A new place for chidren in the family

Marriage used to be about family, about creating a place where children could grow and thrive. Children used to be, if not actually the centre, at least part of what was central to the meaning of family. Not that every family had children, any more than every vehicle is pulled by a horse. But, just as "horsepower" is the standard by which we measure vehicles, so "good for children" was how we measured family structure.

That is changing. A recent Town Hall article by
Kathleen Parker, "Parent A and Parent B -- and baby makes C?" highlights the next step in those changes.

The form for birth certificates presumes children have a mother and father. This hasn't been particularly controversial, since the biological fact is children have a mother and a father. In Massachusetts, the only US state that fully endorses same-sex marriage, this has begun to be controversial -- as it no doubt will be in Canada, and as in other countries as the recognition of same-sex marriage spreads. While biology hasn't changed, legalities have changed. Children may have a mother and a father, or they may have two fathers or two mothers. The legal reality and the biological reality are different.

In order to fully normalize their families, homosexual couples have asked Massachusetts to revise the birth certificate forms to name, not "mother" and "father," but "parent A" and "parent B." But this change in name does not change reality. While it may be comforting for the same-sex couple involved, it leaves out information the child may one day need.

As Parker writes, "What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are rooted, in part, in our biological origins. Adopted children seek out biological parents in their quest for identity. Genealogical organizations do a brisk business as families try to reconstruct their lineage."

Of course, sorting out that heritage today can be an increasingly difficult task. "Now with technology, sperm donors and 'uterobots' -- women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh -- any random collection of human beings can 'parent.'" A child's birth heritage is getting increasingly confused and complicated.

Parker notes,

Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves - decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement....

As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs.

For years, people have debated the relative roles of nature and nurture in the development of personality. For most people, this is a relatively academic debate. For people raised in their birth families, the source of their nature and nurture are the same. It's tough to understand why the issue of birth certificates matters. But for those in other kinds of families, the importance of knowing both the source of one's nature and nurture is a more pressing reality.

Consider, for example, the push by adopted children for access to their original birth records. This is sometimes unfortunately called a search for their "real" parents. Most adoptees don't deny the reality of their adoptive families or the importance of the people who nurtured them as "real" parents. Still, there's a gnawing sense that something's missing without access to information about their "birth" parents.

There's the practical matter of medical history and the genetic and biological roots we now know lie behind many illnesses. But more, we also know at least part of our personality, part of "who we are" comes from how we were born. Anyone who has wondered how two such different children can come from the same family has noticed this.

One of the great ironies of this is the push for legal recognition of same-sex couples comes from just this insight. Sexual orientation, they have argued, is a fact of birth not nurture. It's not something one becomes through nurture, but something one was born to be. It comes, they say, not from one's nurturing parents, but from one's birth parents.

Someday children may want or need to know the birth heritage that has helped make them who they are. And they will need some way to know, not just their legal parents, but also their birth parents.

Parker concludes, "What's really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn't fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood."

What really threatens marriage?

As social conservatives work to "defend marriage," perhaps it's time to consider whether the biggest threat isn't direct challenges to traditional marriage. Perhaps the biggest threat is the slow erosion of what marriage means. Last Monday, Dale Price at Dyspeptic Mutterings posted a link to a Fox news report that highlighted that erosion.

The Fox news article by Jennifer D'Angelo carried the headline ''Til Death Do Us Part' Is Dying Out." She reported,

In some weddings, "'til death do us part" is going the way of "to honor and obey" --— that is, out the window.
Vows like ... "For as long as our love shall last" and "Until our time together is over" are increasingly replacing the traditional to-the-grave vow...

And D'Angelo's article shows why this is a problem

Psychologist Diana Kirschner, author of "Opening Love's Door: The Seven Lessons," agreed ... promising forever lets the other person know that you're in it for life --— good times and bad --— and that promising just for awhile can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Over time your mate brings out the best in you, but also the worst in you. You have to have a contract that you'll work together to help each other grow. A contract that is this kind of thing -- —as long as we feel good --— there's a guarantee that you'll feel bad, hit a rocky point, where you don't love anyone, you don't love yourself --— that's where the rubber meets the road. That's where active love comes through."

Ironically, a defender of these new vows sees clearly the problem they cause. D'Angelo quotes

The Rev. Bonnie Nixon, a non-denominational minister in Torrance, Calif., who presides over approximately 1,000 weddings a year...

"...At least half of the couples we marry come from blended families --— some say vows to the other person's children. This generation (the one now marrying for the first time) grew up with a lot of divorce in the '70s and '80s. They have two dads, two moms, eight grandparents...."

What a confusing and uncertain environment in which children grow up today!

Marriage for "as long as we both shall live" or "until death us do part" (pick your tradition) was and is not primarily about the husband and wife. It's about family and children. The stable network of relationships in the family -- immediate and extended -- provides a secure place for children to begin to develop a healthy identity.

In Childhood and Society, Erik Erikson wrote a child's ego development begins with a basic sense of trust, what others called a sense of confidence.

The infant's first social achievement, then, is his willingness to to let the mother out of sight without undue anxiety or rage, because she has become an inner certainty as well as an outer predictability. Such consistency, continuity, and sameness of experience provide a rudimentary sense of ego identity which depends, I think, on the recognition that there is an inner population of remembered and anticipated sensations and images which are firmly correlated with the outer population of familiar and predictable things and people.

