalent to those in the community who saw them as “different.” In both Missouri and Illinois, the non-Mormon majorities in town won out. Rights and privileges were withheld from the Mormons because of who they were. Pressure was brought to bear against their organization, and their leaders were imprisoned on multiple occasions. Joseph Smith would be assassinated at the hands of an angry mob – cut down in the prime of his life, and leaving several widows – all because he lived his life a little differently than his neighbors.

In March of 1839 Smith was imprisoned on false charges at Liberty, Missouri. It is worth noting that during this and other episodes behind bars, Smith and his brethren were subjected to the dangerous consequence of large-scale group-think, state-approved human rights violations, and a gross misuse of the legislative system to persecute and withhold rights from the minority that Smith represented. Hence, Smith had good reason to pray and to write. Much of his writing from this period in his life can be found throughout Mormon scripture, including the passage which would later become the 121st Section of the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121:39).

On behalf of the voters of Utah, and the residents of the District of Columbia, I ask you to deeply consider the consequences of unrighteous dominion as you prepare to take on same-sex marriage in Washington.

I also ask that as you enjoy the Christmas and New Year’s holidays your wife, Julie, that you prayerfully consider other families in Utah, Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and across the nation. Families who are different than yours, whose background and values stand apart from those who wish their rights to be put before a public vote. And as you prayerfully consider the plight of these families – and yes, Mr. Chaffetz, gay Americans do have families – I ask that you consider the consequences of placing one minority’s legislated rights before the public vote of the non-minority. Show the good people of our nation’s capital a sense of compassion that was not offered to our ancestors (both yours and mine).

The legislation you are proposing, while it may fall within the guidelines of your subcommittee’s constitutional privilege, cannot be justified in good conscience. While your plan may not be illegal it is unethical, and immoral. Based on the history of your own people, and an understanding of how badly a minority can be persecuted as a consequence of unrighteous dominion, I trust you will reconsider.

Kind Regards,

Brian Harper