On legislating morality

In the run-up to tomorrow's vote, I have often been disappointed at the lack of thoughtful debate about the constitutional amendment to define marriage. On both sides, the issue is considered self-evident - civil rights on the one hand, the sanctity of marriage as a foundational building block of family and society on the other. I have waited until the day before the election for the argument to get close to the core of the issue, which is what my illustrious life partner brings up in his post. The core question is: To what extent should we try to legislate morality?

In the 21st century, most of us agree that our laws should not land people in prison for adultery or showing their ankles in public, but they should punish theft or murder. It has little meaning to say that our laws should not legislate morality at all, because they inevitably do. The laws of the modern state lay down common rules so that different people can live harmoniously in close proximity, so that the freedom of one person does not result in harm being done to another. Sometimes that does require legislating morality: Even though some people may not consider stealing to be bad, it hurts others, so the government steps in with laws to make stealing illegal (unless you're a Wall Street banker, but that is a different story).

Now, what category does marriage fall in? Does a loving union of two people hurt others? Some would say that even if a union is entered by two consenting adults, it will hurt them or society in the long run. I say that to follow this logic would also be to forbid marriages between people under 30, those with low incomes, or between Evangelical Christians - all three groups more likely than the average population to get divorced. Using the same logic, someone may come along one day and say that my practice of the Christian faith is a backward mythology that impedes progress and hurts society, so I should be forbidden from teaching it to my children.

For people like me, who find rich nourishment in the Christian roots of our civilization, history is full of stark warnings against forcing others to live by our morality. Without the transforming experience of genuine belief, a legislated morality either produces a fundamentalist response in the opposite direction, or acts as a vaccine against the very faith that gives morality its meaning.

So should we as a society make a new law about marriage tomorrow? I would argue that we should not legislate on who should be able to marry, just like we should not legislate on who can hold a job, have kids or practice their religion. To use a literary metaphor, the laws we produce should not attempt to be a dictionary that defines words just the way we like them; but a grammar book showing how different particles with different logics can form a harmonious and meaningful whole.

Constitutional Marriage

On Tuesday in Minnesota we vote not only for our favorite politicians (or least disliked) but also whether or not to add an amendment to our state constitution to define “marriage” as between one man and one woman.

For the moment I would like to table any discussion of the morality of homosexuality (i.e. the religious judgment that it is wrong or not wrong) or arguments about equal rights and look at the issue from a constitutional lens. This argument centers on the separation of church and state and how this new amendment oversteps the bounds of the government.

I have heard many argue that they are for civil unions but not for gay marriage because “marriage” is a religious word that has always meant a union between a man and a woman. And I think I would be ok with that. I would be ok with a religion defining marriage as between one man and one woman and not allowing members of the same sex to marry in their church. I would disagree with them but that is their choice to do so.

My question is, however, what business does the government have in defining marriage? If marriage is a religious term, then the government should not be calling its ceremonies that it performs at its courthouses "marriages". Rather it should call all of these ceremonies "civil unions". (Both hetero and homosexual) We should leave "marriages" to be decided by different religions.

Now granted some churches would allow homosexuals to "marry" as they defined it and others wouldn't, but that would be up to that religion to decide. Just as it is up to religions to define who is “saved” or “baptized” even though these definitions look very different in different groups and these groups would disagree with one another’s claims.

And unfortunately the state has already adopted this term of "marriage" that it uses in its civil ceremonies. I wonder if it would be possible for us to instead of trying to increase government’s involvement in marriage, to decrease it by actually taking out the term “marriage” from civil ceremonies and have people no longer “married” in the eyes of the state but “unioned”. (someone would have to come up with a better term but you know what I mean) This would put the definition of marriage back into the hands of the church rather than the state.

It seems that we are going the wrong direction on this.

Giving Notice

As of this week I have officially given notice to my work that I will be leaving in two months to prepare for our move to Poland.  Leading up to this week has been full of anxiety, worrying about what  my bosses will say, what my coworkers will think and how my clients will take the news.  Quitting at a therapy clinic is not an easy endeavor.  I went back and forth for a long time trying to decide how long of notice I would give and decided on two months notice.  All my friends thought I was crazy for giving this amount of time and I was feeling badly within myself for not giving more.  I rationalized that  two months was enough to still do some work with a new client and a good point to stop the flow of intakes coming to see me.  Now I am on the other side of giving notice which, while less anxiety producing, is rather surreal.  There is still a lot of work to do at work closing down shop and a mountain of paperwork to tackle but reality is different now.  We have already bought one way tickets (which were free with frequent flier miles) but this was the step that made it even more real to me that we were actually going to move.  Somehow I thought we could return those tickets if we needed but with work I don't think I can take back giving notice.  Even if there was an emergency that cancelled our trip, my identity in the company is forever changed.  What has been spoken has been released into the world and cannot be recaptured.  Yet now there is no more waiting in ambiguity, a decision has been made and has been announced.  There is only preparation and enjoying the friends, family and places around us.  I now feel free to face forward into the wind.

Book of hours

All who seek you

test you.

And those who find you

bind you to image and gesture.

I would rather sense you

as the earth senses you.

In my ripening

ripens

your realm.

I need from you no tricks

to prove you exist.