These days, though, those familiar people are increasingly unpredictable. Parents devoted and focused on the care of a few children are being replaced by an ever changing network of care givers responsible for much larger numbers of children. And we're now beginning to understand just what negative consequences this is having as those children develop.

Jeff Miller at The Curt Jester puts it this way:

Being the product of a divorced family I know from personal experience the tragedy of this view of marriage on children. I wonder what children of couples that take such phony vows must think? Each day they might wake up wondering if there parents had still "continue to love each other" or whether their parents might be moving on. They must also reason that if their parents can stop loving each other than they also can stop loving them.

Faith, fundamental truths, and the political process

"We need separation of church and politics" declares columnist Anthony Westell in a CBC News Viewpoint posted at the CBC web site. He is concerned because evangelicals, though still "a minor factor" seem to be "growing rapidly." Why does that growth concern him?

People like US President George Bush show what can happen when evangelicals get into power.

Bush claims to be guided by Jesus when he makes political decisions, including, presumably, the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Such conviction is beyond debate, which is why I think that public declarations of faith should have no place in politics. Democracy is all about debate on policy, about the best way to define and solve problems and advance the public interest.

When there is no possibility of persuading an opponent who claims to know the will of God the process becomes pointless. Who can debate with God?

Unfortunately, there are more kinds of fundamentalists than Christian fundamentalists. For instance, in Canada, one could just as easily speak of Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamentalists.

The Canadian Parliament is considering -- under pressure from a series of court decisions -- Bill C-38, a bill that would change the national definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two adults.

Prime Minister Paul Martin and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler seem to regard this Bill C-38 regarding Same-Sex marriage as "beyond debate." Substantial questions remain regarding the Same-Sex marriage bill. Chief among them is whether there is a compromise possible that would preserve the civil rights of same-sex couples and the religious exercise rights of those who hold the historic Christian teaching on this subject. For months, Justice Minister Cotler had argued their bill protects religious freedom. Now he admits it does not.

But this does not matter. They (and other supporters of the bill) are certain the bill must pass in its current form. There is no need for further substantive discussion because no amendment is possible. This is the way it must be. They know the will of the Charter and the subject is not open for discussion. No other interpretation of the charter is possible. This is what must be done, no matter what the cost.

To paraphrase Westell, "when there is no possibility of persuading an opponent who claims to know the will of the Charter, the process becomes pointless.

Westell suggests "values derived from religion" are admissible to political debate. But those values alone can not decide a question.

The point is that faith alone cannot be a sufficient reason to demand that government permit this or forbid that. If there is to be useful debate there have to be practical arguments unrelated to religious belief.

Of course. "I believe it therefore you must do it" is no way to make political policy decisions -- no matter what kind of fundamentalist is making the demand. Politics is about persuasion and debate. It's about making honourable compromises and meeting people half way. It's about being willing to do what is possible, rather than stubbornly holding out for what is perfect.

And it's about discussion and debate. It's about an exchange of ideas, opinions, and evidences. And it depends on the free flow of information and perspectives in those debates. Only someone who is omniscient has no need to listen and learn. But it also means I should be willing to teach, to share, to explain. To borrow the phrase from Peter's letter, to be willing to give a reason for the hope I hold.

I believe the Christian faith offers the way to a truly abundant life. It shows the way to the true fulfillment of people's deepest desires. But I ought to be able to tell people how that works. I ought to have some reason to believe what I believe.

But if I have no reason to believe what I believe, not only should I not expect others to believe it, but I ought to think long and hard about whether I should believe it either.

Of course that applies to any faith. It applies to faiths that believe we must follow "God's word." And it applies to faiths that aren't sure whether there is any word from any God for us to follow. Every citizen deserves a hearing. No one should be silenced with a label like "godless heathen" or "hate-mongering fundamentalist." Those sorts of labels are just a form of demonizing. What a truly inclusive, democratic society needs is debating and discussing, not demonizing. By any side.

The best gift the church can give the culture

Continuing from the conclusion of my last post, "People may call it circling the wagons, but churches are strongest when they are who they were meant to be, a firm place to stand on the faith delivered to the saints," note this comment from Dale Price on his blog, "Dyspeptic Mutterings":

...the greatest risk to Catholic thought is to downplay, secularize or attempt to harmonize it with the zeitgeist....

And it's the greatest risk to the important role the Roman Catholic Church -- or any church -- has to play in society. The more a church is harmonized with its culture, the less relevant or important it is in its culture.

Many years ago, David Neff at Christianity Today challenged me with this historical insight: the churches which had the most influence on their cultures were those that focused on what made them unique and different from those cultures. Churches which focused on being part of a particular culture usually wound up being co-opted by that culture.

The church is, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 (NRSV) Its ministers should be seen, again according to the apostle, "as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries." 1 Corinthians 4:1 (NRSV)

There are many good humanitarian things the church can do in society. And the church needs to do them, because we appreciate the value of each human life. But there are many institutions that can do the humanitarian things. So if the church falters in caring for people, it will hurt the church, but other civic and humanitarian groups can care for those needs.

A society that loudly echoes Pilate's question "what is truth?" needs the church to be the church. It needs the church to be the bulwark of the truth. And only the church can be the church. So if the church falters in being the bulwark of the truth, if the church falters in caring for the mysteries of the gospel, there is no one who can take up the task.

The best gift the church can give society is to be the church. To care in the name of Jesus Christ. To stand up and defend what is true. To proclaim faithfully the gospel of grace. It may not be popular, and it may not be welcomed. But this is the best service we can offer our culture.