Same-sex marriage, yes. Child tax credit, no.

The lame duck session encapsulates what’s wrong with our politics.

Dec 02, 2022

Let me begin by saying that I am not about to rail against the Respect for Marriage Act. On Wednesday night, the Senate passed the legislation that codifies protections for same-sex and interracial marriages. The bill came about amid worries that the same conservative majority on the Supreme Court that decided that there is no explicit or implicit protection for abortion in the Constitution will target same-sex marriage in the future with the same logic.

To be clear, I don’t consider myself a supporter of the RMA. I embrace a biblical and historical sexual and family ethic, and I believe wholeheartedly that this ethic serves more to benefit society than restrict personal freedoms. That said, I understand why the bill has cleared seemingly impossible legislative hurdles and is on its way to becoming law. You can check out this recent episode of the Church Politics Podcast to hear a fulsome discussion of the merits of the legislation.

What I do not understand is how this piece of legislation became a higher priority for the Democratic Party than a bill to reinstate the Expanded Child Tax Credit. If mainstream media and members of Congress had their way, we would have already forgotten about the pandemic-period program that sent monthly checks to most families with children, cutting child poverty in half and proving wrong the fear mongering of naysayers who said that such support would cause parents to become lazy and stop working jobs. But then the support vanished.

I’m not here to suggest a completely zero-sum game where both of these legislative priorities can’t possibly be dealt with in the same lame-duck session. But political agendas are about priorities because policy effectiveness is finite. One must decide how to use the limited resources of time, energy, and political will to impact the most important issues in the society. So, why is it that every single member of Chicago’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives and both of Illinois’ Senators vote “Yes” on the RMA while among them only one (Congressman Sean Casten) is a signatory to a letter calling for movement on the CTC before Congress adjourns later this month?

The passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the absence of even a vigorous fight for the reinstatement of the expanded Child Tax Credit represents a broader problem in our politics. Our democratic systems of government are breaking down in some fundamental ways. Our Congress seems to be unable to respond to the basic needs and general will of the people. This is just not how democracy is supposed to work.

Now, some may argue that the Respect for Marriage Act IS a response to the basic needs and the general will of the people. Again, I can see why one might arrive at this conclusion. But let’s examine this more closely.

The mandate to protect same-sex marriage in the lame duck session was established in the fact that such protections are, on the whole, popularly supported. In a recent Gallup survey, more than 70 percent of Americans said that they believe that same-sex marriages should enjoy the same protections under law as traditional marriages. But the Child Tax Credit is even more popular, enjoying the support of 75 percent of Americans. And that support crosses party lines, with 86 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans supporting the concept.

There did exist, in the minds of its proponents, a strong and genuine moral imperative to pass the RMA. The legislation serves to protect basic civil liberties for a vulnerable population. There is a real threat to fairness in employment, housing, and other basic areas of life if the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges – the landmark case that protected same-sex marriage – were to be overturned.

But the Child Tax Credit protects basic human rights like food and shelter for a much larger and far more vulnerable population: children. It defends the basic human dignity of Americans facing poverty and provides a path to advancement for families trying to break into the middle class. This program allowed families to buy school clothes from Walmart, to take a one-day family-trip to relax and relieve some stress, or to pick up a simple, extracurricular activity that might give a child a leg up in some future college application.

The urgency to pass the RMA before the 118th Congress is seated in January was ginned up because of a perceived need to respond to an imminent threat. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to pen a concurring opinion that explicitly suggested that same-sex marriage should be examined under the same legal scrutiny that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. While the actual opinion from Justice Samuel Alito and two separate concurrences (from Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts) all intimate that same-sex marriage should not be re-examined, the Thomas concurrence is a reasonable cause for concern.

But the Child Tax Credit is a response to a clear-and-present danger. Almost 17 percent of American children are living in poverty. Inflation in 2022 just handed American families the largest effective pay cut we’ve seen in 25 years. The dangers for American children are not prospective. They are present and ongoing. Powerful economic interests within the United States and turmoil around the world, not just some sideways comment from a single Supreme Court Justice, threaten even more harm to children in the near future.

