There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ just marriage, period - by William B. May

September 4, 2013 (MercatorNet) - We have all, or nearly all, done it -- talked about "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage". But according to William B. May, who has been in the thick of the marriage debate in the United States, that's a mistake. MercatorNet asked him to explain.

* * * * *

 

MercatorNet: People trying to defend marriage know that “same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms, nonsense in fact, but isn’t it just shorthand for referring to an issue? What’s the harm?

 

William B May: The only reason there is a debate about the legal definition of marriage is because of confusion about its true meaning and purpose. Without truth about marriage, people take positions based on emotion and sentimentality. To restore the truth about marriage we must witness it in a way people can understand.

The first thing to consider is that no one is really proposing to put something called “same-sex marriage” in the law. They take “a man and a woman” and replace it with “two people.” That has consequences that people are not considering. So be careful not to oppose something that is not there.

When they eliminate “a man and a woman” from marriage laws it eliminates the only civil institution that is specifically geared to unite children with their moms and dads – the sole reason for marriage being a privileged institution in the first place. That exposes the hidden agenda and the truth about what is at stake.

Opponents argue that they don’t want to change marriage, and men and woman can still get married, so what is the big deal. The problem is that men and women are not getting married, and  this has created a crisis with increasing fatherlessness and associated consequences, and an increasing number of children living in poverty. Removing this child-centric institution from the law removes authority to actively promote the unique value of men and women marrying before having children. It makes it illegal for public institutions to do so and makes it legally discriminatory for anyone else.

 

What should we say instead of “same-sex marriage”?

Using the term “same-sex marriage” is one of the traps we fall into. It implies the issue is about participation in it by same-sex couples and makes us sound like our only motive is to oppose their aspirations. It is critical to educate people that the issue is redefinition, not participation and that redefining marriage has consequences. Redefining eliminates the only civil institution that is geared to uniting children with their moms and dads. The issue should be whether or not we need such an institution.

 

Why do the terms we use matter so much? Are there implications we are not seeing?

We live in a relativistic culture in which words mean different things to different people. For example when you talk about children needing a mother and father, or say that a married mother and father is good for children, that statement may be true, but different people have different understandings of what children need and what is good. This invariably leads to a debate about outcomes for children and competency in parenting, and who can do a better job, which escalates emotions. Ironically this has little to do with the meaning and purpose of marriage.

Being born into a family with mom and dad united in marriage is a human right, as the Catholic Church teaches, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child implies (in Articles 7 and 9 ). Our moms and dads are part of our identity and we carry their flesh for all of eternity. With every right there is a corresponding duty to promote respect for that right and in this case to promote civil marriage as the foundation of the family of common ancestry.

It is also important for people to be able to distinguish between a real human right, that can only be recognized by law and never created, and a claimed individual right or license. A human right applies to each and every person without exception. The human right of children to know and, as far as possible, to be loved and cared for their moms and dads is a right that can be known by both reason and our own desire for connection with the man and woman from whom we originated. This is also an experience of God’s plan for creation, but is not dependent in belief in God.

 

What definition of marriage do you recommend we should use in debating this issue?

“Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.” That is what marriage is; that is what it does. The trouble is that children and family have been disconnected from marriage.

Factors include no fault divorce making it adult-centric, the separation of sex from procreation and marriage, having children becoming a life-style choice for personal fulfillment, and the increasingly accepted practice of intentionally depriving children of their moms or dads or both through assisted reproductive technology (sperm and egg donation, and surrogacy).

Considering these factors, it is difficult for people to understand marriage by discussing complementarity, procreation, motherhood and fatherhood, etc. It must be expressed in its totality. In reality, marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. It is a fact, something that the law can only recognise, not change. If the word is redefined in the law, marriage will still exist, but will be no longer recognized in law as such. It becomes discriminatory to advocate that is has any unique value to society, at least under the name of marriage.

 

What do you think of the term “traditional marriage”? Is it useful?

I just use the word “marriage”, but I am careful to use it in a context so people know what I mean. “Traditional marriage” communicates what we mean but nothing about its true meaning and purpose in a way people can understand. Traditional has a connotation of connection with and holding onto the past. However, marriage is about the future.

