Considering "Marriage"

Pasted below is the text of my op-ed, which was published in the Roanoke Times today. The link is here.


As Virginia’s Marriage Amendment comes under attack both in the courts and the legislature, Virginians should be critically examining the question of why the state regulates marriage and whether its definition should be stretched to encompass committed same-sex couples. Having done that, we should consider what our answers mean for all marriages.

Those who favor expanding “marriage” have framed the issue as one of “equality” or “non-discrimination.” While these labels are incredibly effective at winning popular support for the cause, they are misplaced in this debate.

“Inequality” and “non-discrimination” are repugnant when they involve making arbitrary distinctions between like things; not when they distinguish between things that are, in fact, different in relevant ways. So sound public policy on marriage—as with any other regulated good—requires that it be defined to include whatever qualifications are necessary to effectuate the purpose of state regulation, but to exclude any that are arbitrary.

Historically, the purpose of civil marriage has been to provide societal incentives for those who unite physically and produce children to stick together and raise them. The best scientific evidence supports what society has historically intuited: that the nurturing and training of children is optimally performed by both biological parents. This is not to say that others who undertake the task should not be commended and supported, but rather to recognize that there is an ideal situation for children which should be encouraged. Males and females offer different, yet equally vital, strengths to parenting; neither gender is dispensable.

As long as the primary purpose of civil marriage is to foster optimal child-rearing by the very individuals whose union has produced the children, defining marriage as a specifically heterosexual bond is not an act of invidious discrimination toward other kinds of relationships, because heterosexuality is a necessary definitional component.

While many support same-sex “marriage” out of a desire to demonstrate goodwill and support for the intimate relationships of LGBT persons, redefining the venerated institution of marriage is unnecessary to this goal. Traditional civil marriage laws do not brand homosexual relationships as “bad”; they brand heterosexual marriage as being “unique” to society in ways that justify its civil recognition—leaving gay couples in good company with every other non-regulated relationship in society, including friendship.

But redefining marriage is also harmful, because it would signal a fundamental change in the purpose for state regulation of all marriage that could ultimately render marriage irrelevant. Defining marriage to encompass same-sex couples (thus eschewing objective characteristics such as gender) means defining marriage on the strength of two individuals’ emotional bond and subjective desires rather than on their potential to benefit society by creating an ideal situation for nurturing children. Once this is done, on what fair, rational basis could the benefits of civil marriage fairly be denied to brothers, roommates, or best friends—relationships that offer no unique societal benefits?

Once relational configurations that are inherently unlike traditional marriages are brought within the fold of “marriage,” the definitional enclosure will serve little public purpose. As explained in the recent book by Girgis, Anderson and George, What Is Marriage?, “Laws that restrict people’s freedom for no deep purpose are not likely to last, much less to influence behavior.” Expanding the contours of civil marriage beyond those dictated by its societal purpose will stretch the institution to pointlessness.

The flavor of marriage has changed over time. The historical conception of marriage was more focused on duty, commitment, and sacrifice than self-fulfillment and personal happiness. This attitudinal shift may explain the universally sorry statistical condition of the institution of marriage today. But it also explains why, to many, expanding marriage seems appropriate. If marriage is about having society’s stamp of approval on the relationship that brings me the most joy and fulfillment, then why shouldn’t my own desires determine what kind of relationship that is?

Marriage is at a crossroads not only because allowing for gay “marriage” means formally changing what marriage is, but also because retaining the old definition requires us to admit that our contemporary, self-centered attitudes about marriage have informally effected such a change already. For those who support the traditional definition of marriage as oriented toward the public good, integrity requires us to rebuild this attitude toward marriage as well.

Caring for the Poor

As Virginia’s leaders wrangle over the question of Medicaid expansion, conservatives who oppose expansion risk exacerbating a stubborn problem of public perception: liberals care about the poor, and conservatives care about money.

Republicans are aware of the problem. After last year’s election, the Republican National Convention released a “Growth and Opportunity Project” report, which concluded that “The perception that the GOP does not care about people … must be addressed.” They are right. In reality, this is more than an image problem for Republicans; it is an impediment to meaningful policy discussions about the real differences between liberals and conservatives on this issue. And the kick is, the public perception is dead wrong.

According to extensive research by Arthur C. Brooks, the cold, hard, data indicate that political conservatives are far more charitable than political liberals. In his book, Who Really Cares, Brooks reported that in 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30% more money to charity than those headed by a liberal, even though liberal families earned an average of 6% more each year than conservative families.

Brooks found that of four groups (religious conservatives, secular conservatives, secular liberals and religious liberals), religious conservatives are the most likely to give away money each year—even to secular charities. They also volunteer at a higher rate than the general population.

Earlier this year, Michele Margolis and Michael Sances tried to debunk the importance of Brooks’ eye-opening conclusions by “adjusting for differences in income and religiosity.” But isn’t this like trying to explain away statistical partisan trends in firearm expenditures by adjusting for differences in income and NRA membership?

In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ instructed his followers to care for the poor, saying, “[W]hatever you did for the least of these … you did for me.” While Christian conservatives are frequently labeled as hypocrites for failing to support the governmental programs that would fulfill this mandate, the objective data reveal that devout conservatives are fulfilling the mandate. In other words, the statistics prove that there is more to the story than a lack of compassion among conservatives.

The missing link in the prevalent framing of the public policy debate is something fundamental to the conservative worldview: the conviction that human needs require human caring. While the liberal philosophy might rightly be framed as “government should care for the poor,” the conservative counterpart is that “individuals and communities should care for the poor.” Conservatives don’t advocate neglect of the needy, but rather posit that we are effectively neglecting them when we leave the work to an impersonal, distant government bureaucracy.

While it may be necessary for government to provide a last-resort source of protection for those who can’t get help anywhere else, the system we have today puts government “care” before personal, local care, effectively deterring the needy in our own community from turning to us—their neighbors—for help. But when getting help becomes a matter of filling out paperwork in exchange for a check from a government bureaucracy rather than turning to friends, family, neighbors, or churches, much is lost.

The person in need loses the opportunity to have her own community rally around her, providing emotional support as well as financial assistance and practical helps like warm meals, child care, or transportation to a job interview. The caring members of the community lose the opportunity to give from their own personal bounty and experience the joy of giving. Ultimately, society as a whole loses an essential component of healthy, human community.

Casting conservatives as heartless and greedy may be effective in channeling votes to liberals, but the data do not support such a dismissive, polarizing conclusion. This is good news, because it shows that the two parties share a basic concern for the needy. When we rightly discern the actual point of disagreement—the narrower questions of who should care for the poor and how it can be done—collaboration appears within our grasp. Meaningful progress toward our common goal of being a compassionate society should not be stymied by conversation-stopping worldview assumptions that are, ultimately, incorrect.

A Great Disappointment from Ohio

On Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in upholding the Mount Vernon City School District's termination of 8th-grade science teacher John Freshwater. (If you missed the background of my involvement with this case, click here and here.)

A "loss" was the expected result, at least before the oral arguments last February. But the great disappointment is that the Ohio Supreme Court disposed of the case without ruling on its core, substantive constitutional issues--whether or not Mr. Freshwater "injected his personal religious beliefs into the classroom" by allowing his students to critically examine the evidence for and against evolution theories. Instead, the Court decided the case based solely on the narrow, subsidiary issue of "insubordination."

The insubordination allegation stems from a principal's order for Mr. Freshwater to remove certain religious items from his classroom, including some book covers that listed the Ten Commandments, some posters quoting from Proverbs and Confucious, and, most importantly, Mr. Freshwater's personal Bible, which he often read quietly during his own free time, when students were not in the classroom.

