Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Happiness for Benjamin
My brother is working in the Netherlands for a couple of months, and he feels lonely there all by himself. Today he asked me to send some happiness his way, so here is my best attempt. Dear Benjamin:
Remember the long summer days when we were little kids? Even though mom could hardly get us out of bed on school days, as soon as school was over, we jumped out of bed at first crack of dawn, and we ran down to the back yard to play. Remember how we used to make soup and magic potions out of the berries that grew on the hedge, and soak in the old metal tub when we got hot? Once when you were just a toddler, your sisters and I dressed you in one of our old bathing suits. It was hot pink and very girlie, but you thought it was the greatest thing in the world to look just like your big sisters. We still have a picture somewhere of you in the pink suit, splashing in the tub with a big grin on your face. Those days were nothing but happiness, and it didn't matter that rust was peeling off the old tub or that our family was poor.
Growing up, of course, robs us of the utterly carefree joys of childhood. But its glimmers are still around you in the simple things - the rays of morning sunshine, the satisfaction of a good meal, a hearty laugh with a friend, the way humans still fall in love despite thousands of years of heartbreak. In a way, your ability to feel dissatisfaction or emptiness is the other side of a coin that has a happy face. Until very recently - and in many parts of the world it hasn't changed to this day - all but a few people have experienced heartache and toil as such obvious aspects of daily life that they know little else. You, my brother, feel the loneliness of this season because you have known many other, sunnier ones. The best way I can send you some happiness in this cold time of year is by stating it loud and clear that this too shall pass - so you might as well get out there and earn yourself a better next season. Remembering this is how I survive in this dreadfully frigid place with six-month winters - and you know just how much I hate the cold. Winter is much easier to live through if it's in the shadow of the coming summer. It's not endless, so I might as well enjoy some sledding or snow fights! So think of the warm summer days in our back yard when it gets cold, and I hope they warm you up on the inside so you can put up a snow fight or two before it's all over.
Remember the long summer days when we were little kids? Even though mom could hardly get us out of bed on school days, as soon as school was over, we jumped out of bed at first crack of dawn, and we ran down to the back yard to play. Remember how we used to make soup and magic potions out of the berries that grew on the hedge, and soak in the old metal tub when we got hot? Once when you were just a toddler, your sisters and I dressed you in one of our old bathing suits. It was hot pink and very girlie, but you thought it was the greatest thing in the world to look just like your big sisters. We still have a picture somewhere of you in the pink suit, splashing in the tub with a big grin on your face. Those days were nothing but happiness, and it didn't matter that rust was peeling off the old tub or that our family was poor.
Growing up, of course, robs us of the utterly carefree joys of childhood. But its glimmers are still around you in the simple things - the rays of morning sunshine, the satisfaction of a good meal, a hearty laugh with a friend, the way humans still fall in love despite thousands of years of heartbreak. In a way, your ability to feel dissatisfaction or emptiness is the other side of a coin that has a happy face. Until very recently - and in many parts of the world it hasn't changed to this day - all but a few people have experienced heartache and toil as such obvious aspects of daily life that they know little else. You, my brother, feel the loneliness of this season because you have known many other, sunnier ones. The best way I can send you some happiness in this cold time of year is by stating it loud and clear that this too shall pass - so you might as well get out there and earn yourself a better next season. Remembering this is how I survive in this dreadfully frigid place with six-month winters - and you know just how much I hate the cold. Winter is much easier to live through if it's in the shadow of the coming summer. It's not endless, so I might as well enjoy some sledding or snow fights! So think of the warm summer days in our back yard when it gets cold, and I hope they warm you up on the inside so you can put up a snow fight or two before it's all over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)