 

How does this work out at the ballot box? How are referendums worded?

I have felt that defining marriage between a man and a woman in law does not go far enough. The law in some way needs to imply its public interest; clarifying that its purpose is more than recognizing loving, committed relationships between men and women. Perhaps it should state something like, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognize. All public institutions must promote its unique value as the only civil institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers.”

 

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

 

Opponents will object because it reveals the real meaning and purpose of marriage. They argue that children raised by same-sex couples have a right to married parents, but this changes the subject because every child in this situation has lost their mom, dad or both. Arguments that this could provide stability for such children implies that marriage is merely a human creation for some sociological objective. Marriage is about the free choice of a man and woman to make themselves irreplaceable to each other in preparation to receive life as a gift. Marriage is the foundation of the communion of irreplaceability we call the family.

Opponents cause further confusion by saying marriage can’t be about procreation because not all married man and woman have children. That may be so, but every child has a mother and father and has a right, as far as possible, to be born into a family with them united in marriage. All married men and women engage in the same conjugal act, which is a commemoration and renewal of the marriage vows. Even sociologists from across the political spectrum agree that it is important to reestablish a norm for men and women to marry before having children.

 

How can we stay on the front foot in debates on this issue? Can we ever avoid being labeled “bigot”?

When we use the term “same-sex marriage,” it immediately tells people we are against someone and the so-called “rights” they are advocating. It’s an unfortunate tactic of our opponents to attribute motives to those defending marriage in an effort to seek sympathy, discredit, and intimidate. Avoiding the use of the term and instead focusing on what we are for will help greatly.

We can understand the sincere desire of some people to have same-sex relationships recognized, but marriage would have to be redefined in the law in a way that eliminates the only civil institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. How can anyone justify that? This issue is not about homosexuality at all. It is about whether marriage is a reality that not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union.

What opponents are really proposing is that marriage be redefined in the law to be merely an institution for recognizing committed relationships for the benefit of the adults. What is the public interest in that? We love talking about other people’s sins, so it takes discipline to avoid getting drawn into a conversation about sexual ethics and personal behavior and stay focused on the reality of marriage.

 

Actually, the marriage redefiners seem to agree with you. They don’t use “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” either, but talk about “marriage equality”. Why do you think that is?

Their research shows that 58% of people in the US already believe that the purpose of marriage is to recognize committed relationships for adults. So all they have to do is to say same-sex couples want to marry for the same reason anyone else does.

The current understanding of marriage is one of the factors contributing to the fact fewer people are marrying and more than half of children born to women under 30 are outside of marriage. This is a crisis that is touching almost every family. The focus must be on changing current ideas about what marriage is for the benefit of society and our own families instead of focusing on why same-sex couples don’t qualify.

I imagine that marriage redefiners don’t want to use the term “same-sex or gay marriage” because their current approach is more effective, and the terms conjure up “anti-gay” feelings.

 

William B May is president of the United States organization Catholics for the Common Good and played a prominent role in the Proposition 8 effort that successfully restored the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in California – since overturned by the courts. He is the author of Getting the Marriage Conversation Right, a Guide for Effective Dialogue .

JONATHAN LAST’S What to Expect When No One is Expecting: America’s Coming Economic Disaster - by William E. May

In Culture of Life Foundation 

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:
1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.
Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival.
- See more at: http://www.culture-of-life.org/e-brief/jonathan-last%E2%80%99s-what-expect-when-no-one-expecting-america%E2%80%99s-coming-economic-disaster#sthash.oAfaN7yn.dpuf

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:
1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.
Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival.
- See more at: http://www.culture-of-life.org/e-brief/jonathan-last%E2%80%99s-what-expect-when-no-one-expecting-america%E2%80%99s-coming-economic-disaster#sthash.oAfaN7yn.dpuf

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:

1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.

Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival. 

