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.