Mr. Freshwater responded to the order by removing everything mentioned except for his personal Bible (which he purposefully refused to remove) and a poster behind his desk which depicted President George W. Bush and Colin Powell in the Cabinet Room with bowed heads (which he was never instructed to remove). Mr. Freshwater had also checked out two school library books--an Oxford Bible and Jesus of Nazareth, which investigators found strewn among papers, boxes, and films on a table in his personal work area.

Interestingly enough, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the order for Mr. Freshwater to remove his personal Bible from his desk was a violation of Mr. Freshwater's Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment (this part is a big win!). But the presence of the George Bush poster--which, incidentally, he had received from the school office and was hanging in at least 4 other classrooms at the time--and the religious school library books constituted "insubordination."

The decision was 4-3, and two of the three dissenting Justices wrote scathing dissents. Justice Pfeifer may have summed it up best:

"John Freshwater is not today’s big loser, because he fought to prove that he actually followed the rules, that he taught well, and that over a lifetime of dedication to the students in his classrooms he made a positive contribution to their lives. That proof is uncontroverted. In that most important measure of public education, John Freshwater is a winner and his final departure is a loss to the Mount Vernon schools."

I am hard at work now on a "Motion for Reconsideration." Please join me and many others in praying that perhaps one Justice, who may have been on the fence, will perceive the errors that I will be pointing out and choose to give the case one last look.

I am so grateful that God is a God of Justice, and that one day all things will be set right.

If you would like to read the majority and dissenting opinions, you can find them here.

Truth is Not a Fragile Thing

Tonight in Bridgewater, conservative and liberal elements of my community will gather for an exercise in disciplined listening. We will hear two different pastoral perspectives on "The Church and Same-Sex Marriage." This "encounter" is the first of two on this topic; the next one, tentatively scheduled for next spring, will feature two policy experts discussing public policy considerations surrounding same-sex marriage.

I hope that we can pack the house tonight with folks who are willing to listen in good faith to both positions, and to consider their respective merits and shortcomings.

I say this despite the fact that I have a definite belief as to which position is "true," "good," and "beautiful." I welcome the discussion and the challenge it poses to my worldview, because Truth is not a fragile thing.

I submit that anyone who is committed to the existence of absolute Truth, absolute Values, should welcome every opportunity to discuss their existence. For if they do exist, they cannot ultimately be disproven, nor will their existence be diminished by any person's refusal or failure to acknowledge them. On the other hand, if they do exist, every opportunity to discuss their existence is an opportunity to allow others to see them.

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argues that teachers do their students--and, by extension, society at large--a great disservice when they set out to "debunk" the emotion or dismiss its importance. He writes, "For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head."

In the same way, I think "Christian conservatives" do a great disservice to society when they dismiss liberal, relativist worldviews with an arrogant shaking of the head, as if those who held such worldvivews were a lost cause, not worth the time and effort of engagement. First of all, "we" don't know everything, and not everything is absolute. But beyond that, we serve as poor spokespersons for our own worldview when we walk away from the table. When we behave as if Truth is no better than a spoonful of canned peas, having no real flavor or textural value, but simply demanding digestion as a matter of lukewarm nutritional fact, I wonder if we, ourselves, really understand Truth so well as we think.

Truth is not a fragile thing, nor is it tasteless, nor dependent upon our blind, unthinking, submissive digestion. It is the stuff that both cuts down jungles and irrigates deserts. It is robust, vigorous and vibrant. It is so whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not. It is too great for us to fully or perfectly comprehend and verbalize, and yet enough of it has been revealed--and enough is innately known--to attract our devotion and pursuit.

Let us, who believe that Truth IS, welcome those to the table who believe that it is not. Let us go to THEIR table. Let us hear their best explanations and struggle over them. We may all walk back to our same "corners" in the end, but we will walk back wiser, perhaps questioning some of our assumptions while our brethren question some of theirs. But Truth will shine on, unchanged and unsoiled, and those who truly seek it will find it.

Be Part of the Solution

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt

Everyone I know has an opinion about politics and what direction our government should take. Yet voter turnout for tomorrow is expected to be dismal--something like 30%.

Don't be just another critic. Go out and vote.

Scary Stuff - Worshiping at the Altar of "Choice"

Yesterday I filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a coalition of 30 female state legislators from across the country, Concerned Women for America, and Susan B. Anthony List. The brief asks the Court to review a recent decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck down an Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks, except where the mother's life or health is in danger.

The elected representatives of Arizona passed this law after receiving credible, unrefuted scientific and medical evidence revealing two things: that babies in the womb feel pain after 20 weeks, and that abortions performed after this same point carry much higher health risks to the mother. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence to mean that states can never ban abortion before the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb (generally 23 weeks). Nevermind that what we are doing is torturing a living human being; nevermind that the woman faces a significantly greater chance of suffering serious complications or death when she waits this late to exercise her "right."

The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that “a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. at 147. Science now reveals that, far from being an impersonal blob of tissue for whom the descriptor of “living” is little more than a technical, biological fact, the post-20-week human being within the womb is so fully developed as to be wholly capable of feeling pain as his or her body is literally ripped apart and removed from the womb, piece by piece. This, of course, is how abortion is most often accomplished at this stage in pregnancy.

A humane, civilized society cannot retain its identity as such if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limitations on such brutality. Even animals—which most people would agree are not possessed of the same degree of individual value and dignity as humans—are entitled to and receive legal protections against cruelty and barbarism.

And what of "women's health," for which those who champion abortion rights express such concern? When confronted with credible scientific data demonstrating that abortions performed beyond the 20-week point are significantly less safe for women than those performed prior to that point, it is surely appropriate for legislators to protect women’s health by requiring physicians to perform the procedure at the earlier, far safer stage.

The recent tragedies of the Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia serve as a poignant reminder of how easily both individual women and the sensibilities of a humane society can become the casualty of an ideological battle.

We have become a society that worships "choice" itself; we say no one should consider what value is ultimately gained or what is lost by my choice, provided I am uninhibited and unconstrained as I choose. That, my friends, is scary stuff.

Please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will hear this case and correct this great humanitarian injustice.

Lessons from Lewis - Part 1 - Saying it Doesn't Make it So

C.S. Lewis had me on his fan list at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I required no further evidence of his brilliance. But I was absolutely captivated when I picked up The Abolition of Man a couple of weeks ago.

Lewis wrote the book (actually a series of lectures) in response to an English textbook, a complimentary copy of which was sent to Lewis for a review. [Note to self: Think twice before sending something I have written to a world-class writer, scholar, philosopher and theologian in hopes of a kind literary review.]

In The Green Book, as Lewis refers to it out of compassion for its pitiable authors, the second chapter quotes a story about Coleridge at a waterfall. Two tourists were present. One called the waterfall “sublime,” and the other called it “pretty.” Coleridge agreed with the first pronouncement but disgustedly rejected the second. The Green Book authors comment: “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually .. he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings…” The authors conclude, “This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”

The rest of The Abolition of Man consists of Lewis’ response to The Green Book’s authors’ misguided effort to dismiss the concept of objective value or truth. I now consider this a must-read for anyone involved in contemporary public policy discussions.

In one of my favorite portions of the book, Lewis explains that “emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). … The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should obey it.” He points out that what is common to the major world religion and philosophies is “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

Of course, this contrasts sharply with the prevailing beliefs in many spheres of our culture today.

