Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Health care bill attacks marriage

We first reported this travesty here. Now CitizenLink has picked up on it, hopefully spreading the word to millions more people.  The welfare rules of the Great Society drove marriage out of the homes of the poor. The health care bill has the potential to drive marriage out of the middle class. A closer look at premium payments in both the House and Senate health care bills shows higher premiums that might discourage couples from tying the knot.
For instance, in the House version, an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance.  If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680.  Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor. "This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post.  "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger." The Senate bill includes a similar penalty. "The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote.  "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married."
Is this difference in insurance premiums enough to tip the scales from marriage to cohabitation?  For some people, who are already loosely attached to the institution of marriage, the answer is surely yes.  Once the principle of granting benefits to individuals rather than families is in place, the numbers can be tweaked to get any desired result. Libertarians: are you sure you don't care about marriage?  The state has been, and is continuing to actively push people away from marriage. Why do you suppose they are so keen to break the family into individuals?  Christian liberals: are you sure you want the federal government to be the primary source of health care for every man, woman and child in America?  The power to tax is the power to destroy.  And the power to subsidize is the power to corrupt.  The government is giving itself enough power to destroy what's left of the family.  They may or may not exercise that power at this particular time: but if this health care bill passes, they will have the power.  Why do you suppose they want that power? Wake up everybody: breaking the family into individuals empowers the state, not the individuals, and certainly not the family.

UK policy turnaround on marriage?

Or just a lot of hot air?  You decide. I can't keep up with British politics. It is true though, that the UK has been much more aggressively anti-marriage than the US, as Patricia Morgan has ably documented.  I reviewed her book here and reprinted here.
The Government is all over the place on family issues. In Harman's equality camp, the mantra is that single parents must not be discriminated against by encouraging marriage in the tax system. That's not unlike saying that those who don't go to university shouldn't be discriminated against in the jobs market, but I'll let that pass. In another camp, which Balls has just joined, are those who believe, like Cameron, that marriage is a gold standard for the raising of children.... Why in all his years at the Treasury did Gordon Brown preside over the steady erosion of the tax advantages of wedlock, while the burgeoning benefits system positively encouraged parents to live apart? My guess is that, in his instinct to act like Tony Blair when he inherited his office, Brown assumes that matrimony will be associated with all that stuffy, old religious observance, and, like Blair, he doesn't want to be thought of as a "nutter".
As yes, the ultimate insult: being thought a "nutter" because you believe kids need a mom and a dad and all that other religious mumbo-jumbo.  If religious people are the only ones who can see that moms and dads matter, so much the worse for the atheists!

Pantheism is not Christian

I have a bit of commentary about the movie Avatar, buried in the comments over at the First Things blog. I'm seeing more and more strange stuff from people who ought to know better, so I'm going to have to write more about it. But for now, check out this link, for my comments and a few others. Most of my comment: I went to see Avatar, at the urging of my adolescent son. he enjoyed the beauty of the movie, as well as the violence of the fight scenes. (The adolescent boy market is a significant market share of the movie market.) Appealing but wrong-headed movies like this are not harmless. In fact, the appeal is the problem. All the people living in harmony with each other, and with the earth, until the Evil Humans appear: this is not a harmless fantasy. This is the Gnostic fantasy that the world as we know it is evil, and that we can fix it if we only had the will and the power. Or should I say, the will to power. The problem is that the world as we know it has elements of both good and evil. The human race has been trying to create perfection, and has never succeeded. Yet still the Gnostic fantasy persists: we, at last, have the secret knowledge that will allow us to live in harmony with nature and each other and never again have any trouble. If only we could get those Other people to stop asking so many impertinent questions, stop dragging their feet, get with the program, and enter into our dreamworld.
But the Biblical God says the created world is good, and that the world after the creation of man and woman is very good. Sin enters the world, not because human come on the scene, but because they try to make themselves gods. That is, they refuse to face reality: God is God, and we aren’t.

British court declares Judaism racist

In the January 2010 issue of First Things, (unfortunately not yet on-line) David Goldman rhetorically asks: "Have Birtain's jews ever undergone a legal assault on the practice of thier religion within their own institutions?"  They have now. A British court has ruled that an Orthodox Jewish school's admission policy violated the UK's civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. The offending action by the school was to deny admission to the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother who converted to Judaism at a progressive synagogue.  The implication of this decision, if it is allowed to stand, is not only that the Orthodox Jewish community cannot control their own institutions. It is that the British court has declared Judaism itself to be racist. According to Britain's cheif rabbi, Jonathan Sacks,
An English court has declared [the religious definition of Jewish status] racist, and since this is an essential element of Jewish law, it is in effect declaring Judaism racist. To be told that Judaism is racist is distressing. To confuse religion and race is a mistake. 
You can find First Things here.   Keep an eye out for the January issue to go on-line, so you can read all of this important article. The author, David goldman, writes on the First Things website as Spengler.  He has some commentary on this case here and here.

Whose kid is it, anyhow?