Reflections on Marriage after 53 Years - by Willam E. May, Ph.D, Senior Research Fellow

In Culture of Life Foundation

October 4, 2011, the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, was our (Patricia and Bill) 53rd wedding anniversary. God has blessed us with a happy marriage, giving to us seven loving children, 4 boys and 3 girls, 52 to 40 in age. Six of our children are married, whose spouses are terrific men and women deeply devoted to their husbands and wives and children, 16 of them -our granddaughters (10) and grandsons (6), ranging in age from 22 to 4 months. Our unmarried son enjoys immensely his role as “bachelor” uncle.

Why is our marriage so happy? Here are some of the major reasons.

The importance of faith in God and his providence

First of all my wife and I are persons of faith. We firmly believe that God is a loving Father who has inscribed our names in the palm of his hand (cf Is 49:16) and who will never abandon us but will be with us to help us become fully the beings he wants us to be--persons who return his love and act as befits his very own children, “adopted” brothers and sisters of his only-begotten Son who became man and died for us in order to show how deeply God loves us.

When we exchanged our wedding vows 53 years ago, the priest who witnessed that exchange and celebrated our nuptial Mass gave us a beautiful “Instruction,” one given in those years by priests in the United States prior to witnessing the exchange of vows. That “Instruction” is so beautiful that each year, on our anniversary, my wife and I read it and pray over it. In part it instructs us as follows:

As you know, you are about to enter into a union which is most sacred and most serious, a union which was established by God himself…. The union is most serious, because it will bind you together for life in a relationship so close and so intimate that it will profoundly influence your whole future. That future, with its hopes and disappointments, its successes and its failures, its pleasures and its pains, its joys and its sorrows, is hidden from your eyes. You know that these elements are mingled in every life and are to be expected in your own. And so, not knowing what is before you, you take each other for better or worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death….It is a beautiful tribute to your undoubted faith in each other, that, recognizing their full import [the import of these words], you are nevertheless so willing and ready to pronounce them. And because these words involve such solemn obligations, it is most fitting that you rest the security of your wedded life upon the great principle of self-sacrifice….And whatever sacrifices you may hereafter be required to make to preserve this common life, always make them generously. Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy, and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love. And when love is perfect, the sacrifice is complete.

Some practical matters
It is inevitable that husbands and wives will disagree, sometimes seriously, over different issues, become angry with one another, give the “offending” spouse the “silent” treatment, etc. This can and does happen, and Pat and I have not been immune to such arguing and bickering (one of our favorite old time Radio shows was “The Bickersons,” starring Don Ameche and Frances Langford). But, and this is the important point, we always (or almost always), before we went to bed or were in bed and about to go to sleep, asked each other to pardon our “bickering,” and we have always ended the day by my telling each other “I am happy that I married you.” If husbands and wives do this every day before retiring, this will surely help their marriage to be happy.

It is also most important not only to forgive the other spouse his or her failings, nastiness, selfish use of family funds, etc. but also to forget and never bring the matter up again. This is sometimes a difficult thing to do, but if husbands and wives do so, this will contribute greatly to the marriage.

A third most important ingredient for a happy marriage is the courage to correct in charity one’s wife or husband if she or he has done something or proposed doing something that is hostile to the good of the marriage and family or perhaps unjust to others. This can take courage at times; do not condone any evil doing by a failure to correct the wayward or, perhaps, instruct the ignorant.

It is also very necessary not to argue or “fight” in the presence of your children. When you are with them, be united; it is not the time to offer any “fraternal correction”, much less to argue over disagreements no matter how serious. Such fighting between parents will harm the children and perhaps tempt some to manipulate one parent against the other to get his or her own way.

More positively, one of the greatest gifts a father can give his children is to love their mother and show them that he does, and likewise this is one of the greatest gifts a mother can give her children.

In addition, make sure that you know your children’s friends (and their parents). Make it evident to your children that their home is a place where their friends are welcome. If they don’t want to bring their friends home, then watch out; those “friends” might be dangerous.

Finally, try to begin and end the day by praying to God, offering him your service in the morning, asking his forgiveness and thanks in the evening; and also pray with your children. As Father Patrick Peyton said, “The Family that Prays Together Stays Together.”