But today’s unconscious philosophies exhibit an even more troubling characteristic: Rather than merely denying that “good,” “bad,” or “truth” can be found, many go so far as to apply false value labels to positions they disdain. Where The Green Book authors said, in effect, “nothing is objectively good or true” today’s philosophers say, “I determine what is good or true based upon my feelings about it.” Today’s philosophers find it unnecessary to explain or prove their conclusions. For them, the heart has "taken the place of the head."

A ready example of this phenomenon is the knee-jerk labeling of those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as “homophobes” or “bigots.” This labeling is as unjust as labeling those who support it “atheists.” Both labels may, in fact, fit a small subset of the universe in question, but it by no means can define the whole. In light of the fact that there are other substantial reasons for people to oppose a dramatic re-definition of the oldest social institution on the planet, the attempt to win popular support for efforts to do so by applying a dreaded label to those who don’t deserve it is nothing short of cheating.

I will examine this particular argument (on the issue of marriage) carefully in an upcoming article, but it is really one of many examples of the larger, deeply disturbing trend. The same phenomenon rears its ugly head in most of the controversial public policy issues our society faces today: abortion, immigration, welfare, and the list goes on.

In fact, I have become accustomed to being labeled a “hater” after anything I write is published, no matter how devoid of hate my words or my actual attitude may be.

For instance, after my guest column “Social Issues and the Economy” (scroll down if you missed it) was published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, one gentleman sent me a nasty e-mail which included this statement: “Jesus must be wondering how people can take his teachings of love and turn them into words of hate.” I took some time to draft a kind response to him, encouraging him to explain which of the words in my article he considered to be “words of hate.” No reply.

And herein lies the harm of what I will call “feeling-based value labeling.” It not only results in the end of real conversation about issues; it seems purposefully designed to do so. It blindly attacks the character of the speaker rather than the merit of the idea. And in doing so, it assaults the integrity of the language we use to describe those attitudes that are “true” and “false” to the “kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things that we are.”

Lewis is certainly right: there is “good” and “bad,” “truth” and “untruth.” But just saying it doesn’t make it so.

"Social Issues" and "The Economy"

Conventional political wisdom suggests that candidates must avoid, at all costs, the appearance of being focused on “divisive social issues” and instead focus exclusively on the economy. This is a false dichotomy of issues.

When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.

Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.

According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.

In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.

A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.

On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.

The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.

Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.

Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.

We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.

When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.

This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.

Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.

An Unheeded Plea for Journalistic Truth-Telling

Frankly, I am weary of hearing about “media bias.” It has become too obvious and widespread to remain interesting. And yet, when a news reporter is caught telling an outright falsehood to countless unsuspecting consumers, there is something much more fundamental than media “neutrality” which hangs upon his willingness to make the necessary correction; what is at stake here is basic integrity.

I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.

While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.

Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:

Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.

After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:

“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”

To this, I responded:

“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”

To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”

My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.

Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.

If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?

Affordable Care Act - The Good, The Bad, and The Revolutionary

Last night I attended an informational meeting at which national health care law expert Tim Jost explained some features of the Affordable Care Act and answered audience questions. Jost is a law professor at my alma mater, Washington & Lee University School of Law, and he has been actively involved in the creation of the ACA. In other words, he knows his stuff.

I found the session informative and helpful, although I still don't pretend to have an understanding of all of the workings of the behemoth legislation. While I don't typically like to discuss issues that I don't thoroughly understand, I am resigned to the fact that holding myself to this principle, in the case of this particular issue, would mean forever dismissing the opportunity of commenting.

And so, with that disclaimer, here are some of my thoughts on the beleaguered legislation.

First, the GOOD:

-It is good, noble, and right that we, as a society, demonstrate a concern for the poor, sick, and elderly among us. Therefore, it is also fitting for us to explore ways of ensuring that those who cannot care for themselves receive the tangible help that they need.

-From what I learned last night, there are elements of the law that make good sense. For instance, it seems wise to offer tax credits for those who are struggling financially, yet take responsibility for their future health care needs by purchasing health insurance. Giving them a tax break to help them pay for their premiums is likely to inure to everyone's benefit by allowing them to obtain preventive care and reducing the incidence of "uncompensated care" (which increases the costs of health care for everyone).

-Building upon the second point, it seems appropriate for the ACA to forbid some of the sharp practices by wealthy insurance companies that devastate individuals and cost taxpayers dearly. As I learned last night, the ACA precludes insurers from dropping an insured's coverage once he or she becomes seriously ill. Apparently companies will sometimes go back and identify a misstatement in the application or loophole in the contract once the insured starts to incur serious expenses. This is unjust and should be stopped.

But there is plenty of BAD in the Affordable Care Act as well:

-The law is over 900 pages. Need I say more? We are an overregulated people already, and legislation that approaches the length of War and Peace should raise serious concerns in anyone who has a genuine desire to know, understand, and abide by the law. In the middle of a hectic day, I am sometimes seized by the fear that some government bureaucrat will come knocking on my door to inform me that in the process of carrying on some industrious activity in good faith, I have violated the fine print of an obscure regulation. Am I neurotic? Maybe. But such a scenario is increasingly possible in America's contemporary legal climate. It shouldn't be. (If you think I am exaggerating here, ask me about the lady in Arizona who was ticketed for giving away bottled water).

-The law is hard on big businesses that have great influence on our economy. Would it be nice for these businesses to provide health insurance benefits for their employees? Of course. But penalizing them with crippling taxes for not doing so will just provide them with incentives to locate elsewhere, taking their jobs and other types of tax revenues to countries that will appreciate them. Right?

-If the federal government can force me, under threat of financial penalty (call it a "tax" if you must), to buy a product like health insurance, what can't it force me to do? This is my most fundamental concern with the law. The federal government was designed to be one of specific, enumerated powers ONLY. The ACA's passage, and the Supreme Court's upholding of it, are evidence that the prevailing interpretation of those specific powers stretches them beyond recognition.

-The law tramples rights of conscience, in all sorts of ways. Business owners have taken to the courts--with mixed results so far--to protest requirements that they provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion services that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. Now some are also saying that taxpayer dollars will be used to provide abortion coverage in the new exchanges, in contravention of the federal Hyde Amendment.

So are you ready for the REVOLUTIONARY?:

While I think most of us will concede that we must collectively care for the needy, many of us are convinced that federal mandates are not the best way to do that. I believe that we must admit that we have long permitted the federal government to overstep its bounds and take steps to reform it to the blueprint set out in the Constitution. We must insist that the enumerated powers vested in the federal government--its ONLY powers--be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intentions of reserving such matters as providing health care for the poor to the sound discretion of the people and the states.

How might we do that, you ask? One idea that I believe has merit involves calling for a Convention of States (under Article V of the Constitution) for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide more specific limits on the authority of the federal government. To learn more about this plan, visit www.conventionofstates.com.

About This Blog

Thank you for visiting my new blog! I hope you will find it interesting, thought-provoking and informational, and here's why I think you might:

Lots of people and groups are talking about "the issues," but I sometimes find their discussions to be blurred by a lens that is either blatantly partisan or calibrated toward some specific, temporal end. For me, putting current issues "in focus" means evaluating the hot topics of our day in light of their effects on Truth, Goodness and Beauty in our society.

I have long had a passion for engaging in thoughtful, respectful dialogue about cultural and public policy issues. But I have often felt discouraged--sometimes even disgusted--by the harsh tones that seem to dominate public discussion on controversial topics and the lack of genuine understanding the heated arguments leave behind.

Generally speaking, I just don't believe that people who disagree with my position on issues are crazy or mean-spirited. Consequently, I believe that it is both possible and beneficial to engage in reasoned discussions about our respective views and the basis for them.