Time, I know,

is other than you.

No miracles, please.

Just the laws

that appear clearer

with each generation.

(Rainier Maria Rilke, translation after Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy)

He is Risen

This weekend is Easter and what should be the most important day of the year in my tradition. In the family I grew up in Easter always took a back seat to Christmas - maybe not in words but definitely in actions. In the morning there was always a trail of jelly beans leading to an Easter basket full of candy the Easter bunny had left. Then it was time to go to church and then to my grandma's house for a boring lunch. There was a hollowness when I compared it to the excitement that came around Christmas time with its lights, presents, christmas carols and a contagious atmosphere of good cheer. The subdued pastels, white lilies, and jelly beans of this spring celebration never really appealed to me and the holiday has imprinted in me the same feel of the plastic grass I used to get in my Easter basket. This feeling of emptiness has been intensified because many of my closest friends and acquaintances that I spend time with are burned out with Christianity. Either they have survived a traumatic childhood with strict and fundamentalist parents or they have had the life slowly drained from them by years of pastel sermons and cliche slogans that Easter no longer has any meaning.

This Easter I find myself longing for authentic faith. I long for hollow cliches to be filled with meaning. I want to say "He is risen" and have it actually mean something. I actually want to pray and reflect on the meaning of what I sincerely feel is the most moving and hope-filled story that I have ever encountered. And I am not usually one for devotional time or reading the Bible daily but I actually want to today. I find myself returning to the old traditions like a prospector to an abandoned mine, desiring to bring the rusted machinery back to life, to get old gears and pulleys moving. Last night I had a strong desire to take part in communion and invite some friends that were over to take part in this tradition that is close to my soul. Unfortunately, my fear prevailed and I kept silent, not wanting to risk the rolling of eyes or the wrinkling of noses. And now today in the daylight my fear seems so absurd and I realize that when others feel that something is meaningful to you, they will respect it and maybe even gain something from the experience. This Tuesday I am attending a Jewish Seder meal that a good friend is facilitating, and I am so excited to take part in and learn from this friend's tradition. Why is it that I don't expect others to respect my own tradition in the same way? I just need to have the confidence to enter into that experience and to share myself and my heart with others with courage.

I think next year will be different.

On having or not having children

Last night, we had the pleasure of sharing a a delicious last-minute dinner with our friends Joel and Crista. Being in a very similar place in life - young, married professionals with no kids, able to meet up at a day's notice - we slowly wandered into a conversation about the dilemmas of starting a family.

Like for so many people our age, the decision whether to have children is weighed by a huge disconnect between the family model we know and the world in which we live.

We grew up in families where both parents worked, but the mother either gave up her job when the kids were little, or continued to work part-time with some loss to her career. Women made large gains in equality in the workplace, but it was still assumed that the woman would naturally carry most of the responsibility for making a home and raising children. This is the model that we know from experience, and I've blogged before about the residual effect that it has on my expectations of myself as a wife.

But for a variety of reasons, this model can no longer be taken for granted because for many families, it simply no longer works. We live in a world where the economy is increasingly indifferent to the physical strength of men. The skills and abilities required in today's workplace - like emotional intelligence and the ability to work well with people - are predominantly female attributes. There is strong evidence that "the modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards" - women already get the majority of Bachelor's degrees, hold the majority of jobs in the US, and dominate in 13 of the 15 job types predicted to grow the most in the next decade.

We see this shift among the families we know - it is often the woman who has the more lucrative degree, gets the better job, and makes more money than the man. All this has profound implications for family life.

As it often happens, the shift in the economy coincides with a shift in prevailing attitudes. It's been interesting to observe this change in very different families we know - conservative and liberal, in Poland and America, both religious and not. It is no longer assumed that the woman is the automatic caregiver for her children, and we see many mothers continue their very successful careers while fathers scale back on work and take a much more active role in raising the kids. While it is hard for some at first, this new arrangement is no longer raising eyebrows like it used it.

This is nothing new. For example, at a time in ancient Mesopotamia when women were in charge of the fields and gardens, the society was a matriarchy and worshiped female gods. Then the means of producing food changed with the invention of the plough. The plough was much heavier and gave men the advantage over women in economic production, and it was right around the time when it was adopted that Mesopotamian society shifted towards patriarchy, with male priests and gods. It is crazy to think that differences in the status of women to this day are tied to whether their ancestors tilled the land with a hoe or the plough. We are now seeing a reverse shift - when the economy begins to favor women, women gain in freedom and social prominence.

Now, I would be wrong to claim that the model I grew up with no longer works for anybody. It works rather well for many women and my close friends who do a beautiful job at motherhood. But there is an important difference with the past - the decision for the woman to stay at home or scale back on work is not automatic, but the outcome of a mutual understanding between the partners. It is no longer assumed that it is mainly the woman's job to nurture the children - how that is arranged depends on a mutual decision.

So where does that leave us? We face the task of reaching a mutually satisfying understanding about how our family is going to work for two professionals who both find great fulfillment in our jobs. Is it possible to strike such an agreement in the 21st century? In the next post, I will talk about the many reasons why it's extremely hard. In the next one after that, I will try to explain how it might be possible. Meanwhile, the thoughts and comments of our mysterious seven readers will be much appreciated.