The Tide is Turning

Last night, New York became the sixth state in the Union to legalize marriage for all human beings. The world did not end, the earth did not rend, spewing forth molten magma and swallowing the citizens of modern day Sodom. Nor did celestial trumpets blare forth a paean of triumph. It could be just another proof that there is no god directing our destiny. Or more charitably, it may be proof that an omnipotent deity concerned with the creation and ordering of the entire cosmos has far better things to do that wonder about whether men should lie with men and that our lives, our futures and all we aspire to is up to us. Whatever the truth of god's existence, there is no doubt that we are at our best as human beings when we look within ourselves for the answers we seek and find the strength there to do the right thing by our fellowmen.

It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.

Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.

I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.

In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.

In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!

Immigrants Behaving Badly

Last month the President decided to bring immigration reform to centerstage once again, if only to highlight the obstructions raised by his political opponents. Since then, interest has languished again and the moat and alligator business I'd hoped to start up may have to wait a whiles till funding to build the same is approved by Congress. But meanwhile I thought I'd dust off some old thoughts on immigration and publish them in this snazzy blog that is such a credit to some unknown developer. This is actually part of a two-chapter posting on different aspects of immigration and let me lead off bu discussing this article in the Washington Post from a few years ago that illustrated a very interesting aspect of Hispanic immigrants and explodes several negative myths about their role in US society. Distilled down to the essentials, the various studies show that Hispanic immigrants don't act according to stereotype.

I know a little bit about immigrants who don't fit stereotypes. Immigrants are supposed to stick with others from their ethnic group, they are supposed to speak the language of their home country rather than English, they are supposed to go mostly to their particular ethnic restaurants and celebrate their own particular religious and secular days. I can testify that every morning I see a would-be immigrant who doesn't fit the mold. Sure, he looks like typical immigrant and judging from the reaction of others, sounds unlike the average American. But it just goes to show that appearances can be deceiving. Or rather that stereotypes are, more often than not, totally wrong.

Returning to the article, studies show that as generally perceived, a majority of first generation Hispanic immigrants do fall below the poverty line and also tend to earn significantly lower wages than Americans in the same job. However, the wage gap between immigrants and natives tends to close quickly. Far more interesting however is the revelation that these immigrants do not think of themselves as poverty-stricken, nor do they behave as such. It seems like someone forgot to tell these immigrants that they are supposed to be different, that they are supposed to drag down US society. Instead, in their ignorance they react positively, in much the same way as every other immigrant community that ever called America home.

These are people who earn less than the $20,000 annual salary that the US government defines as dividing the poor from the rest. And, these poverty level salaries are typically earned in urban (and expensive areas). While many settled natives might think that it is impossible to live on around $11,500 a year (or barely $225 a week), these people beg to differ. They manage and their attitude is that of the middle class - they manage the best they can in education for their children, manage to save a little (!) and nearly always manage to send some money back to their families and relatives in their native country. Imagine that – they are supporting not just themselves, but also large extended families. Several economies south of the border are heavily dependent of these remittances. And since this money comes without IMF-mandated conditions or high interest rates and repayment timetables, every last penny goes into improving the lives of the recipients. These immigrants have discovered so many truths - you don’t need a 52-in plasma TV or a TV in every room, or a night out on the town every night, you don’t need to drive the latest model car or have the newest computer or I-pod, there is life without a Playstation or Xbox. And they are living out the economic theory that just won the Nobel Peace Prize, creating economic and social development from the grassroots, and actually alleviating the conditions that force so many to immigrate to America in first place.

According to the article, a majority of immigrants own or plan to own their own homes and businesses. They are working hard to improve their living conditions and provide a brighter future for their children, and they expect fewer government handouts than many natives (think about the corn farmers or oil companies). Sounds familiar? It should. It could describe any previous immigrant community. It could describe the American Dream.

This study was focused on Hispanic immigrants, who are right now the target of most negative myths and stereotype, but I'm willing to wager that other prominent immigrant communities are similar. In fact, I'm so sure of this that like Oliver Twist's interest acquaintance, Mr. Grimwig, I'll eat my own head!