As I blog, here are some of my primary values:

* Civility - my disagreement with another's viewpoint does not make that person my "enemy," and I will endeavor to treat all people with respect, whether their views are like mine or different.

* Integrity in language - I will refrain from distorting the meaning of terms or labels, and I will expose such distortions when I encounter them.

* Understanding - I will genuinely seek to understand the viewpoints and positions of others.

* Honesty - I will tell the truth about my own position and never purposefully mischaracterize the positions of others.

* Hope - I will endeavor to have a constructive effect on culture and public policy rather than simply criticizing or complaining about current conditions.

I invite you to join me in this journey by following the blog by e-mail; just add your e-mail to the empty box on the upper right, and click "submit." I look forward to having you along and hearing your feedback along the way!

Selling No-Fault Divorce to Moms?

Where shall I begin with my reasons for being outraged by this latest political ad put out by Terry McAuliffe's campaign? McAuliffe wants to be Virginia's next governor, and his strategy apparently involves duping women into believing that his opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, sponsored legislation that would make it harder for "moms" (but not dads) to get divorces. This assumes, of course, that we "moms" place a premium on the availability of quick and easy divorce.

I resent this ad for making a mockery of a sacred marriage vow [note the "Leave It to Beaver"-esque graphic and the old-fashioned, "I Love Lucy"-esque font of "For Better or Worse"]. This is a vow that my husband and I took before God. While we, like most couples, have not kept our vows perfectly, I hope and pray that we will keep this particular one, for the permanence of the marriage relationship is its very essence.

It is repulsive to me that a political campaign would seek to win my support by scoffing at a principle as noble and good as simple loyalty and commitment to one's family.

I refute the ad's deception. The ad makes it sound as if Cuccinelli's bill targeted "moms," making it harder for them, specifically, to get divorced if their husbands object. This is simply false. The bill (of course!) applied the same way for both spouses. Obviously McAuliffe's campaign wants to prey upon a woman's fear of being trapped in an abusive situtation. But abuse is always a legal justification for divorce, and Cuccinelli's bill would have done nothing to change that (for, as it turns out, Cuccinelli is not, in fact, a monster).

What the McAuliffe camp apparently doesn't think we "moms" will figure out is that Cuccinelli's bill would have helped the countless struggling moms who have been left holding the bag when their husbands decided to walk out on the family for no reason other than that marriage was no longer exciting, or that the demands of child-rearing had become difficult.

Finally, I reject the premise of the ad: that no-fault divorce is good for women and that we therefore favor its ready availability. Divorce is one of the leading causes of women and children being thrust into poverty. It is not good for women; it is not good for anyone, but rather is a necessary evil under certain circumstances. This is why I (and many other women I know) believe that legislation like that proposed by Cuccinelli makes good sense. Is it unreasonable to insist that, at least when the marriage has produced children, the divorcing spouse should actually identify a reason for breaking up the family? I think not.

McAuliffe's campaign may think that they have done something really savvy and "progressive" by making the permanence of marriage appear to be silly, oppressive, and out-dated for women. If so, then they are sadly out of touch with the better part of human nature. I have seen enough gray-haired couples holding hands and laughing at cherished family memories to know that I want that "for better or for worse" kind of marriage. I have been married long enough to know that we are all sometimes "better," and we are all sometimes "worse." But if society is ambivalent to whether or not our own spouse sticks with us through the days when we are "worse," then what kind of society is it, and what security does it provide?

No one benefits from laws that make it "easy" to abandon a family. When our society stamps approval upon a parent's decision to break a family--and his own vows--simply because he has changed his mind, we all lose.

On Being Hated

My last post and Daily News Record "Open Forum" on Martin Luther King, Jr. was shared on VCA's facebook page. Within a 24-hour period, about 1400 people had viewed it, and many of them reacted strongly against it. Here is a sampling of their comments:

"Maybe if your view was not that of an extremist, people would get it."

"Your [sic] nothing more than a bunch of racist. [sic] Judgment is mine says the Lord so who and the hell are you to judge anyone or thing. Your God will own you one day."

"For someone like you, that preaches hate and intolerance, to even reference Dr. King is an obscenity."

"You Christian extremists have no right to discriminate against others and call it 'Religious Freedom'. You hateful, close [sic] minded sheep don't get to redefine marriage for your own purposes."

"You write with the intent to do harm. You write with the intent to destroy. You write with the intent to spread hatred and malice throughout the world. In short, you deserve no respect. You deserve no kindness, and in fact, deserve nothing but to be cast forever into the pits of slime, horned demons and hellfire from whence you have obviously come."

When I read some of these, there is a part of me that screams to the rest of me, “Stop!! Sound the retreat!” I care about being liked, and it is painful to absorb some of these insults, accusations, and general indications of others' desires to see me die in pits of slime!

This may come as a surprise to some, because I do put myself out there on some of the most heated, controversial issues of our time. So yes, in a sense, I am “asking for it.” In a sense we are all "asking for it" when we challenge worldviews that are exalted over what we know to be True.

This time was a little different for me, however. There are plenty of people out there who hate me for my positions on these issues (the pro-life issue, for instance), and I can live with that without losing much sleep. It’s harder for me to live with being hated for being a “racist,” because I am not a racist.

Isn't it just miserable to be misunderstood and wrongly accused? To have our intentions unfairly maligned? But as two different friends, on two separate occasions, have recently reminded me, we are in the service of One who understands us—the good, the bad, and the ugly in us—perfectly.

What to do with that part of us that wants to retreat? It seems perfectly plausible to me. No one is forcing me to speak out or to challenge the hopelessness, confusion, idolatry and futility of the prevailing contemporary worldviews. I could sit here in my perfect health, in my comfortable home, with my healthy, loving family, enjoying all the best that the world has to offer. I could spend the day reading a great classic novel (believe me, this is a constant temptation). But I am simply convinced that God has put me (and YOU!) here to WORK for Him. To point anyone who will listen toward the great Creator. The Inventor of Beauty. The Giver of all wisdom. The Definer of Truth. The Dispenser of Justice. The One who Redeems people like me from the pit.

Every human "good" we observe in this world is but a dim reflection of the One who is the very essence and source of all Goodness. Isn’t it our job to be crying this out in the streets to anyone who will listen--and even to those who will scorn us for it? To be proclaiming that the universal values of mankind--beauty, wisdom, truth, justice, mercy--are but signposts on the pathway toward the Author and Owner of all things “good”?

We will be mocked and insulted, and we will certainly be misunderstood, but we must not be silent.

The Lord of Hosts has been gracious to me, and it is a sweet joy and an honor to do His work. “In [His] service, pain is pleasure, with [His] favor, loss is gain.”

Of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Today's "Liberal" Causes

In a recent article, Professor Peter Dreier appropriated Martin Luther King Jr. as champion of the “liberal” side of several raging public debates. Having been inspired from childhood by the justice of King’s struggle for racial equality and the effective and eloquent way in which he pursued his “Dream,” I find Dreier’s conclusions surprising and counter-intuitive. I reject the assumption that this giant of a man can be so neatly categorized.

Dreier claimed, for instance, that “King would stand — and sit in when necessary — with the LGBT community to help push states toward legalizing same-sex marriage…” The staggering presumptuousness of such a statement is exposed by the preceding sentences, in which Dreier first concedes that “King did not approve of homosexuality,” but then declares that King’s viewpoint would certainly have changed over time in light of the NAACP’s position and growing support for gay rights among black clergy members.

