Live and Let Live Is a False Hope
“Live and let live” is an American mantra. This saying has a grain of truth. Civil society requires that most people make an effort to get along in daily life. Different approaches to food, style of dress, prayer, work-life balance, housing, and education have the potential to nourish our nation.
However not all choices fall in this realm. Many seemingly personal choices negatively impact the community. For example, when an individual has a long commute to and from work, it has a dampening effect on civic involvement. According to Bowling Alone by Robert D. Putnam, every ten minutes added to a commute reduces civic involvement by ten percent. However, when many people have long commutes, it transforms the culture. In high-commute neighborhoods, even people with plenty of time who have the desire and energy to get involved in social activities are not able to integrate as well. They have lower church attendance and lower participation in secular organizations. This is what Putman calls a “civic penalty.”
Daily commute time impacts community life, but the impact is not absolute. The negative effects can be ameliorated through other means. However, some lifestyle choices are far more detrimental to the foundation of our society.
Consider the institution of marriage. The public vow to “forsake all others…. until death do us part” has never been solely about the two people making that vow. All of society has a stake in the stability that the institution of marriage provides. Children, single community members, churches, and businesses all benefit from a community of married couples working hard to maintain lifelong and faithful marriages.
When foundational aspects of that institution such as permanency are deemed irrelevant, the institution itself changes in unrecognizable ways. Every state has no-fault divorce laws. With these laws, exiting a marriage can be unilateral. Everyone else is asked to respect and accept this unilateral decision. With these laws the institution of marriage itself offers less protection to spouses and families. This shifts the decision space of American families, making marriage less appealing.
There are some indications of this. The first no-fault divorce law came into effect in California in 1970. Over the last half-century, marriage rates have also been declining. However, people are still living together and having children. During the same time period, the percentage of children born outside of marriage has steadily risen. This is problematic as non-marital births negatively impact the physical and emotional health of children.
No-fault divorce laws may not be the cause of these trends. Even so, streamlining divorce certainly affects basic calculations about how to ensure security. A husband may be more reluctant to invest in a wife’s education, for example, when she can simply walk away. A wife may feel the need to stay in the workforce lest she find herself suddenly alone. Women are far more likely than men to fall into poverty after a divorce. (Divorce and Diverging Poverty Rates: A Risk‐and‐Vulnerability Approach - Hogendoorn - 2020 - Journal of Marriage and Family - Wiley Online Library)
When we are asked to “live and let live” when we are told that “tolerance is the best religion” we must critically examine what is being asked of us. We are at the point when the foundational building blocks of society are being redefined. It is a theft from us all.