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.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)