March 11, 2005

Dear Colleague:

If you agree that marriage is a foundational institution of civil
society, that federal and state courts are not the appropriate forum for
dictating a radical redefinition of marriage, and that debate over the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act should be resolved now
to avoid efforts to undermine the sovereign right of the people of a
state to defend the traditional definition of marriage, please join with
me in cosponsoring the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

Ironically, in 1878, the United States Supreme Court itself acknowledged
the critical role of marriage in maintaining social stability. As the
court observed, \"\[U\]pon it society may be built, and out of its
fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties\...\"
In short, the institution of marriage is essential to the foundation of
society. As a pillar of pre-political society, marriage can be said to
provide support for constitutional governance itself. Accordingly, it is
entirely appropriate for The Supreme Law of the Land to recognize the
civilizational precept that marriage consists solely of the union
between one man and one woman.

Another aspect of this question concerns the role of the judiciary in
our society. It was beyond the vision of our nation\'s founders that the
judiciary would become a quasi-legislature. It was for this reason that
Federalist #78 characterized the judiciary as the least dangerous branch
since \"the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three
departments of power.\" Thus, when the judiciary assumes the role of the
legislative branch, it has violated its proper function. The effort by
some state courts to redefine the institution of marriage, coupled with
the generally expansive interpretation of its own power by the federal
judiciary, poses a serious challenge to the very notion of
self-government.

It is increasingly apparent that marriage itself has become vulnerable
to the design of judges who have seen fit to take upon themselves the
authority to engage in social engineering aimed at the redefinition of
this foundational societal institution. Accordingly, I intend to
introduce an amendment to the United States Constitution to thwart this
usurpation of authority by both the federal and state courts. My
proposed amendment would do three things:

1\. It would define marriage in the United States as a legal union of
one man and one woman.

2\. It would expressly prohibit the judicial power of the United States
or of any state from being used to redefine marriage as anything other
than a union between one man and one woman.

3\. It would resolve questions relating to the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act by incorporating language which would prohibit
the courts from imposing the policy of one state on other states.

This approach to the protection of marriage is expressly designed to
erect a wall of separation between federal and state courts and the
institution of marriage. The appropriate response to the judicial
assault on marriage is to amend the Constitution of the United States. I
ask you to join me as an original cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage
Amendment. Please do so by contacting Jennifer Goldstein at 5-5716.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Lungren

Member of Congress