Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:17:19 PM PST by Khepera

Are "family values" a label or a concept?

Some pieces in the Letters to the Editor section of the paper make fair, clear-headed, balanced, reasonable observations about things. Here's one that is very confused. It is entitled "Gay Republicans" and it's from Brad Jacobsen of San Diego. He objects that he and his homosexual companion can't be married and receive a stamp of approval from society and all the other benefits that go with being married. Here's what he writes:

"You can't enjoy a 15 percent tax cut if you've been fired from your job simply because you're gay. School vouchers or tuition credits mean nothing if you have been denied custody of your child because you're a lesbian. 'Family values' remains an empty phrase if you are legally prohibited from forming a family or even visiting your dying loved one in the hospital."

Much could be said about his comments, but I'll limit myself to two quick thoughts. First, as far as I understand, there is no legal prohibition (as Jacobsen claims here) against visiting a sick friend in the hospital. There are hospital policies that restrict visitors in certain circumstances, but no laws. Sometimes illness is so severe only an inside circle of friends--including family members, but not always limited to them--has access to the patient. Medical information is not released because of privacy issues unless you're in that inner circle. But this is a private hospital policy, not a public law.

Is it necessary to change an entire cultural institution--the family--just to get access to a sick friend? Hospitals can be approached to change their policies, especially when the patient himself requests a certain visitor. They can unilaterally acknowledge domestic partnerships--whether heterosexual or homosexual--without need for a new law. Or if the family of the one injured or sick acknowledges the relationship, they can give approval. I've done hospital visitations in extreme situations and I wasn't a family member. The family gave approval and I was in.

I'm not for just any group of beliefs that carries the label "family values." Family values is a specific thing. It means something particular.

This hospital visitation business is small hurdle to get over. That's not the real issue. Rather, this is an attempt to change a long-standing institution for the purpose of getting public acceptance of a lifestyle that most people think is undesirable and immoral.

This is where the question of family values comes in. This phrase has been tossed around a lot and I'm bothered by the way it's used--or I should say "abused." I am not for "family values." What I mean is, I'm not for just any group of beliefs that carries the label "family values." Family values is a specific thing. It means something particular.

It's like the phrase "traditional values." Traditional values are not new things; they are old things, by definition. That's why we call them traditional. A while back I saw this phrase on a billboard: "the new traditional values." Something is amiss here. Traditional values aren't new, and if they are new, they're not traditional. That's because the word "traditional" means something in particular. It refers to something that has a longstanding history of being accepted by the mainstream of society.

Now, if you want to change the traditional values to a new set of values, well, you're certainly free to make that attempt. The problem comes when you want to change family values, which have traditionally meant one particular thing, into something so different from traditional family values that it ought to have a new name, and yet you want to continue hanging the old name on it. That's simply confusing.

So this gentleman, Brad Jacobsen in San Diego, says, Gee, you're really for family values, right? Well, if you are, then why won't you let me form a family with my homosexual lover? And my response is that "family values" is a phrase that has particular content. It means a particular thing, which excludes homosexual marriage.

And when I say I'm for family values, what I mean is that I'm for a particular kind of value we've had for a long, long time and called "the family." I'm not committed to the label ; I'm committed to the concept such that if you take the concept and put all new content in it and hang the label "family values" on it, I can't be faulted for rejecting it as if I were rejecting real family values.

I could come to you and say, "I've got three men in a tub and a couple of cocker spaniels. That's my family. I've got a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker. That's a family. I've got me and my palmetto and my fern plant. That's a family." And you say, "Don't be ridiculous." And I say, "How dare you be against family values!" You're going to say, "That's not a family, you and a couple of potted plants!" And I'm going to say, "It is to me. Who are you to say?"

You see how ludicrous this gets, ladies and gentlemen? This treats language like silly putty. It treats words as if they're elastic things that you can stretch out of recognition and still think you have communication. That's what Brad Jacobsen and many others have done on this issue of family values. They want to gut the term "family values" of its traditional meaning, put all new concepts into it, keep the same word and then fault you for not accepting it as if you are somehow now not truly in favor of family values.

That's just verbal sleight-of-hand, ladies and gentlemen. That's all it is.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.