It was Mother’s Day. I had finished my surgical rounds and, while on the way to the parking lot, observed a couple coming toward the hospital entrance. They were walking away from the city bus stop, each carrying handfuls of flower arrangements and fancy Mylar balloons. They were dressed in tee shirts and jeans, clean but well worn, one of them with a cigarette dangling from some available fingers.
As they came level with me, I said ‘Happy Mother’s day and God bless you.’ Their smiles displayed missing teeth and poor hygiene, but the radiant warmth could have melted polar ice.
They continued on their way after exchanging the greeting with me. They were on their way to visit someone in the hospital. No, that doesn’t cover it. They were on their way to make someone’s day. Well, that’s close, but not quite it. Aha! They were on their way to give happiness. ‘Give’ is the pivotal word. They were creating joy by giving. What a curious thing, where the people, the visit, and the presents become one large gift.
Please consider: a Manhattan hedge fund manager sends a text message to his administrative assistant to pop over to Tiffany’s to select, purchase, arrange wrapping/delivery of a $5000 necklace for the manager’s mother. If he can break free, he will arrange for a limousine service to deliver him and his mother, in separate vehicles, to an upscale restaurant for a Mother’s Day supper.
Now, back to my couple in the parking lot. These were folks in the economic stratum between ‘blue collar’ and ‘no collar.’ Maybe they were on public assistance, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these folks took public transportation, purchased what (for them) are probably high cost gifts, came to see a hospitalized person and give a Mother’s Day present of flowers, balloons, and… themselves.
My question to you is: whose gift was greater, and by what criteria? In the Bible, Jesus said that the two pennies given by a widow at the Temple were greater than the ostentatious gifts of the wealthy. The Christmas song, The Little Drummer Boy, relates how a simple song was a greater gift to the Christ child than the costly gifts previously received. It is out of our perceived surplus that we give.
In an earlier commentary, I had lamented the government takeover of charitable giving, substituting social welfare programs whereby the government bestows tax money to meet people’s needs, only some of which are legitimate.
While secularists would deny it, the vast majority of civilian giving comes from faith-based groups. In the recent arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the challenge to the traditional definition of marriage, Supreme Court Justice Alito asked whether a decision against the traditional definition of marriage (and the resulting attack that would then naturally occur against any organization that persisted in the old definition that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman) would adversely impact religious charitable organizations. The attorney arguing the case in favor of gay marriage was honest enough to affirm that a decision in favor of the ‘new definition’ would have negative implications.
When Massachusetts passed the state law legalizing gay marriage, no one had thought of the implications regarding adoption. Catholic Adoption service, refusing to abandon their stance that an adopting couple should be a male/female union, has essentially withdrawn its adoption work from the largest Irish Catholic city west of Dublin. They are active elsewhere in the USA. Since the Supreme Court went with the new definition, the Catholic adoption services now face the Massachusetts problem on a national basis.
Sadly, there is no doubt that all faith based organizations are now facing this same issue nationwide: either abandon your constitutional right to religious freedom in defending the traditional definition of marriage, or face losing your licenses, certifications, tax-exempt status, your very right to exist.
How does this relate to my delightful couple with the flowers and the balloons? I think that humans are not merely communal creatures; part of their communal urge is to give. Unimpeded, humans will give to others in order to meet a need, or to convey happiness. Whatever else may come from them, faith based groups tend to consolidate the individual’s impulse to give, creating power in numbers.
It has been said, for example, that the airport in Managua, Nicaragua is kept in business virtually by the numbers of plane traffic generated by faith based groups. Or look at how American nongovernmental donations stack up against all other countries in catastrophic situations like the Haitian earthquake. Then, after considering that, imagine a world without such giving.
While I take joy from the sight of people like the couple with the flowers and balloons, it makes me sad to consider that a government, promulgated for the uplift of mankind, is poised to unthinkingly destroy one the most effective expressions of humanity’s impulse to give.
Before you accuse me of being against gay union, please understand that marriage is a sacrament, originating in the church. Separation of church and state, if practiced fairly, should require that all governments get out of the business of marriage. I don’t have a problem with civil unions, but the whole issue would be resolved if the government would honor its own commitment to ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; unto God, that which is God’s.
To those who would say that tradition has established the government’s right to perform marriage, I would reply as follows: tradition has also permitted judges to display the Ten Commandments in their courtrooms. Government ignores tradition when it suits their purpose. The Supreme Court, sadly, seems to have forgotten that limiting the purview of the government is as important as protecting it.
Dennis Garvin is author of a book ‘Case Files of an Angel’ and coauthor of a book ‘Growing Up in Stephentown’. Both are available online at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com
