In Why Europe is Lesbian and Gay Friendly (and Why America Never Will Be), Angelia Wilson draws together a myriad of sources to develop a missing narrative as to why some nations' public policies are more lesbian and gay friendly than others. The “gay” movement, ideological shifts in policymaking, the construction of the European Union, and changes in social attitudes have all exerted an influence. Drawing on the work of Joan Tronto (Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care) and others, Wilson, however, focuses on the political economy of care. The need and demand for care is increasing, while the supply is diminishing. States are therefore compelled to turn to alternative sources of support such as voluntary and faith-based organizations as well as nontraditional families. Wilson concentrates on factors that may render some states' policies more lesbian and gay friendly but others less so in the face of this “care crunch.”

Wilson's key finding concerns the way Christian values may be inscribed in welfare policy and administration despite secularization. Churches have long provided an infrastructure to alleviate poverty, provide health care, and foster education. In one model of church-state relations, state welfare provision is residual and the faith-based provision of care operates outside the state welfare structure. In a second model, the voluntary sector operates outside the state, but depends upon state funding. In a final model, church and state provision of care has been strongly integrated. Where states adhere to antidiscrimination rules, voluntary organizations must adhere to these standards. Where these rules are lacking or where state funds are not involved, however, these organizations may discriminate regarding services provided and the perceived desert of recipients. The results may stigmatize single mothers, racial and ethnic minorities, and those who are viewed as choosing their sexual orientations. Wilson's concern is with church-state relationships that may limit or undermine concerns for the well-being of all citizens.

European countries continue to be committed to welfare provision supporting a basic level of well-being. Fewer public financial resources, along with cultural changes, have created the care crunch. In the first cluster of countries, where faith-based organizations are independent of the state structure, Poland exhibits an anti-homosexual agenda, and its rights provisions do not exceed those required by the European Union. Italy and Greece rely on the church and the heterosexual family for care provision, and do not augment the definition of family in ways that would include lesbian and gay caregivers. Activism and the political culture in Spain, however, have allowed a greater inclusion of nontraditional families as caregivers.

In the second cluster of countries, where the voluntary sector is outside the state but largely depends upon public resources, a state commitment to neutrality among competing conceptions of the good has enhanced accountability by voluntary agencies as a condition of state funding. Interestingly, however, France's policy of laicité has militated against the recognition of specific group identities even for favorable treatment. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has successfully responded to rights claims by groups. The United Kingdom has also broadened its recognition to a greater variety of care providers, but has done so more in response to the care crunch than to the demands of social justice.

In the third cluster of countries, which have traditionally integrated church and state provision of welfare services, Christian values are embedded in service provision, yet Germany and Sweden still differ significantly. In Sweden, although the state is the primary care provider and introduced lesbian- and gay-friendly policies beginning with the legalization of homosexuality in 1944, a decentralized welfare system allows for religiously-influenced interpretations of progressive national legislation. Moreover, progressive moves have often occurred in the context of the care crunch, as in the United Kingdom. Germany has devolved a majority of caregiving to faith-based organizations, and the political power of the Christian Democrats has reinforced cultural heteronormativity. For example, registered domestic partnerships do not offer the tax benefits of marriage.

Wilson argues that in the context of the care crunch, active and responsible citizenship should comprise not only familiar components such as taxes and political engagement, but also the provision of services, such as care, that alleviate state responsibilities. “I argue that lesbians and gay men have earned citizenship through care activities, particularly at times when care has not been provided by the state, family, or faith-based sector,” as in meeting the need for care precipitated by the HIV/AIDS crisis (95). Formal citizenship requires the recognition of belonging by the state. Lesbians and gays have earned this recognition. Caring may be constructed as a civic virtue and offer a means to the recognition of citizenship.

In contrast with Europe, the United States has not committed to an ongoing national provision of welfare outside of significant crises such as the Depression. Earlier in the book, Wilson cites a direct correlation between financial insecurity, anxiety, and religiosity. Reformed Protestant individualism in the United States is a religiosity that emphasizes personal responsibility. It also militates in favor of market solutions and faith-based criteria for welfare, especially given the absence of nondiscrimination legislation protecting lesbian and gay citizens. The United States most closely resembles the first cluster of countries discussed above. Because little need is expressed for lesbian and gay contributions to fill a care gap, there is little opportunity for lesbian and gay citizens to earn recognition and citizenship.

Wilson indeed provides a missing narrative as to why some countries’ policies are more lesbian and gay friendly than others. Her focus on caregiving and how it is structured in different clusters of countries explains many of these differences. I would be interested in her views, however, as to why Spain and the Netherlands, for instance, seem on her characterization to resemble each other in gay and lesbian friendliness despite falling into different clusters. Similarly, why do the United Kingdom and Sweden both seem to have liberalized their policies in response to the care crunch when they are also in different clusters? In other words, why have some of these countries’ responses resembled each other despite differing relationships between church and state regarding care provision? That said, this book is a valuable resource for anyone interested in lesbian and gay rights, church-state policy, or comparative welfare policy. It bridges many subject areas and it makes one think.