First of all, it is the height of arrogance for anyone to start from King’s known, stated position (disapproval of homosexuality), and assume that he knows King’s psyche, religious convictions and motivations well enough to conclude that King would have done an about face as a result of special interest groups or polling data.

But beyond that, the rationale behind Dreier’s conclusion is unconvincing. Historical giants like King are historical giants precisely because they don’t form their moral views based on cultural trends; rather, they resist man-made constructs that ultimately harm and degrade human beings and lead us, instead, to what is true, good, and beautiful.

William Wilberforce stood against the slave trade and Dietrich Bonhoeffer against the Nazis because, like King, Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer believed that every human being is created in the image of God and therefore has unique dignity and inherent worth. There is no escaping it: at the core of these heroes of humanity is a decidedly and specifically biblical worldview. Their passion for honoring the teachings of Jesus Christ was their motivation for waging war against various iterations of human oppression.

Where would King have stood on gay marriage? I don’t presume to know the answer. Although the Bible consistently identifies homosexual activity as a moral wrong, many today profess to be convinced that Jesus Christ himself would have championed gay marriage as a step toward love, compassion and equality.

My respect for King is deep enough, however, to convince me that he would have studied the Scriptures to critically evaluate that claim. In considering whether recognition of gay marriage really is loving and compassionate, he probably would have examined the reasons for marriage and the likely societal consequences of defining this fundamental institution based on individual preferences. He would have looked past value-laden labels and studied the contents of the package under a lens comprised of both compassion and truth.

Another label King would have parsed is that of “reproductive freedom.” Dreier trots out the fact that King once received a “Margaret Sanger Award” as ironclad proof that he would have been an abortion rights activist. Dreier candidly admits, however, that “King never spoke publicly about his views on abortion,” and that he was assassinated before Roe v. Wade was decided.

We live in a culture committed to the concept of liberty and obsessed with the idea of “choice,” so any conduct packaged in the trappings of “right to choose” (as any conduct at all might well be packaged) appears, superficially, to be a moral good. But I believe King would have balked at the idea of labeling one human being’s purposeful destruction of another human being as a liberty or “choice” that is beyond the power of a civilized society to restrict.

While supportive of Planned Parenthood’s educational efforts on birth control, I think King would have wept at the rate at which babies of color —babies with unique dignity and inherent worth — are being aborted. I think he would have been outraged that a whopping 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically located in minority neighborhoods.

It is impossible for anyone to credibly claim King’s endorsement for causes that arose after his death. But this much we know: King was a follower of Jesus Christ.

His boldness, compassion and commitment to serving others were beautifully consistent with the Christ depicted in the Bible. And just as Christ stood for timeless moral absolutes, I believe King would have looked beyond labels, politics, and polls and stood for transcendent truth, goodness and beauty.

Bradley Manning and Hormone Therapy: Two Formulas of Ideas.

Bradley Manning, sentenced to 35 years at Fort Leavenworth for leaking military secrets, would prefer to live out his prison sentence as a woman called "Chelsea." A bevy of high-profile organizations (including the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and other gay and lesbian activist groups) insist that failure of the Army (funded by taxpayers' hard-earned dollars) to make this dream come true amounts to a deprivation of human rights. You can read the news story here.

To anyone asking how we, as a society, have arrived at the place where such a demand can be "reasonably" made by a convict, I offer the following logical (?) formula of ideas:

A person's desire to be the opposite gender from that which he or she is physiologically is a type of illness (“gender-identity disorder”).

+

Gender-identity disorder can be treated by hormone therapy that allows the patient to develop physical characteristics of the gender he or she desires to be or believes he or she should be.

+

It is “cruel and unusual punishment” for the government to refuse to fund drug therapies for prisoners that may cure or reduce the severity of their illnesses.

=

Bradley Manning should receive hormone therapy during his prison term, and we (the taxpayers) should pay for it.

But consider this alternative formula of ideas:

A person's desire to be the opposite gender from that which he or she is physiologically is a type of illness (“gender-identity disorder”).

+

While it is possible to use drugs to change a person's physiological make-up to that resembling the opposite gender, such “treatment” is simply a way of indulging the person's desires, which have already been identified as a disorder.

+

It is not the responsibility of government to use taxpayers’ money to indulge desires of prisoners that are manifestations of mental illness—nor would doing so be in the prisoners’ ultimate best interests.

=

Bradley Manning's disorder should be treated with the same counseling and mental health services that are available to all other prisoners, and taxpayers should not pay for him to receive hormone therapy.

Would "human rights" organizations insist that prisoners who suffer from eating disorders be provided with taxpayer-funded liposuction? And if so, would they really be serving the best interests of those who are suffering?

A Nation of Liberty or A Nation of Feelings?

Judicial doctrines built upon contemporary America's unhealthy focus on feelings have left fundamental freedoms at risk.

Virginia Christian Alliance (VCA) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Supreme Court in the hotly contested public prayer case of Town of Greece v. Galloway.  We are asking the High Court to reevaluate its current, perception-based framework for deciding cases involving religious speech or symbols in public settings and to return to a historically correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause to prohibit only government policies involving religious coercion.

The case arose out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the Town of Greece, New York, had created an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion by allowing local clergy members to offer invocations at Town meetings on a voluntary, non-discriminatory basis.  The Court held that this policy violated the Establishment Clause because, in fact, most of the clergy members who volunteered to pray represented the Christian faith.  This was unacceptable, held the federal court, because non-Christians may have felt left out.  Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom are representing the Town in the appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

If we can trust James Madison’s explanation to the First Congress, the liberty protected by the Establishment Clause is the freedom from being coerced to support or practice religion.  But under the Supreme Court's modern interpretation of the Clause, it prohibits any word or act which a bystander might perceive as a message of government "endorsement" of religion. 

In our brief, we argue that this reading is entirely at odds with America’s unmistakably religious heritage and the actual practices of those who drafted, debated, and adopted the First Amendment.  In fact, an intellectually honest application of the Court's modern Establishment Clause doctrine would result in the invalidation of countless national traditions, including the Pledge of Allegiance, Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations, Supreme Court opening statements, the National Day of Prayer, and the national motto, “In God We Trust,” which is inscribed upon various government buildings and currency. 

While the Supreme Court's decision in this case is poised to be a landmark ruling on the practice of public invocations, the impact of this case may actually reach much further than the issue of public prayer. 

The case is a perfect example of the impact our culture’s obsession with feelings has had on judicial doctrine.  Emotions--subjective, unknowable, and transitory as they may be—are now a determining factor in constitutional analysis.  Consider, for instance, the following quote which the Second Circuit offered as its rationale for striking down the Town's perfectly neutral invocation policy (which, remember, involves prayers offered by private citizens):  "People with the best of intentions may be tempted, in giving a legislative prayer, to convey their views of religious truth, and thereby run the risk of making others feel like outsiders."

This basis for constitutional decision-making should give pause to the student of American history.  Is this the nation of freedom birthed through the labors of men like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson?  Were these men, who risked being hanged as traitors for their efforts, really concerned with securing the psychological well-being of their fellow man by ensuring that no person would ever be permitted to express in a government setting an idea that might offend another person? 

No.  Their work, and their legacy, was about securing liberty.  And liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of feelings.

Freedom-loving Americans should hope that the Court will use this case to reject the idea that my liberty is endangered when I don't like the ideas you express through spoken words.  Your words pose no threat to my liberty, but the judiciary has begun to allow my feelings about those words to demolish your liberty.

In their genius, our Founding Fathers did not leave offended separationist citizens without remedy for their hurt feelings.  Those who feel offended by references to faith in the public square can certainly vent their policy views at election time.  But when the judiciary indulges litigants' desires to gag religious citizens or public officials and to force religion into the private recesses of society, it is giving them a court-enforced heckler's veto over the liberty of others. 