Do you ever refer to your children as if they were yours alone?  As in, "I have two children," or "my son in 8."   I have learned to stop doing that.  "My" kids belong to my husband as much as to me.  Although it is no particular virtue or insight, just facing reality, it still took me a while to remember to say "My husband and I have two children," or "Our son has just started college." I learned this from the Mother of God. Of all people, she would have had reason to refer to Jesus as "her" son, and kind of leave Joseph out of the picture. After all, he had no genetic relationship to Jesus. Joseph was "just" her cover story. But the Gospel suggests that she didn't treat him as an after thought. The Gospel reading for today, the Feast of the Holy Family, tells the story of the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple. Notice how the story continually refers to "the parents" of Jesus.  According to tradition, Luke's source of information for the "Infancy Narrative" in these early chapters is Mary herself. She could have told everybody this story referring only to herself.   "Well, when I took Jesus to Jerusalem when he was 12..."  But she didn't.  Or at least, Luke tells it as if she didn't. And when Mary does speak in this part of the Gospel, she refers to Joseph: "Son, why have you treated us so? Your father and I have been looking for you in sorrow."  We may surmise that her habit was to include Joseph. When I realized this a few years ago, I started making a point of always referring to the kids as "ours" instead of "mine."  If it's good enough for the Mother of God, it's good enough for me. Just facing reality.

Christmas message: Be Not Afraid!

            We live in dark times. More Christians have been martyred in the twentieth century than in all previous centuries combined. A British court has just declared that Judaism is racist, a ruling that may make Jewish education impossible in the UK, even in private schools. Many of our contemporaries seem hell-bent on destroying us, the world, and themselves in the bargain.              Revolutionaries of all parties tell us that the world we know is irredeemably evil and must be completely transformed. We hear voices telling us that mankind is a plague on the earth, that we must apologize for our existence on the earth, that our interests can be sacrificed for the good of the earth.  We hear that male and female are nothing but human inventions, and evil inventions at that. We must wipe out all traces of gender, neuter ourselves, and become generic humans, rather than men and women.  This is to say that we must make war on our own bodies, since there are no generic humans.             Against these voices, we have the voice of the living God, proclaiming His creation to be good. And when He had created man and woman in His image, He declared His work to be very good.  We Christians and Jews are under no illusions: we know perfectly well that the world is imperfect, mankind most of all. But we live in the confidence that God has created each and every one of us in his image and likeness, that Almighty God wishes to live among us and to make Himself known to us. He calls us to repentance and reform, without demanding that we destroy ourselves or spit in our own faces. In fact, he forbids us to do so. He demands that we love our neighbors as ourselves, which doesn’t amount to much if we despise ourselves.             God came among us at Christmas in Bethlehem.  Everyone knows the story as Luke tells it, and as we hear it at Midnight Mass: the angelic choirs, the star, the shepherds, Joseph leading the donkey to Bethlehem, Mary holding all these things in her heart. But during the day, the Church reads to us from the Gospel of John. In the Beginning, was the Word. The opening of John’s Gospel connects us with the very first words of Genesis, and thereby, with everything in between.  And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. This is why Christians throughout the centuries and across the world have always celebrated Christmas with such reckless abandon. No matter how grim things seem to be, how bad can the world be, if God came among us, and is among us still?             At this holy time of year, I want to express my very warmest wishes to our elder brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith. Your fidelity to the covenant graces us all.             To all my friends of all faiths, to all my coworkers in the truth, Be Not Afraid! The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Eugene Volokh on the NM wedding photographer

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Gene blogs about the New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony. She had argued that she has a First Amendment right to refuse to produce a creative work.  Being compelled to film a ceremony that she disapproves of on moral grounds, she argued, amounted to a compulsion of speech.  The Court ruled against her. Gene notes how broad this ruling really is:
note the breadth of the court’s reasoning: It applies not just to photographers, but also to the musicians, composers, graphic designers, film editors, and other creators that the court mentioned earlier in the opinion. It would also apply to freelancers who write press releases, advertising copy, and so on. And I take it that it would also apply to bookstores, movie theaters, and other such distributors of others’ works; the authors and filmmakers aren’t “clients” of such distributors, but still the distributors’ “final message is not [their] own,” and they are “really a conduit” for others’ work.
I have been saying for some time that the movement to legalize same sex marriage and to normalize same sex behavior carries in it wake a vast increase in the power of the state.  Volokh generally supports gay rights, but is deeply troubled by this expansion of the state. I personally don't think it is possible to have one without the other, except perhaps, on the chalkboard in a law school class. But enough about me. See his other posts, here, here and here.

Man Marries a Video Game Character

A Japanese man married a video game character.  Those of you who think marriage is whatever we say it is: is this man validly married to an imaginary animated character? He sounds for all the world like same sex marriage advocates when he looks forward wistfully to the day when anyone can marry anyone they love. So, what is wrong with this picture? H/T Tony Listi, via Facebook

Sad Day for the District of Columbia

It is a sad day for the poor of the District of Columbia. For the sake of the 1.5% of households with same sex couples, the DC City Council has passed legislation that will effectively prohibit the Archdiocese of Washington from even applying for city social service contracts. Thankfully, the Archdiocese will continue its own mission to the poor. I wonder who the DC city council will find to replace them? I did a podcast on this a few weeks ago, while the City Council was still debating.

Multi-culturalism Run amok in Quebec

This is not diversity. This is an excuse for the state to regulate and indoctrinate, and generally stick itself into the minds of small children.

Support the Ruth Institute