musings . . .

It’s too bad. There are so many closed-minded people. In New Berlin, WI, plans for a low-income housing unit have been underway. When this was announced to residents, they sent the mayor emails asking him to reconsider for various reasons, including an increase in crime, an increase in property taxes, and home/property devaluation. For an overview of this controversy (including a copy of the offending email), please visit this story at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s website. These may be sincere, valid concerns. But they also may be thinly veiled racism, since minorities are disproportionately represented in low-income communities.

New Berlin is an upper middle class suburb where the population is 95% white (see http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/zip/53151 for the demographic information). In addition, the average home value is $164,200 and the average annual household income is $79,346. The emails sent to the mayor discuss how the people who live in New Berlin chose to do so because they wanted to be in a nice neighborhood away from crime and with “quality people”.

I can, in a way, understand these concerns. Nobody wants to hear gunshots and sirens all the time. And people want to believe that their homes and children are safe. Unfortunately, those kind of beliefs are often based on assumptions and the safety itself is just an illusion. Think of all the news stories about suburban kids using and selling recreational drugs (often the sum of excess free time and excess disposable income – the reasons the parents live in the ‘burbs to begin with) and how the parents always seem so surprised.

Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say you live in New Berlin (or a place like it) and have a teenager who has worked at a local retail store or fast food restaurant (common teen jobs) and is graduating from High School. Maybe your kid goes away to college and decides s/he wants to come back home to work and create a life. In general, entry-level jobs do not support living in this kind of a suburb – much less the kinds of entry level jobs recent college graduates are getting in this economy. So maybe your kid gets a job in town, but has to live 15-20 miles away, where housing is actually affordable and s/he can get a roommate. Then this person has to pay more in gas every day for a commute which could be unnecessary but for a community’s desire to maintain an image. This person has to pay a higher sales-tax rate (because in Milwaukee County, the sales tax is 5.6% versus the 5.1% in New Berlin), provided s/he shops near home. This person has to travel further to see family and enjoy many things in the hometown community. Wouldn’t you, as the parent, want your kid to be able to afford to live nearby? Wouldn’t you want your kids friends (even the ones who decided college wasn’t the way to go) to be able to stick around? What if your kid chose a worthwhile line of work with low pay (working for a non-profit or religious institution – or just teaching!)? Would you want these people to be included in your community or eliminated because the city is trying to maintain an image? Or would you want your community to consistently be infused with new people trying desperately to escape the city? Can it even be called a community if your children are economically forced out as young adults?

I think that dismissing an project that could really help enrich the community through racial, economic, and educational diversity is a mistake that no community can afford to make. The people that wrote the emails linked to above were acting in a selfishly snobby way. Racist? Maybe. But selfish and snobby? Definitely. That’s what the mayor should have called them out for. And the plan should go forward – at least until someone can come up with a valid, unselfish and un-snobby reason it shouldn’t.

For some interesting thoughts on religion and politics, read Why Do Christians Try to Impose Their Beliefs on Our Politics? on Alternet.  This interview with the author of Taming the Gods is an interesting look at these topics spanning continents.  In Republicans v Secular America, Dan Kennedy follows up on the idea of the imposition of religious views on the political system, but focused on the American tradition and current politics.  There are a couple of interesting referential links you should follow in that article, too.

How do you feel about where the spheres of religion and politics should intersect and how that differs from where you see them intersecting now?

You probably know at least one person who has refrained from getting married because s/he says “I don’t believe in the institution of marriage.” or something similar.  While I understand many of the arguments people make for retaining their “single” status indefinitely, I think “not believing” in marriage is, well, a load of crap.

I recently read an article about a woman who ended up getting married to appeal to societal norms and to reap the rewards that come with “legitimizing” her relationship.  See here for the story.  While she says she doesn’t believe in marriage, she also says she enjoys the recognition that comes with using the words “married” and “husband”.

The fact is, marriage is a social contract that has evolved over time into what it is today – and that can be a variety of things.  I’ve met married people who don’t spend the workweek in the same town as their spouses.  I’ve met others that include three or more people  in their marriage (though only two can be recognized legally).  I’ve known married couples who despise one another but can’t seem to make the leap to divorce.  And I’ve known other couples who were completely devoted to one another and never needed the legal or societal recognition of a “marriage”, but still considered themselves married.

Long ago, marriage was only a social contract dealing with property.  A girl was the property of her father until she (and her dowry) became the property of her husband.  Many marriages were arranged.  Either the spouses learned to love each other or they learned to satisfy their needs for love elsewhere.

In modern times, marriage has evolved to become the legal recognition of a couple’s love and devotion to each other.  Arranged marriages are seldom seen in Western society.  Couples now are able to define their marriages for themselves.  Legally, there are no guidelines (as far as I know) beyond some archaic adultery laws that aren’t even enforced any longer.

I can’t even really define what it must mean when people say they don’t believe in marriage.  Are they saying that they don’t agree with the patriarchal history?  Are they saying they think people don’t take the vows seriously enough?  Are they young and trying to differentiate themselves from their parents?  How can a person not believe in something that really, truly does exist?  It’s like saying you don’t believe in the sun.  The semantics of the statement are baffling – marriage exists (just like the sun) whether you want to recognize it or not.  And if you don’t want to recognize it, well then you shouldn’t.  But I would say that means that you can’t attend other people’s ceremonies or celebrations.  That you can’t send anniversary cards or gifts.  That you refuse to recognize the legitimacy of other people’s marital commitments.

Stating that you “don’t believe in marriage” is just plain stupid.  It oversimplifies any legitimate objections you might have to the social, legal, or religious instutions and the impact that marriage (or singlehood) has on an individual or couple.  And it makes you sound like and idiot who can’t explain the reasoning behind your dislike or opposition to a long-standing human tradition.