Support and protect traditional institutions and values

WELCOME

Public Agenda helps communities and the nation
solve tough problems through:

Research that illuminates people's views & values;

Engagement that gets people talking, learning from each other and working together on solutions; and

Communications that spreads the word and builds momentum for change.

By doing so, we seek to contribute to a democracy in which problem-solving triumphs over gridlock and inertia, and where public policy reflects the deliberations and values of the citizenry.

Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. You can find out more about us in our What We Do and Frequently Asked Questions pages.

ON THE AGENDA

The High Stakes of Stakeholder Engagement: A Plea for Careful Planning from Public Agenda

Alison Kadlec
Feb 1, 2012

This post was written for the 20 community colleges participating in Completion by Design, a five-year Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative that aims to significantly increase completion rates for low-income students under 26. As a “National Assistance partner” for Completion by Design, Public Agenda provides direct assistance to the colleges to help them build capacity for solutions-oriented dialogue among faculty, staff and administration. Here, Public Agenda's Alison Kadlec discusses best practices for authentic internal stakeholder engagement. While the post is geared toward Completion by Design planning teams, the principles are useful for any authentic engagement process.

***

Comment Read More

You Can't Do It Alone: A New Guide to Creating Sustainable Change in Education Reform

Allison Rizzolo
Jan 24, 2012

Far too often, throughout our work in the education field, we've seen even the most earnest and promising ideas from experts and reformers for improving schools and ramping up student learning met with confusion, anxiety or even anger from teachers, parents, students or community members.

Comment Read More

Press Releases

National Debt Clock

Get this widget for your web site

Support and protect traditional institutions and values

PERSPECTIVE IN BRIEF

compare with other perspectives

There is a big difference between tolerating private behavior between consenting adults and endorsing such behavior by granting legal protections. Giving domestic partners benefits and special privileges legitimizes same-sex relationships even though they cant create children, which is the major reason underlying governments traditional protection of marriage and family. Same-sex relationships are also deeply offensive to many Americans, often based on religious beliefs. Marriage is not just about love and commitment, but about the stability of family, which is the linchpin of society. Were already seeing the social damage caused by families weakened by divorce and single-parent households. Granting new rights and benefits to gays and lesbians benefits and inheritance rights would crush one of the pillars of stable, civil society.

PERSPECTIVE IN DETAIL

compare with other perspectives

What Should be Done?

Enact legislation to strengthen and support traditional families -- like a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Allow employers and landlords to live by their moral and religious codes.

Prevent gays and lesbians from getting any special legal rights or protections

Reinstate the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military.

Ban adoptions by gay parents.

Prohibit public schools from incorporating discussions about homosexuality into curriculum.

Arguments For This Approach

We shouldnt be granting special rights to people based on their behavior, particularly when it involves activities that many Americans find deeply disturbing. Civil rights protections should extend to citizens based only on qualities no one can help, such as their color, gender or disability, not their behavior. New hate-crime legislation is unnecessary because gays and lesbians already are protected by laws against murder and assault

Government has a responsibility to protect relationships that strengthen society. While tolerance for gays has varied historically, theres a reason societies have never considered same-sex couples to be married, with full property and child-rearing rights.

Requiring employers to grant domestic partner benefits not only legitimizes such relationships, but also imposes financial burdens. For example, health insurance premiums might go up. It also would encourage endless haggling over who should share in employee benefits.

Religious employees, employers and citizens should not be forced into the dilemma of either violating their faiths teachings or breaking the law when the refuse to hire or rent to homosexuals.

Allowing gays and lesbians in the military will undermine the armed forces ability to preserve order and morale among the troops, and thus the ability to fight wars.

Arguments Against This Approach

People have a right to their own personal beliefs, but the government has a responsibility to take action when people are being treated unfairly simply because of their sexuality.

Multiple studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents can provide a stable, nurturing home life for children. If the government wants to protect children, it should support and encourage long-term relationships, no matter what gender.

Giving partner benefits to same-sex couples and being allowed to serve in the military arent special rights. They are no different than bringing an excluded group such as women and blacks into full citizenship.

People with disabilities are given special rights because of unique characteristics. Gays deserve special rights, too, because sexual orientation is a very deeply rooted trait that cannot be changed.

Marriage is about more than just bearing children. Its about love and companionship. We dont differentiate between heterosexual couples who intend to have children, and those who dont, whether they are infertile or childless by choice.

Most major religions prohibit various sexual choices, including adultery, but we dont criminally prosecute adulterers anymore. Why should people be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals and not adulterers?