So, what’s the real reason the establishment in charge of the Democratic Party moved the Respect for Marriage Act to the front of the line while booting the Child Tax Credit from the conversation? I see two major reasons that grow out of a core rot in our political environment. First, marriage is a culture war issue, and this might have been the last best chance for the left to notch a victory in that ongoing battle. Secondly, same-sex marriage features prominently on the list of pet priorities of major Democratic donors. Children, on the other hand, don’t have a powerful lobby. Children are not a wealthy donor base. Children, especially poor children, are virtually voiceless in our decaying political discourse.

Culture warriors and the donor class have captured and corrupted our politics. That is a losing environment for children, for justice, and for democracy.

But I am not without hope. Children can be the beneficiaries of institutional power. We must organize the institutions that form closest to them, families and churches, to faithfully enter the arena to protect and to provide for our little ones. And we can begin right here in Chicago by pressuring our powerful members of Congress to fight for the expanded Child Tax Credit before this lame-duck session ends. It seems that otherwise, congresspeople and other stakeholders are content to leave our children behind.

The Round Up

Here are the stories that caught our eyes this week and what they mean for the weeks ahead.

Chicago voters face crowded municipal races for mayor and civilian police board

Voters in next year’s Chicago municipal elections may have as many as 11 mayoral candidates on the ballot, among them two sitting aldermen, a congressman, state and county elected officials, a former Chicago Public Schools chief, a local businessman and philanthropist, a community activist, a longtime police officer and a political newcomer.

Chicago mayoral candidates: (From left to right), State Rep. Kam Buckner; Ald. Sophia King; Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson; businessman and philanthropist Willie Wilson; police officer Frederick Collins; activist Ja’mal Green; former CPS CEO Paul Vallas; Ald. Roderick Sawyer; Congressman Chuy Garcia; incumbent Mayor Lori Lightfoot; (not pictured) Johnny Logalbo

Meanwhile, 122 candidates are vying for 66 spots on the newly-created civilian oversight board. Aimed at restoring trust between residents and police, each district will have a three-member civilian board charged with meeting regularly to oversee local crime issues, foster public trust and nominate members to fill seven seats on the permanent Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability.

Follow the first link in the headline above for more information about the mayoral candidates, and check out the second link for more on the police board election.

At Rogers Park tent city, housed and unhoused gather for new tradition: weekly chili night

For more than a year, Rogers Park neighbors have offered a weekly meal of chili to the dozens living in tents inside Touhy Park.

Ahmed Chaudhry serves a cup of chili for the unhoused community at Touhy Park in Rogers Park on Nov. 23, 2022. Photo credit: Colin Boyle of Block Club Chicago

In that time, the chili night has expanded, with neighbors offering fresh fruits and vegetables, personal care products and clothes to the unhoused.

The population living in the park has fluctuated, in spite of three “moving events” held by the city that have found homes for 84 tent city residents.

Touhy Park’s encampment represents just part of the marked increase in the homeless population in Chicago since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Chicago program aims to reduce substance abuse — without punishment

A new Chicago-based program aims to bring down substance abuse and related crimes, but offers a different way out of decades of failed drug war policies.

An over-reliance on criminal sanctions, or at least the threat of the same, has not produced the intended results, with arrests and overdose deaths sharply increasing and plateauing in tandem and no end in sight to the scourge of drug addiction.

Chicago’s Narcotics Arrest Diversion Program, a partnership among the Chicago Police Department, Chicago Department of Public Health, behavioral health provider Thresholds, and the University of Chicago Crime Lab and Health Lab, connects people with treatment without using the criminal justice system’s resources to monitor or punish them.

Check out the link in the headline above for analysis of this innovative approach from the research director at the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and an assistant professor of medicine, health and society and of public policy at Vanderbilt University.

Share Chicago Civic Update