Witnessing to the Sanctity of Human Life: The Example of Jerome Lejeune, M.D.

by Willam E. May, Ph.D, Senior Research Fellow

In Culture of Life Foundation

The August, 2011 issue of Catholic Medical Quarterly, the journal of the Catholic Medical Association of the United Kingdom, begins with an article “Jerome Lejeune: A Doctor for All Seasons.” His example in witnessing to the sanctity of human life from its inception until death was remarkable. Reflecting on it can be of value to all in the pro-life movement, particularly if some basic principles of medical ethics that he proposed are not only kept in mind but carried out in practice. The CMQ’s brief article is well done; hence this piece will basically be a summary of it, implemented by a brief description of Lejeune’s role in a famous court case in Tennessee toward the end of the 1980’s.

In 1959 Lejeune discovered the cause of Down’s Syndrome. Regarding the personhood of such children the CMQ article related the story of an American physician who told Lejeune that his father was a Jewish physician in Braunau, Austria. One day only two babies were born at the local hospital. The parents of the healthy boy were proud and happy. The other baby was a girl afflicted with Down’s Syndrome and her parents were very distraught about her birth. The physician ended the story by saying that the girl grew up to look after her mother despite her own disability. Her name is not known. The boy’s name was Adolf Hitler. The CMQ article then declares: “Quite likely the story is apocryphal. However, it does express the truth that was central to Lejeune’s vocation: people with disabilities are certainly no less human than those without.”

In 1962, Lejeune was awarded the prestigious Kennedy prize and, in 1965, he was appointed to the first Chair in Fundamental Genetics at the University of Paris. During this time, he helped thousands of parents to accept and love their children with Down’s Syndrome. He committed himself to the pro-life cause when he discovered that children with Down’s Syndrome were being aborted in ever greater numbers.

In his address on being awarded, in 1969, the William Allen Memorial Award, the highest distinction that could be granted to a geneticist, Lejeune condemned abortion. In 1973 he and his wife vigorously fought a bill filed to decriminalize abortion in France. They collected thousands of signatures from French doctors and politicians against the measure and the bill failed. However, much to his dismay, a law allowing abortion was passed in 1974. His pro-life stance led to his research grants being withdrawn and he was forced to close his laboratory.

In February 1989, Lejeune was a witness in a very unusual case argued before Judge W. Dale Young in Blount County, Tennessee. In that case, Junior L. Davis filed suit against his ex-wife, now Mary Sue Davis Stowe, over the custody of seven cryogenically frozen embryos that the two of them had created at a fertility clinic prior to their divorce. Lejeune’s testimony gave the scientific evidence that all seven of these frozen embryos are indeed living human beings, persons like the rest of us, made in God’s image. He called the canisters in which these tiny frozen human persons, along with thousands of others, were imprisoned “concentration cans,” and in 1992 published a book under that title, one of the finest pro-life books ever written.

In 1991, he wrote a summary of his reflections on medical ethics in seven brief points:
“1. Christians, be not afraid. It is you who possess the truth. Not that you invented it but because you are the vehicle for it. To all doctors, you must repeat: ‘you must conquer the illness, not attack the patient.’ 2. We are made in the image of God. For this reason alone all human beings must be respected.3. Abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. 4. Objective morality exists. It is clear and it is universal….5. The child is not disposable and marriage is indissoluble. 6. ‘You shall honor your father and mother.’ Therefore, single parental reproduction by any means is always wrong. 7. In so-called pluralistic societies, they shout it down our throats: ‘You Christians do not have the right to impose your morality on others.’ Well, I tell you, not only do you have the right to try to incorporate your morality in the law but it is your democratic duty.

In 1993, Blessed Pope John Paul, his close friend, appointed Lejeune as the first president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. That same year he was diagnosed with lung cancer and, by Good Friday of 1994, he was critically ill. He died the next day, Holy Saturday, April 1, 1994.

Pope John Paul wrote of him: “We find ourselves today faced with the death of a great
Christian of the twentieth century, a man for whom the defense of life had become an apostolate.”

French bishops have introduced his cause for canonization.

