I’ve taken a mind today to compare how our first and our last President respond to the concerns of their religiously minded supporters.
In 1790, while visiting Newport, the new President received a letter bearing good wishes from Moses Seixas, warden of the Hebrew Congregation of Touro Synagogue. George Washington responded to the Congregation in kind. It is a famous exchange; these are widely considered foundation documents of the separation of church and state in the U.S., and more generally of the principle of toleration. My thanks to Hume’s Ghost for reminding us of this letter.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of once class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
That is what our first President thought the new Constitution guaranteed: “there shall be none to make him afraid.”
This morning our last President, George Bush, addressed the concerns of his Christian supporters in a radio address. He communicates his own considered opinion about what the Constitution stands for, by advocating a new Amendment that would prevent states from permitting homosexuals to marry each other.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts….
The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else….
The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue…
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
How far we have come in little more than two hundred years: “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.”
Crossposted at Inconvenient News.
