I know this won't be news to anyone, but I'm just so damned frustrated with our dysfunctional political system - a system that allows duly elected representatives to freely ignore their constituents.
I recently moved from Pennsylvania's Fourteenth district, where I was pleased to be represented by Michael Doyle (a progressive Democrat), to Pennsylvania's Eighteenth district, which is regrettably represented by Republican "medical expert" Timothy Murphy.
Now, I don't know about you, but I get a lot of e-mails from various organizations asking me to sign petitions and contact my congresspeople about various issues. I get e-mail from the ACLU, the Sierra Club, MoveOn, Change.org, DFA, Democrats.com, MALDEF, ACCION, Amnesty International...you get the idea. It's gotten to the point where I delete some of them without even opening them - that's how much e-mail I'm getting. But that's not the only reason. First, if somebody's asking for a donation, I just delete the e-mail. I just don't have the money to support anything. Another reason: a lot of the effort is starting to seem awfully pointless. I guess things just aren't changing fast enough for me - patience isn't one of my strong suits. (Then again, I don't really have any strong suits.)
However, I do respond on occasion if the e-mail's subject line catches my eye or the cause is something I'm really passionate about. One such e-mail asked that I write my representative about repealing the Defense of Marriage Act or something to that effect. (I can't seem to find the original - but I know it was about marriage equality.) That's a topic I'm passionate about - I think it's a matter of human rights that people should be able to marry whoever they like, so long as it's consensual. So I wrote Dr. Murphy to register my opinion with his office via his website. I didn't expect much of a response - my senators and my previous representative usually sent an e-mail, and usually its contents were clearly scripted.
Well, Dr. Murphy's office sent me a letter via the Post Office, and I found it offensive and stupid. (This wouldn't be the first time this has happened; some of you may recall that Dr. Murphy's office responded to a constituent concern about "birthers" by replying with a full list of bogus "birther" theories.) I immediately wrote his office again via his website to register my frustration and I instructed them not to waste taxpayer money sending me another form letter. Well, instead his office replied via e-mail...with the same stupid form letter.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the introduction of a Marriage Protection Amendment. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.
I strongly believe marriage should be defined as the union between a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Many Americans fear the legalization of same-sex unions in Canada, Vermont, and Massachusetts will result in an erosion of the traditional view that marriage consists of the union of a man and a woman, and will force other states to recognize these unions as well. In 1996 Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which would allow each individual state the right to not recognize a non-traditional union made legal in another state. Thirty-eight states, including Pennsylvania, have passed their own versions of DOMA. Unless the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, states cannot be forced to recognize non-traditional marriages conferred by other states unless its own citizens or legislature decide to do so.
However, activist lawyers and their allies have devised a strategy to override public opinion and force same-sex marriage on society through the courts. Activist courts in a handful of states have recently ruled that denying homosexuals the right to marry violates those states' constitutions. This has resulted in states being forced to recognize homosexual marriage without the residents of the state having a say.
The Marriage Protection Amendment, H.R. 724, was introduced by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) on March 1, 2007. The bill would protect the union of a man and a woman by limiting Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act. The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits further action. Should I have another opportunity to support or vote on this legislation, please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions or concerns. If you are interested in receiving my email newsletter describing important votes and key committee activity, I invite you to visit my website at http://murphy.house.gov and sign up.
Sincerely,
Tim Murphy
Member of Congress
Now, I could pick through this offensive nonsense again - but I won't waste my time. I'm sure yinz will have a ball picking it apart anyway. What frustrates me is that this form letter (which I received twice, you may recall) responded to my "questions or concerns" by essentially telling me that I am wrong and that Rep. Murphy does not care what I think.
As a junior historian, I recognize that one of the reasons for having a democratic republic is to moderate the will of the people. The theory is that representatives will be wiser than their constituents (wouldn't that be nice?) and will be able to do what is best for them and the nation as a whole - while respecting what their constituents want. I also know that we have a long and sad history of our duly elected representatives ignoring the will of the people for all the wrong reasons - everything from women's suffrage to the invasion of Iraq. And the recent ridiculousness that was the G20 (Pittsburgh police beating on people for no good reason, in my view) just reinforces my view that our government isn't listening to us.
I don't know what the answer is. I don't know how to make our representatives listen to us. I don't know how to make them more accountable to us. All I know is that we can't go on like this indefinitely - or our system of government will fall apart.