It is the hope of VCA and the organizations and legislators who joined us in this brief that the High Court will seize upon this opportunity to serve the interest of liberty by rejecting a jurisprudence of feelings.

We would like to thank the following organizations and legislators for joining the brief:

• Concerned Women for America
• The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation
• The Frederick Douglass Foundation of Virginia
• The Valley Family Forum
• Fredericksburg Rappahannock Evangelical Alliance
• The Black Robe Regiment of Virginia
• Delegate Richard "Dickie" Bell
• Senator Dick Black
• Delegate Ben Cline
• Delegate Todd Gilbert
• Senator Emmett Hanger
• Delegate Steve Landes
• Delegate Bob Marshall
• Senator Steve Martin

 To read the brief in its entirety, click here. 

Sorting Out the DOMA Decision

Even though my family was on vacation in Wyoming last week, I didn't escape the brouhaha over the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decisions.  (The ecstasy and the agony of a smartphone!) Because this issue is so emotionally charged, however, I opted to wait until I was comfortably at home again--and able to read the Court opinions for myself--before entering into any discussion about them.

Having read United States v. Windsor, the decision dealing with the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), here are some of my thoughts...

1.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, both misunderstands and insults a widely embraced worldview (which I happen to share) when he concludes that Congress' recognition of marriage as being exclusively a  union of one man and one woman is necessarily based upon animus against homosexual individuals. 

There are myriad justifications for the decision of a majority of the nation's federal legislators (which, by the way, was ratified by a Democratic executive) to reserve special governmental benefits for a certain type of familial arrangement.  The most obvious, of course, is the deeply rooted, historically tested belief that children are most likely to thrive when raised in a stable relationship with a mother and father.

Assuming a connection between the desire to protect traditional marriage and an "animus" toward homosexual individuals or couples is simply assuming too much.  The two ideas are certainly not linked as a matter of logic.

2.  In a nation where the federal government is rapidly taking over every aspect of our lives, the Court was right to emphasize principles of federalism.  The majority's decision relied heavily on the power of States to define and regulate marriage.  It did NOT rule that homosexual couples have any constitutional right to be married, per se, but rather that the federal government had denied legally married homosexual couples the right of equal protection by refusing to recognize their state-approved union.

However strenuously I may disagree with that legal conclusion (because of its faulty premise, a questionable equal protection analysis, and the failure to recognize the federal government's right to define terms for its own programs), I wholeheartedly agree that when it comes to marriage and family, States should be taking the lead in making policy. 

It may be tempting for conservatives to think that with an issue this fundamental and this important, the federal government should have the final say.  My response to that, however, is three little words:  Roe versus Wade.

Beyond the obvious deficiencies in the logic and analysis of that fateful decision, the real tragedy of Roe v. Wade was that by constitutionalizing the issue of abortion (and by doing so in the most counterintuitive way), the Court, in a sense, withdrew it from the political process.  The Court threw the game, putting the ball on the abortion proponents' side and leaving the pro-life team to defend a precious few yards of ground with our hands tied behind our backs.

In short, I believe that the majority's decision on DOMA is significantly flawed.  But at least it leaves proponents of traditional marriage to gain what ground we can through the merits of our position, the winsomeness of our tone, and the examples we set in our own families.

Can the Boy Scouts Yet Remain "Morally Straight"? (published in the Roanoke Times today)

I was slightly less disturbed by the Boy Scouts of America's new membership policy after reading it in the context of its preamble.  While the new policy specifies that no youth may be denied membership because of sexual orientation or preference alone, the preamble insists that: "Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting."

Bingo.  These are, after all, children, whose "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference" we are expounding, and BSA is right to recognize that any sexual conduct by youth is unacceptable.

The thoughtful observer is left, then, to wonder:  what is the purpose of the policy change?

If it is meant to ensure that no boy is excluded from scouting simply because he is less masculine in appearance, gait, voice, or athletic acumen than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry, then it is a good thing.  No one should be excluded on the basis of innate characteristics over which he has no control.  That is a form of discrimination which is mean-spirited and unjust, and it is right for BSA to prohibit it.

I am encouraged by the statements on BSA's website recognizing this critical distinction between identity and actions.  In other words, a boy who may allegedly feel"attracted" to other boys can still be a scout, but a boy who acts on that attraction (or on opposite-sex attraction, for that matter) by engaging in sexual conduct cannot.

This is a noble and appropriate position in that it manifests compassion for kids while preserving moral integrity.  Each of us struggles with our own temptations, yet hopes to find grace and acceptance as we struggle.  It is when we yield to our temptations and embrace them as our intended way of life that love demands the toughness of a hard line.  There are few aspects of one's identity, nature or feelings that can be controlled, but actions surely can and should be restrained and guided by moral instruction.

What continues to gnaw at me, however, is the awareness that a society bent on erasing the idea of “wrong” will not be sated by this kind of position.  For instance, the public discussion about the need for acceptance of boys who are “openly gay” suggests that “tolerance” requires scout leaders to yield the floor to boys who choose to discuss their sexual urges openly (or at least if those urges are same-sex in nature). 

This would be at odds with the BSA’s explicit statements that it does not intend to permit the sexualization of scouting.  If BSA’s policy is interpreted by leaders to obliterate the value of sexual purity—which, at this age, means chastity--then this noble organization will lose valuable acreage of moral high ground that benefits all boys, whatever their feelings or inclinations. 

The policy is also troubling because any effort to suggest to (or teach?) scouts that homosexual activity is a "morally straight" option creates an irreconcilable conflict for many with the fulfillment of the scout oath to do one's "duty to God."  The God of the Bible has condemned the practice of homosexuality in no uncertain terms, and BSA should refuse to attempt the impossible task of reconciling Holy Scripture with the new cultural "norm." 

Such mediation efforts will not produce more enlightened, caring men; they will, if successful, produce men who die of thirst in a desert of moral relativism.  How cruel it would be to insist that scouts be “morally straight” while denying the existence of a plumb line.

C.S. Lewis aptly lamented, "We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise."  My hope is that Boy Scouts of America may yet help men to find their chests.  That doesn't mean tolerating the bullying or exclusion of boys who are different or struggling.  It does mean holding fast to the distinction between accepting people and approving of their behavior. 

 

The Courts, Prayer, and People's Hurt Feelings

You may have heard by now that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving invocations at town meetings.  The case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, arises out of a New York town where officials tried hard to do everything right. 

Under the Town's neutral policy, clergy from various places of worship listed in town publications were invited to offer invocations at the monthly public meetings.  Citizens could also volunteer to offer prayers, and no volunteer (including a Buddhist and a member of the Baha'i faith) was ever refused the opportunity.

So what was the problem with that, you ask?  According to the Second Circuit, there simply weren't enough prayer-givers from minority religions to make the invocation practice acceptable.  This produced the unconscionable result that must, at all costs, be avoided:  the potential for someone in the crowd to "feel" like an "outsider" because the majority of the prayers sounded Christian. 

The appellate court's decision is troubling on many levels.  But most troubling to me, by far, is the idea of a First Amendment that prohibits speech on the basis of how others may feel about it. 

Today I have begun drafting an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Virginia Christian Alliance and a number of state legislators.  Our goal is to talk the Court down from the ledge of its modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence, reminding them that the whole point of the First Amendment was to not only protect, but to encourage the kind of robust, full-throated debate that is meaningful enough to cause hurt feelings, but important enough to be worth it.