Advance Directives i - William E. May, Ph.D

by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow

In Culture of Life Foundation

Introduction

Today legislation requires patients to provide doctors, clinics, hospitals etc. with “advance directives.” An advance directive is a document by which a person makes provision for health care decisions in the event that, in the future, he or she is no longer competent to make such decisions for himself or herself.

Advance directives are of two main types: (1) the “living will” and (2) the “durable power of attorney for health care.” There is a third type called a MOST form (medical order for scope of treatment), which is fast becoming the form of choice in the US. It combines into one form living will provisions, DNR orders, designate of proxy care giver and has a doctor's signature making it a MEDICAL ORDER, hence the name.

Living will

What it is. This is a signed, witnessed or notarized document that a person executes to direct that specified life-sustaining treatments be withheld or withdrawn if he or she is in a terminal condition and unable to make health-care decisions for herself or himself. To be legally binding, a document of this kind must ordinarily be witnessed and sealed by notary public.

Serious problems. Since an attending physician who may be unfamiliar with the signer’s wishes and values has the authority to carry out the directives of the will, its terms may be interpreted in a way not envisioned by its signer. Moreover, the language used in such documents is often vague and general, and fails to distinguish clearly the difference between a choice to commit suicide by forgoing or withholding treatment precisely as a way of ending one’s life or the non-suicidal intention to forgo treatment because of the treatment’s uselessness or burdensomeness. Frequently, models of a living will are promoted by supporters of euthanasia, using language that is easy to interpret in a way favorable to euthanasia. Thus the organization known as Compassion & Choices, created by merger with the Hemlock Society, is committed to secure the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. This organization on its website offers models of pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide living wills (website https://www.compassionandchoices.org/).

Because of this and because a living will is prepared before a person will be in a situation calling for careful judgment about the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of specific treatments, John Finnis, a strong defender of the inviolability of innocent human life and the great good of human life itself, has written a devastating criticism of living will legislation in England. [2]

The Durable Power of Attorney

What it is. This is a signed, witnessed or notarized document in which the signer designates an agent to make health care decisions for himself or herself in the event that he or she becomes incompetent.

Care in choosing agent; advantages. The agent must be chosen with great care since he will have great power and authority to make decisions about whether health care is to be provided, withheld or withdrawn. The major advantage of appointing a health care decisions agent is that it leaves decision making in the hands of a person of one’s own choosing. The signer of such a document has the obligation to discuss his or her values, wishes and instructions with the agent before and at the time the document is signed, and should choose an agent willing to respect and carry out the signer’s wishes. Thus pro-life people will want their agent to value human life, including bodily life, as good and a precious gift from God, no matter how heavily burdened, and will repudiate euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, which is rooted in the belief that a person’s life is a burden and that death removes this burden.

In 2009 the Roman Catholic Bishops of Maryland and Wilmington, DE published a pastoral letter, Comfort & Consolation: Care of the Sick and the Dying in which they offer criteria for selecting a health care agent with the power of attorney (see pages 27-29). Their criteria were proposed specifically for Catholics. Here I adapt them for all who oppose withholding/withdrawing treatments in order to kill a person intentionally:

· Appoint a person who has the strength of character to make good judgments in painful circumstances and discuss specifics with that person (and also with your primary physician).

· No one should agree to act as an agent for another person if that person would expect or require the agent to do anything that he would directly and intentionally choose in order to cause death, nor should he choose to withhold or withdraw a treatment not because it is useless (futile) or excessively burdensome but rather as a means intentionally and directly to cause death for allegedly merciful reasons.

· Appoint someone who is likely to be available to care for you in the distant future. Since this is so, it may be advisable to name alternate agents, in the event that your first choice proves unable or unwilling to act for you when the need arises.

· In general one should avoid stating that he wants to reject certain treatments under all circumstances or stating without qualification that she want medical remedies restricted in the event that he/she become permanently unconscious or terminally ill. Such stipulation can amount to providing a premature self-diagnosis. The person should allow his health care agent and physician latitude to offer appropriate care based on the individual’s actual condition.

· Include a provision regarding treatment at the time of imminent death. A person on the verge of death can refuse a treatment which would result in only a burdensome prolongation of life. Your advance directive should authorize your agent to observe this norm.

