In Defense of the Iowa Family

By Contributing Editor Christian Fong

"The following represents the author's personal views, and are not necessarily the views of any organization or group with which the author is associated."

This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court invalidated the clear will of the people of Iowa in declaring the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. I disagree with the ruling. Today’s issue is clear: Marriage should be defended by defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

This will rightly be characterized as an attack on marriage, and also on Iowa’s families and Iowa’s communities. The family is the core of Iowa communities. When we protect families, we defend Iowa.

Because do we think getting married by the right definition is the end of life’s challenges? Really?! I think of the classic Saturday Night Live spoof, calling marriage "a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers. It's funny, because the underlying issue is that this is not a one-topic debate. Main Street  America knows that the main issue is this: family life and be challenging, and it needs to be supported.

Conservative Iowans, don’t be baited into a negative-toned or knee-jerk reaction by those that make their living off of single-issue politics or special-interest fund raising. Long-term, a healthy culture requires more than defending the integrity of a dictionary. As if inviting our political leaders to read Webster could teach them civic discourse!

I’m not minimizing the importance of today’s debate. Yes, restore the will of the Iowa people on the issue of marriage, and do so with decisive and immediate action. But I see such opportunity to gain ground in areas that affect all Iowa’s families. Let’s advance a positive, optimistic plan that is not just pro-marriage, but pro-family.

Family must be defended by celebrating faithfulness to our spouses, great parenting, compassion to children, and acts of selflessness toward extended family.

Let’s start with some basics:

The first year of the next Governor’s tenure should be designated "The Year of the Iowa Family," to celebrate families who overcome adversity together. The Governor should personally go to every one of the 99 counties to find, meet with, celebrate and publicize great Iowa families. It's a great way to highlight that Iowa is made strong by strong families.

Iowa should better celebrate and support adoption. Not just in our politics or tax code, but in our communities and churches. Want to see an Iowan defending family the right way? Look at the example of the Groothuis family of Marion, IA, who are busy saving lives through adoption. They make more a difference in their community than a mailbox full of PAC fund-raising letters.

Supporting the Iowa family means bolstering communities’ support for families going through tough times. 

The Armchair Economist (me) has detailed forward-thinking, family-friendly, growth-oriented economic policy. Economic difficulty can be met with compassion, giving community-college based job training for the unemployed. For the unemployed, provide catastrophic family health care coverage. After all, medical emergencies are the number one reason families face personal bankruptcy, and financial stress is one of the top causes of divorce.

And we all know that the best medicine is preventive. Iowa should make the cost of family counseling tax deductible, as a vital part of keeping the family health and our state strong.

Families expanding to multiple generations are now the norm. Support should be provided to Iowa’s caregivers, who selflessly take an aging parent into their home, rather than leaning on public support for a nursing home.

You’ll see a lot of bluster, angst and political posturing over the next week. I began this week blogging about an era of accountability. For every candidate or "talking head" that rages about this Supreme Court decision, hold them accountable for true leadership. Demand a positive plan rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

No doubt there are other ways to positively impact families – I invite your comments below for more ideas. Christian Fong can be followed on twitter here.

Comments

[Elaine]

Christian, I must question your logic on a couple of points:

First, heterosexual families are not the only ones adopting children. Gay couples, WITHOUT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO STRAIGHT FAMILIES, have nonetheless been adopting children for years -- often children no one else wants. They're working hard to create a loving family environment for children who might otherwise know nothing but the foster care system, or worse. And they're doing it without any assurance that a hospital will recognize both parents, or that a school will allow both parents to pick a child up, etc. Why are they not to be celebrated along with the Groothuis family? In terms of the good they're doing, what's the difference? It's just harder for them. All they're asking for is the same legal protection for their children as you have.

Second, yes, absolutely the family should be supported. You use as an example the idea of making family counseling tax-deductible. Where is your energy on the issue of the effect of divorce on children, or of unmarried single parents, teen pregnancy, or the fatherhood crisis in the African-American community? THOSE, I believe, are the real threats to the family. You are exercised over something that no one has proven is a real threat.

In fact, I don't understand how the fact of any two people who love each other getting married threatens what you call "traditional marriage." It may look different, but you'll still be fine. Really, you will. I doubt you'll even notice. And it's not a zero-sum game; i.e., the more gay marriages there are, the fewer straight ones will survive. They're just not connected in any way. This "threat" argument is a straw man.

I know you disagree with this ruling, but I think you need to be honest enough to admit that your disagreement is based on faith or emotion, or both, but not on logic.

[David]

I hear this "Defense of marriage" argument at every turn, but I have yet to hear a cogent argument about *what* exactly is being defended. What is the threat? Is *your* marriage threatened because some homosexuals get married? Mine isn't. So if yours is, I would suggest that there is something wrong with your marriage, not with the gay couple getting married.

So what, *EXACTLY* is the threat? How will marriage be 'destroyed'?

[Christian Fong]

Elaine:
My list wasn't meant to be comprehensive, and you add several great ideas. We may not see eye to eye on the narrow "topic of the day", but we could certainly work side by side on some of the fantastic ideas you bring up: The effect of divorce on kids AND adults, providing help for single parents and teen pregnancies, and tackling the "fatherhood crisis" (in nearly all communities, not carving out any one demographic).

Thanks for commenting, and adding to the discussion.