A Tilted Gospel

If you follow my blog, you know that quite a controversy has been stirred up in Harrisonburg about the opening of "The Tilted Kilt" here in town.  A couple of weeks ago, following on the heels of two separate Op-Eds raising a variety of concerns about the business, an ad appeared on the back page of the newspaper.  It stated:

The River Church WELCOMES THE TILTED KILT TO HARRISONBURG.  We know that The Tilted Kilt has come under some fire from people who claim to speak on behalf of people of faith, but we at The River Church want to stand firm in support of business and job growth in our community.  While some may pray that the restaurant fail, we believe prayer is best suited to matters of love, hope, healing and peace.  ...  If you are interested in a church where love and tolerance reigns as it did for Jesus, check us out!  All our [sic] welcome!

Now first of all, just to be clear on the facts, my Op-Ed did not mention the word "pray" or "prayer."  It did not, in fact, even mention Jesus or Christianity, but focused on the various types of harms that businesses like TK pose to various members of the community and their relationships. 

But the clear implication of The River Church's advertisement is that my condemnation of the TK business model (exploiting women's bodies for profit, appealing to men's sexual appetite, damaging relationships) is directly at odds with the "love and tolerance" of Jesus.  Unfortunately, this isn't a novel idea, but one that plagues the Body of Christ at every turn.  Many Christians and churches have been cowed into silent retreat from the moral debates raging in our society by this stinging accusation that our rejection of certain systems, laws, lifestyles or ideas as "wrong" is a message of judgment and therefore unloving and not Christ-like.

To be sure, Jesus was loving, and He welcomed even the most notorious of sinners to His side.  But He never shrugged His shoulders at their sin.  His message to the woman caught in adultery was not, "Go, your sin doesn't matter."  It was, "Go, and sin no more."  He knew all along that her sin, and mine, would cost His life.

The idea of "tough love" sounds trite, but real love is tough.  In fact, it is impossible for one to really love another while condoning the other's sin, because all of God's laws have been given to us for our good.  And certainly love does not affirm sin as a virtue!  A Christian welcoming a business built upon lust into her community is like a mother welcoming a sexual predator into her daughter's bedroom.

How can we, having been rescued from the hopeless existence of a life apart from God, remain silent as friends and neighbors gorge themselves on the counterfeit pleasures of a darkened world?  How can we, having been rescued from the quicksand of our sin, tell others who are sinking that they are on solid ground?

When I attended Elkton Pride Day some time ago, I had a long conversation with a Unitarian Universalist minister.  I was seeking to understand how he reconciled his views on homosexuality with the Bible.  At one point I asked him, "How do you believe people can be saved?"  He responded that basically, we just do the best we can to be good.  Our conversation came to an end then, as I simply explained that this was a message of condemnation to me, because I know that I am not good.  Even the "good" that I try to do is tainted by sinful motives and pride.

And this, essentially is my point.  The message of "I'm o.k., you're o.k.," is candy-coated poison.  I'm not o.k., and you're not o.k., and that is why Jesus was tortured and killed.  But because He took our punishment, there is hope for us, and something so much more, so much better, than the rubbish this world is peddling.

    I know a place, a wonderful place
    Where accused and condemned
    Find mercy and grace
    Where the wrongs we have done
    And the wrongs done to us
    Were nailed there with Him
    There on the cross.

          -Vineyard

The Untold Story of House Bill 1 - The Unalienable Right to Life Act

Upon eagerly opening The Family Foundation’s latest “Report Card,” I was surprised to find no record of the votes on Delegate Bob Marshall’s House Bill 1, which figured so prominently into the highly-publicized weeping and gnashing of teeth by Virginia abortion lobbyists in 2012.  This legislation would clarify that, for purposes of construing Virginia law, every human being is considered a person with fundamental rights, from the time of conception until natural death. 

One of the practical effects of the legislation would have been the automatic creation of a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child—allowing either parent of an unborn baby to bring a lawsuit against a person whose wrongful act killed the baby.  While this was important, and a laudable pro-life goal in and of itself, the implications and effects of House Bill 1 are much broader, deeper, and more significant. 

The goal with HB1 was never limited to the creation of a lawsuit, but was more fundamental:  the recognition of the humanity of pre-born babies for all legal purposes.  Such recognition makes a loud, clear pro-life statement, of course.  The statement is that abortion is the killing of a human baby—the killing of a person endowed with inalienable rights rather than the dignified disposal of impersonal, meaningless “products of conception.”

But there is more to HB1 than even that bold proclamation of truth.  By acting on the Commonwealth’s prerogative to decide for itself which “persons” are possessed of fundamental rights under the Virginia Constitution and Code, the legislature can significantly impact judicial decisions on legal challenges to future pro-life legislation.  In essence, while HB1 does nothing to directly erode the “reproductive rights” created by the United States Supreme Court, it would introduce a new category of “rights” to be considered by the courts:  the bundle of fundamental rights the bill explicitly acknowledges as belonging to every human being from conception until natural death.

I don’t know why HB1 wasn’t mentioned in the Report Card.  Maybe it was because the story was too big to be reduced to a few lines of print and evaluated with simple plus and minus symbols.  Maybe it was because The Family Foundation was content that a separate bill, Senate Bill 674, created the wrongful death cause of action that would also have resulted from passage of HB1– even though it omitted that critical recognition of the humanity and basic rights of the unborn child.  I don’t know the reason, but here is the untold story:

HB1 passed the House of Delegates easily, for the second consecutive year.  Then it headed to the Senate to be heard by the highly unpredictable Education and Health Committee.  When we arrived at the Committee room at around 7:30 a.m., lines were already forming.  It was Planned Parenthood's Lobby Day, and abortion activists turned out in droves.

Our hopes were not particularly high that HB1 would survive this Committee. In fact, we were convinced that it would be quite the miracle for that to happen after The Family Foundation had given its support to SB674, which many viewed (incorrectly) as an acceptable alternative. 

The hearing was long and heated. The spiritual battle in that room was almost palpable. A number of times, opponents of the bill (who, again, packed the sizeable room) were threatened with removal for their inappropriate comments and interruptions. At one point, someone was removed.

But when the vote was taken, it was 8-7 to report the bill to the full Senate (a win!). That was incredible!

In the lobby, opponents chanted and waved their arms menacingly. At one point, one woman took a swing at Delegate Marshall and had to be restrained by the police. I was verbally accosted by two different women, separately. After several minutes, police gave the order to "clear the lobby."  Opponents proceeded outside, where they lined the street with their signs, chanting, "My body--my choice!"

Just a few hours later, in a rare procedural move, the Senate leadership had expedited the bill to the Senate floor (where it was not expected until Monday). Senator Dick Saslaw, a Democrat from the Education and Health Committee, moved to send the bill BACK to the same Committee that had just passed it, for reconsideration in 2013. His motion was seconded by the Republican Majority Leader, Senator Tommy Norment.  

Senator Mark Obenshain courageously spoke against the motion and insisted that a recorded vote be taken on it.  However, five Republicans voted with the Democrats to send the bill back to Committee.  These five were Tommy Norment, Frank Ruff, Frank Wagner, John Watkins and Harry Blevins, who had voted to report the bill from Committee only hours before!  (Ponder the motivations of these five.  Are they not pro-life?  Do they believe life begins sometime after conception?) 

This effectively killed the bill for the year.  While Senator Steve Martin could have convened a special session of the Committee last fall to revive the bill, he declined to do so.

The rest of the story remains to be written. 