· Periodically review the provisions of your directive and make copies of your directive and distribute them to your agent and each of your health care providers and anyone else you deem appropriate.

The Parents Rights Council (formerly known as the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force) has developed a very worthwhile document called the “Protective Medical Decisions Document” (PMDD). This can be downloaded from the Parents Rights Council’s website http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/. This is a durable power of attorney for health care document specifically prohibiting suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Among its provisions are the following:

I wish to receive medical treatment appropriate to my condition which offers a reasonable hope of benefit. I direct that food and water be provided to me unless death is inevitable and truly imminent so that the effort to sustain my life is futile or unless I am unable to assimilate food or fluids. I ask that, even in the face of death, I be provided with ordinary nursing and medical care, including pain relief, appropriate to my condition. Nothing should be done which will directly and intentionally cause my death, nor should anything be omitted when such omissions would directly and intentionally cause my death. Euthanasia (an action or omission that of itself or by intent causes death), whether by commission or omission, is not permitted.

In conclusion, I advise persons not to sign living wills. Rather appoint a person whom you trust to be your agent by giving him or her durable power of attorney and consider making use of the Protective Medical Decisions Document available from the Parents Rights Council.

[1] This article is adapted from pp. 302-305 of my Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Second ed.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2008). I have, however, inserted some new material, e.g., that on Compassion & Choices.

[2] See Finnis, “Living Will Legislation,” in Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law, ed. Luke Formally (London: The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics, 1994).

From Planned Parenthood to Pro-Life: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader

by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow

In Culture of Life Foundation

The subtitle of this essay is in quotation marks because it is the subtitle of unPlanned, the recently published life story of Abby Johnson, former abortion advocate turned pro-life. This remarkable book tells us of: 1. Abby’s own attitude toward abortion; 2. Why she became a Planned Parenthood volunteer; 3. Her career with Planned Parenthood from 2001-2009; 4. How her eyes were opened to the reality of abortion; and 5. Her decision to resign from Planned Parenthood and cross the life line.

Abby’s own Attitude Toward Abortion

Abby grew up in a church and a family that believed in the sanctity of life (p. 21). But as a college student she had two abortions, both occurring after she became pregnant and while working first for her undergraduate degree and second for a master’s in psychological counseling and therapy. She conceived out of wedlock the first time and followed her boy friend’s advice to have the abortion; the second time she got pregnant while married to him but in the process of divorcing him. Both times abortion seemed to her to be a necessary means to avoid serious problems (pp. 22- 26, 44-48). She had her second abortion by using the drug RU-486 (Mifeprex) that caused her terrible pain but nonetheless succeeded in ridding her of the unborn baby. Since she had grown up opposing abortion, she had to rationalize her abortion decisions in order to justify them in her mind. She embraced a view that separated her from the child she carried. She did not see herself as a woman carrying a baby. “What I saw,” she writes “was that I was in a condition of pregnancy, not that I was now the mother of a child already dependent on my body for sustenance.” This was Planned Parenthood’s way of describing abortion (p. 45).

Why Be a Planned Parenthood Volunteer?

At a Volunteer Fair held at Abby’s undergraduate college, Jill, the Planned Parenthood representative, told Abby that every community needs a clinic women can turn to when they are in trouble or need help and Planned Parenthood provides this, offering counsel, free birth control, and abortions if they are necessary. Jill stressed that Planned Parenthood’s goal was to make abortions rare by making effective birth control available to women. It offered abortion only as a last resort and did so because women have a right to a safe abortion. Otherwise they might suffer injury or even death at the hands of back alley abortionists. Planned Parenthood also offered annual medical exams, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, sex education, breast and cervical exams, etc. (pp. 13-14). Falling for the beneficent myth, Abby quickly volunteered to help at the local clinic.

