The State of Matrimony

The judiciary committee public hearing on the Same-Sex Marriage bill is scheduled for Wednesday. I don't plan to be there, or to express my opinion at the five days of public hearings. I don't have any particular objection to gay marriage above and beyond my objections to heterosexual marriage. I guess I'm slightly more favorably disposed, but I don't really think that the State should be in the business of licensing sexual congress.

As a matter of fact, I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely. I would prefer to see the civil union expanded to include cohabiting couples of any flavor regardless of their sexual orientation or practices. Why shouldn't maiden aunts living together be afforded the same conveniences and protections as other couples?

If two guys are living together, should the state investigate to make sure that they are really having sex with each other before allowing them to have a civil union? Should the civil union be annulled if it is never consummated? The whole thing is absurd.

If state got out of the marriage business, churches could do what they liked because the marrige ceremony would have no legal basis or significance whatsoever. Kind of like baptism, confirmation, and communion, all of which seem to be working just fine without the endorsement of the State of Vermont.

The whole issue is especially absurd since a third of Vermonters are avowed unbelievers, and I'm willing to bet that another third just go along with the hocus-pocus because they like the music, the odor of sanctity, and the sense of community that the church provides. (In case you think I'm being snide, I'm in that camp.) I think atheism, hypocrisy, and belief are all equally legitimate and defensible orientations - and that the State should keep out of the discussion, just as it should keep its nose out of the conjugal beds of consenting adults.

So sure, if we have to have marriage, then let's let pretty much anybody get married. But I'd vote to phase it out, personally.

Helicopter Parents, Cookie-Cutter Kids

In Norwich, all the little tadpoles are trained from an early age to swim upstream. The training process is called, quite appropriately, "enrichment".

The "best" Norwich youngsters take after-school Kumon courses to help them beat the tracking system in math. They play on a different sports team every season, and their parents cheerfully spend their weekends driving them to meets and races. (This is not deemed to be a waste of gas because the students will end up making significant contributions to society.) The little scholar athletes go to soccer camp and "brain camp" in the summers. The high-schoolers spontaneously organize projects to save the planet, comfort the aged, and alleviate the sufferings of the less fortunate.

The primary purpose behind these myriad activities and orientations is to consolidate and extend the kids' socio-economic situation by getting them into the best schools. Successful contemporary parents realize how lucky they were to reach the top, and realize that, in this competitive society, it is never too early to start jockying for a favorable position in the pack. This is euphemistically referred to as ensuring that their child has "choices" - though the terms "money" and "social status" are probably at least as applicable in this context.

I don't have a problem with any of this. My only quibble is with the term "choices".

It seems to me that the whole point of the process is to ensure that the children don't have any choices. That, having been groomed and brainwashed for years, they will make the "right" choices and feel that they have freely chosen of their own volition. In fact, they won't even know what real choice is, and so won't miss it, never having tasted the undomesticated variety.

Why I am an Anemic Volunteer, Part 1

I'm fascinated by the way that people in meetings in Norwich so often introduce themselves by telling how long they have lived in town. If you have lived here for less than ten years, there seems to be a sense that you should apologize for daring to speak at all.

Now most people would think it pretty peculiar if somebody stood up and said straight out "I'm John Doe and I live in a 4000 square foot house on a ridgeline". And it would sound equally crass if somebody stood up at a school board hearing and said "I'm John Doe and I went to Harvard Medical School". (Fortunately there are plenty of more effective and subtle ways of transmitting the same information.)

I suppose the "seniority preamble" is a useful convention because it helps counterbalance the class distinctions a bit. But I'm not sure it brings us any closer to a world in which nobody cares a fig about any of those things.

I think it is just dandy that some people are rich, others are well educated, others have lived in Norwich of six generations, served on 27 town committes, or live off the grid in a treehouse. But it would be just as relevant to learn that they are building a birch bark canoe, learning to wiggle their ears, or memorizing the poetical works of Longfellow.

I guess this falls under the rubric of clause one of the Serenity Prayer.

A New Low in Norwich

Am I responsible for setting a "new low" in Norwich campaigning? One poster to the Norwich listserv certainly thinks so:

This morning as I drove toward Hanover I was extremely distressed to see a large sign in front of the Simpson condos that disparaged Selectboard candidate Alison May. We have had some pretty rough campaigns in the past, but this is a new low. I hope that May's opponent was not aware that this sign was going to be posted and that it is the work of some over-zealous supporters, done without her knowledge or approval. It doesn't matter which candidate you support, this kind of anonymous and ugly campaign tactic is an insult to all of us.

I would say that the real low was hit when Alison May announced "reluctantly" that she felt compelled to run again for selectboard because no qualified candidate had presented herself. A close second is when several election signs were torn down by people who didn't agree with them. So, at best, I might claim to have hit the "third lowest point" in Norwich campaigning, but I am not sure that I can honestly even claim such a dubious distinction.

My critic appears to have missed the whole point of the sign.  The sign  actually urged voters to vote against May regardless of their enthusiasm for her opponent. This does not, on the face of it, suggest that the rascal who put up the sign is an "over-zealous" supporter of Racusin.

I would also take issue with the suggestion that the sign is an example of "negative campaigning". The sign states what I think any sentient being in Norwich ought to have known: that Alison May was not just a candidate in this election, she was also an issue in the election. I could go into detail about why she was an issue in the election, but I hardly see the point since the results of the election indicate that most Norwich voters understand that already. If you are in any doubt, ask your neighbors.

And as far as the "anonymous and ugly" bit goes. I am not sure why it would have been desirable for me put my name on the sign. The suggestion strikes me as sociologically naive. All social systems have "rules of the game" that the socially dominant seek to impose as a condition of participation. Call me paranoid, but it sounds a little bit like "Too bad the person who put up the sign didn't identify himself or herself so we could punish them."