The pro-life community should thank Delegate Marshall for doing the hard, unpopular work of carrying strong, meaningful legislation that holds real potential to change the game in abortion law.  I am unspeakably sad about the fact that his valiant efforts appear to have been ignored by those who should be providing the strongest support. 

We should also thank Senator Mark Obenshain for taking a courageous stand on the Senate floor, resisting the efforts of some politicians (including Republican leaders) to pervert the normal legislative process by avoiding a full, recorded floor vote on the legislation itself. 

These legislators deserve to have this story told.

I am hopeful that all those who care deeply about the sanctity of human life will coalesce around the few champions we have in the General Assembly, and that House Bill 1--broadly recognizing the unique, inherent value of every human life--will yet become the law of Virginia.

This is Abortion.

The recent conviction and sentencing of Kermit Gosnell, along with the national attention it ultimately commanded, marks an important chapter in the contentious debate about abortion.  Many in the pro-life camp were initially outraged about the media’s conspicuous decision to ignore the whole story.  But the sad truth is that the silence reveals greater logical consistency than the outrage.

Gosnell’s clinic existed to perform the perfectly lawful service of killing human babies inside their mothers’ wombs.  While that act will always be horrific in the minds of some, to many others it is--though perhaps sad and unfortunate--a necessary reality in a world of “reproductive rights.” 

If we are honest about it, we must admit that the lawful acts we knew Gosnell to be doing and passively accepted (the same acts that will end the lives of over 3,000 babies in the U.S. today) are only marginally distinct from the unlawful acts that have forever branded Gosnell so deviant as to be practically sub-human.

How arbitrary we are, as a society, in our moral judgments!  One physician performs an intentional act that ends the life of a tiny human being, and an army of elite, educated, activists will dedicate their lives to applauding and defending his ability to legally do so.  Another physician performs the same act on a tiny human being who has emerged from the woman’s womb, and he is roundly deplored as the brutal criminal of the year. 

How is it that a matter of spatial inches or relative anatomical positioning could ever be the dividing line between an act that is celebrated as the facilitation of civil rights--the empowerment of women--and an act that is condemned as heinous murder?   How is it that if an angry boyfriend kills an unborn child he can be prosecuted for homicide, but if the mother kills the same child, it is a private, protected “choice”?

This is the absurdity of legalized abortion.  Where do we go from here?

As a modest starting point, we might seek means of investigating claims that Gosnell’s practices were an aberration from the allegedly clean, safe, and dignified business of abortion.  Under present circumstances, it is difficult to do so systematically.

In a recent article that appeared in the Washington Post, reporters cited statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to demonstrate the alleged safety of abortion.  According to CDC numbers, 10 women died from abortions in 2010, compared with 793 deaths from bicycle accidents.

The comparison is misleading and irresponsible because, in the case of CDC abortion statistics, the numbers that tell the real story are the numbers that aren’t there.   Even states that require abortion reporting do not require reporting to the CDC.  The Alan Guttmacher Institute has estimated that the voluntarily reported information excludes data on as many as 45-50% of annual abortions.

Awareness of this “missing data” problem seems to be growing.  For instance, a 2011 Chicago Tribune story by Megan Twohey flagged the disparity between the number of Illinois abortion providers that reported required data to state officials (26) and the number of providers actually in business (37). The article also suggested that the state’s data failed to account for as many as 17,000 abortions annually.

Rather than burying deadly realities in spurious statistics, let’s have the intellectual honesty to admit that abortion politics have paved the way for a new kind of “back alley.”  Let’s take what we have learned from the Gosnell tragedy and insist, at the very least, upon meaningful oversight of businesses built upon human demolition. 

But let’s not stop there.  Let’s be “enlightened” enough to admit that we are hypocrites when we accept legalized abortion as a paragon of civil rights but we cringe in horror at the mention of snipped baby spinal cords.  We have strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Yes, our judiciary has hijacked our ability to maintain morally consistent, life-honoring laws.  But we, the people, must never rest in our efforts to reassert our authority and restore our collective integrity.

 

An Issue of Modesty (Confessions of a Reformed Bikini Wearer Who Still Aspires to Be Fashionable)

First a disclaimer.  As suggested by the title of this post, the only thing that "qualifies" me to be blogging on this topic is the fact that I was once dismissive of the virtue of modesty, but have since examined my former thoughts and attitudes on the subject and found them wanting. 

A number of the online comments to my Op-Ed on The Tilted Kilt raised a great point:  what is the difference between patronizing the TK, where busty waitresses wear bikini tops, and going to the beach or pool, where lots of women wear bikinis? 

Well, I believe there are some differences.  Perhaps foremost among them is that businesses like the TK are capitalizing on consumers' sexual appetites and exploiting vulnerable young women who are in need of cash and might not fully recognize the extent to which they debase themselves by putting on the tawdry "costumes."  At the pool or beach, ladies are not paid to dress scantily, less material coverage serves an actual, practical purpose for the swimmer or sunbather, and a woman's (or girl's, in some cases) choice of attire is therefore more essentially her own.

And yet, I must in all honesty admit that I AM concerned about our culture's acceptance of a swimming dress code in which females are basically undressed.  We can talk about free choice all we want, but we can't ignore the external pressures and internal longings that influence those choices.

There is a battle raging in every woman's heart and mind as she embarks upon the dreaded "swimsuit shopping" trip.  As a woman who has endured countless such shopping trips with friends and family members, I can assure you that even the most beautiful women struggle with "body image."  We learn from television, movies, songs, magazines, books, friends, and from history, for goodness' sake, that men are drawn to beautiful women.  And I have never known a woman who didn't want to be considered beautiful by, well, everyone.  But most of all, she wants to be attractive to men.

In my experience, when a girl comes to understand that what most men want is a toned, tanned body in a skimpy bikini, she reacts in one of two ways:  she either covers up a body that she feels can never measure up, and carries around the conviction that she is simply not beautiful, or she arms herself in the suit she feels best displays her "assets," and settles in for a poolside race to the bottom.

The sad thing is, this is an arms race that can never be finally won.  Male attention won through a physical beauty contest is quickly lost to exciting new competitors.  And the inevitable aging process means that our winning attributes are fleeting. 

I have only given up my bikinis in the past several years (well, I haven't given them up entirely: I now reserve them for private hot tub use with my husband!).  My decision, initially, was a practical one.  Believe me, chasing after a toddler at the swimming pool whilst wearing a bikini is not ideal.   But once covering up was no longer a practical necessity, I began to reconsider my prior swimwear choices and the fearful, selfish, and impoverished thinking that led to them.

My thinking was fearful because it was, in part, based on my fears that in order to earn male attention and appreciation, I had to compete (as best I could) with the other body displays at the pool.  For me, then, wearing the bikini with whatever pride I could muster in my appearance was really a signal of deeper insecurities.

It was selfish because it did not consider the possibility that I may have been a source of temptation for some men, a source of discouragement for a young girl struggling with her own body image, or simply another gear in the machinery that perpetuates this communal undressing. 

But finally, my thinking was impoverished because it did not allow for the possibility that this was a competition I didn't need to win; that I am a unique, valuable, significant--and, yes, beautiful--person who is fully loved and understood.  It didn't allow for the possibility that poolside admiration by one and all was not something I had to have.  In this regard, my thinking was a failure to find my identity in Christ. 

Please hear this:  I am not advocating a Christian crack-down on bathing suits.  I am well aware that modesty in dress is one of those issues that can quickly turn into legalism, and that is a BAD thing for everyone.  But I do believe that every Christian, and Christian ladies in particular, should think through the issue of modesty very carefully.  When it comes to modesty, my belief is that it should not be about rules but about love.