Abby’s Career with Planned Parenthood

From 2001 until October 2009 Abby was closely involved in the work done at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryant, TX, first as a volunteer while finishing her undergraduate education, then as a counselor of the women who visited the clinic after graduating from college and again after completing a master’s degree in counseling and therapy, and finally as director. She looked on her work as a good way to help women in crisis situations, to teach them how to use modern contraceptives so that abortions would be rare. She felt uneasy on “abortion days,” when visiting abortionists removed the “products of conception” or “fetal tissues” from women’s bodies. On those days Abby had to confront protestors on the other side of the fence. Some of them frightened Abby and others on her side by calling them “murderers” and waving posters with gruesome pictures of aborted babies. Another group of protestors was different. Members of the Coalition for Life were peaceful; they prayed for Abby and her associates and their “clients,” and tried to make friends with them, urging them to listen to their reasons for opposing abortion; over the years Abby was attracted to them, in particular by Shawn Carney and Marlissa who later married Shawn (see pp. 31-38, 145 ff).

Abby was convinced that Planned Parenthood was passionately concerned for the well-being of women and sincere in claiming that its goal was to make abortion rare. After she became director of the clinic (she was then married to Doug, who hated abortions), she was determined to make it the best such facility in Texas. Alone of all clinics it remained open under her leadership during Hurricane Ike in September 2008 despite orders from higher ups to close it. Later she was commended for keeping the clinic open and was even named “employee of the year” (pp. 105-112).

Late in 2008 Planned Parenthood announced plans to open a massive 7 storey clinic in Houston that would be one of the largest abortion facilities in the nation, with license to do abortions after 25 weeks. This news upset Abby terribly (pp. 111-112). Because of economic conditions, pressure was put on Abby to increase abortions at her clinic. Cheryl, her former superior, told her that she had a business to run and needed to put her priorities straight and increase abortions because of the income they generated. When Abby protested she was summoned to a meeting in Houston and reprimanded for not following orders to increase abortions. (pp. 135-139).

How Abby’s Eyes—and Heart and Mind—Were Opened

Late in September 2009 Cheryl, Abby’s then former superior at the clinic, asked her to help out in the exam room on an abortion day (Cheryl always came on those days). Arriving at the exam room, Abby found that the abortionist visiting the clinic used ultrasound to guide his abortion operations. Ultrasound-guided abortion had not been used before in the facility. The sonogram showed the entire, perfect profile of a little baby who was thirteen weeks of age, reminding Abby of the one taken of her baby Grace before she was born. Abby watched as the cannula, a straw-shaped tube attached to the suction tube, had been inserted into the uterus of the woman. At first the baby did not seem aware of the cannula, but soon the baby kicked her feet in an effort to get away from the probing invader. When the cannula was in the right spot over the squirming baby the doctor ordered the suction tube to be turned on and soon the baby’s crumpled body was being sucked into the tube. The last thing Abby saw “was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone being sucked into the tube.” How could she now believe what Planned Parenthood had told her—and what she was telling clients—that abortion is simply a procedure removing fetal tissue from the woman’s body? She was now facing a crisis in her own life. How could she keep working for Planned Parenthood? (pp. 1-8).

Abby’s Decision to Leave Planned Parenthood to Defend Unborn Human Life

After this experience Abby resolved to resign her post but she needed a job. Yet she resolved, with the support of her husband Doug who was against abortion, to resign two weeks later. One day the following week she quietly left the clinic and went to the Coalition for Life office where she was welcomed and tearfully told her story. When Shawn Carney, whose peaceful reasoning from across the abortion fence had moved her, finally came and heard it, he promised to have her meet Dr. Haywood Robinson who, like the late Dr. Nathanson, was an abortionist who became an ardent pro-lifer. Abby met him later that week and through his help was able to obtain a job as a counselor-therapist (pp.155-175). She then wrote her resignation from Planned Parenthood and sent it to her superiors.

Planned Parenthood brought suit against Abby claiming that when she left she stole confidential information such as the code to the security system and counseled employees to resign also; Abby’s lawyers were able to show that Planned Parenthood could not prove its case and the judge dismissed the claim (pp.223-259).

Abby’s story is more than remarkable. It shows us how, with the help of God’s grace and friends who truly love us, we can come to recognize the euphemistic language used to camouflage the killing of innocent unborn babies and to recognize its brutal reality.