For
most of my years under his roof, my father did building maintenance and
remodeling for a wealthy businessman who was a First Baptist deacon and Lions
Club member. Dad worked 55-plus hours a week for this man for low pay, no sick leave,
and a five day a year vacation, while feeling trapped in his job because of my
mother’s unwillingness to leave the small town where we lived. When I was in
junior high, a hardware store owner offered my father kickbacks for giving him his
boss’s business. Dad told his boss of it and wouldn’t shop there anymore. The more
I came to know and despise his boss, the less respect I had for my father’s ethics.
Then
I married a woman with that same degree of unyielding morality. Her Catholic employer’s
public commitment to treating everyone with “Christ-inspired” fairness
and compassion often runs counter to how it behaves behind the scenes. If I had worked for this
hospital for many years, and it had shorted my paycheck more than half the time, I
would have kept my mouth shut when the day came that it overpaid me by $1,500. “Ah,” you
say, “but you’re an atheist, and therefore have no compunction against doing
any lowdown thing.” While it is true that I spend my every waking moment raping
dogs and kicking women, Peggy’s an atheist too, so go figure.
A
major difference between Peggy and my father on the one hand and me on the
other, is that I’m unaware that either of them ever struggled over issues of
morality because the right direction was always obvious to them. This leads (or led in the case of my deceased father) to a consistency in their behavior that I often lack. They would say I
rationalize, and they would sometimes be right, but the result of my
uncertainty is that I am reachable whereas people whose morality is instinctual
often are not. Peggy didn’t struggle for years before deciding that gay
marriage was wrong or that capital punishment was right, whereas I switched
back and forth repeatedly. Sometimes, I would agree with her that we should
consider a return to public executions, and sometimes I would agree with her
that gay marriage was oxymoronic, but then I would reverse my positions. Through all
my inconsistency, she never wavered, and I would envy her that because, after all, isn’t consistency a mark of intelligence and maturity, and inconsistency the opposite?
Likewise,
in regard to religion, Peggy never wavered. She believed as a child, but when she became a young adult, it dawned on her that she no longer believed, and she never looked back, whereas I went back and forth through four decades and three
churches (not counting the Unitarian) before I made peace with the fact that I really
and truly did not, and never would, believe in God.
I
eventually lost my envy of people like Peggy and my father because even if my
struggling means that I look flaky and am prone to rationalization, it also
means that I am less dogmatic, tend to learn more through studying issues, and am
better able to change my thinking. Because Peggy’s morality is instinctual, she
isn’t prone to reflecting upon matters of right and wrong; she isn’t given to
studying them; and she dismisses contrary opinions like water off a duck’s back. For instance, I finally came
down on the side of gay marriage because I concluded that it doesn’t matter
what makes people gay or that marriage has historically been for heterosexuals
only; it only matters that society treats everyone compassionately and equally.
As I see it, I progressed beyond her on this issue because while I was learning
and reflecting, she remained stuck on two thoughts only, thoughts which are so
obvious (regardless of their accuracy) that they surely occurred to her within
a minute of first hearing about gay marriage: homosexuality is an evolutionary
mistake; and that which has been the practice always and everywhere should continue to be the practice always and everywhere.*
In
the final analysis, people like myself are probably more prone to evil than people
like Peggy and my father because our lack of a strict moral code really does
make it appallingly easy for us to rationalize, and because, far from honoring either the
law or traditional morality, we often consider obedience undesirable. Peggy doesn’t always
respect the law, but she nearly always obeys it even when she disagrees with it,
that is unless she thinks its evil. Her heroes are people who live quiet lives,
perform unheralded acts of goodness, obey the law, and honor tradition. My heroes are Bradley
Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, none of whom Peggy has the least
interest in, and who my government and millions of my fellow citizens would
like to draw-and-quarter.
One
thing for sure is that I think a lot more about the ethical implications of Peggy’s
actions than she does about my own due to her tendency to instantly classify
everything I do as morally good, morally bad, or morally indifferent, and to
hold to that opinion forever come hell or high water. In my eyes, she’s
something of a mule, and in her eyes, I sometimes fall short of being what a good man should be. Herein lies much of the charm of our marriage, at least for me. Having
a spouse is like having an exotic animal. It gives a person the chance to observe
an interesting creature whose life is—like all our lives—a shooting star, from up close and personal for
many decades before one of you falls alone into the bottomless pit of eternity.
The photo of Peggy and my father was taken July 9, 1994, and he died on the 12th. He loved her like a daughter, and she deserved it. Naturally, she never questioned whether taking this troubled man into her home was the right thing to do.
*Peggy read this after it was posted, and said my implication that she regards homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage as a moral issue was incorrect. Rather, she regards homosexuality as an inescapable way of being, and she supports complete equality for homosexuals except when it comes to using the word marriage to describe their unions. As I see it, gay marriage is very much a moral issue, and I can't even imagine how, to her, it could not be, but such is the gulf between us on many issues.
*Peggy read this after it was posted, and said my implication that she regards homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage as a moral issue was incorrect. Rather, she regards homosexuality as an inescapable way of being, and she supports complete equality for homosexuals except when it comes to using the word marriage to describe their unions. As I see it, gay marriage is very much a moral issue, and I can't even imagine how, to her, it could not be, but such is the gulf between us on many issues.