Option #1 vs. Option #2

March 2, 2010

In the face of a shift by the District to legalize same-sex marriages, Catholic Charities, a large, Catholic non-profit organization based in D.C., has informed its employees that, effective Tuesday (today), “Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan”. According to Edward J. Orzechowski, the charity’s president, the policy change “allows (Catholic Charities) to continue providing services, comply with the city’s new requirements and remain faithful to the church’s teaching”. According to my own opinion, the change harms charity employees for the sake of a largely discriminatory ideology.

There is an interesting human phenomenon at play here, and it reminds me of a discussion that I had during a freshman year philosophy course. Our class was discussing the idea of maximizing societal benefits. Objectively, you would think that our goal would be to allocate societal benefits (i.e. money, or food, or happiness) in a way in which either an individual or a society as a whole achieves the greatest possible benefit. Theoretically, me having $10 is better than me having $5, and us all having 30lbs of food is better than us all having 20lbs of food. But, study after study shows that we, more often than not, prefer to weigh and judge our benefit accumulation in contrast to those around us.

For example, let’s assume that there are two people: Person A and Person B. Which of the following scenarios is better for A?

#1: A receives $20
#2: A receives $10

Clearly, $20 is more than $10, and therefore there is a greater benefit to A under scenario #1. But what about the following:

#1: A receives $20. B receives $25.
#2: A receives $10. B receives $10.

Viewed in isolation, one would think that A would still choose option #1, which is superior in nearly all respects. Under option #1, person A receives a greater benefit, and both A and B receive a much larger benefit in aggregate. However, in most studies, participants prefer option #2, where their benefit is greater in relation to the other participant. They forego a larger personal benefit for the sake of ensuring that person B doesn’t get “the better of the deal”.

Catholic Charities has, in essence, chosen option #2. Sure, they’ll limit the ability of same-gender couples to receive spousal benefits, but they also limit ALL new employees, gay or not, from receiving them. In the course of ensuring the reduction of benefit to one group, they accept an alternative that reduces the aggregate benefit to everyone.

Personally, I have no problem with same-gender marriage. “The institution of marriage” has tough enough issues with infidelity, domestic-abuse, divorce, and a general nonchalance about its significance, that I’m all in favor of any two people of any background that want to be committed to something or someone. Also, I don’t share a philosophical or ideological paradigm that restricts or limits the rights of others, and that places those restrictions above and before more practical concerns (i.e. what decisions achieve the most good all-around). I’m a Christian, and my own belief is that our role as individuals is to treat others as we would want to be treated, and to leave this world as a net-positive (It’s kind of a fourth-grader “playground mentality”…share with people, be nice if you want other kids to be nice, and just be good in class). I have enough of my own flaws and areas for improvement that I just don’t have the time or the right to sit in judgment of others.

And so it disappoints me to see that the Catholic Church has slowly moved its way towards exclusion rather than inclusion, judgment rather than introspection, and stubbornness rather than fluidity and progressiveness. These aren’t frameworks that I think align with most people of my age group, and they aren’t really values that build a foundation for doing good in the world abroad. The actions of Catholic Charities may be, in many ways, independent and apart from the Church itself, but it reflects the overwhelming sentiment that is projected by the Church on this issue.

I think it’s sad, because religion should stand at the forefront in terms of issues such as civil liberties, personal freedom, and societal equality and advancement. It should be helping to build-up third world countries, provide relief from disasters, and seek common ground between differing perspectives and rival factions. Instead, I think that the issue of same-sex marriage has been used by religion to further divide us all from one another. I think that’s unfortunate. Whether religious communities condone it or not, society generally trends towards acceptance, and there will eventually be much greater rights provided to same-gender couples. I would like to be able to say that Christianity was a supporter of those rights, rather than a detractor.

Personally, I wouldn’t work for an employer who decided to, without warning, restrict and remove family benefits. I also wouldn’t attend a church that portrayed such changes as being in-line with the will of God. Sorry, I guess I just look around and don’t seem to find it worth my while to hate gay people that much. I would like to think that I’m an option #1 kind of guy, and I would like to think that getting into heaven doesn’t require choosing option #2.