It's not about marriage

It’s nothing to do with marriage.
Across the country, people are making commitments to life partners, some to partners of the opposite gender, some to same gender partners. They do so in ceremonies and celebrations attended by friends and family as well as more private ceremonies. Together, then, they create homes.
Laws and constitutional amendments do not prevent or even deter this. No matter what North Carolina (or any other state) residents vote, people will continue exchanging vows to love one another through this life. No law can affect this.
What can the law do? It can not prevent relationships, but it can refuse to recognize people’s relationships with one another. It can discriminate between people. It can, and throughout our country’s history often does, deny to some groups privileges that it bestows on others. It can give financial breaks and physical protection to some but not to others.
It can turn its back on people it doesn’t like in hopes that they will disappear.
But we never disappear. We grow stronger, demand recognition as humans equal to all other humans.
“I’m not anti-gay, I’m pro-marriage,” one voter claimed.
No, this has nothing to do with marriage. Rather, this has everything to do with anti-people-not-like-you.
In the end, civil equality will win, and I will proudly tell my grandchildren that I was on the winning team, the team of fairness and humanity.
This post is inspired by and dedicated to Vicki and Janice who, after 30 years of committed love and raising two beautiful children together, will travel to New York in July to be legally married. To all who know them, their relationship demonstrates deep and abiding love, faithfulness, mutual support and unending friendship. I am grateful to have them in my life.

Math, the gateway discipline

“Math is like crack to you, isn’t it?”

One of my students in an Algebra class I taught said this to me. I took it as a compliment, though I’m not sure it was meant that way. It’s true, math excites and energizes me. It brings me pleasure, almost as much as it frustrates and confuses me. I’m well aware, though, that not everyone shares my excitement. If math were not a graduation requirement, our math classrooms would be nearly empty, populated only by the few math addicts, like myself.

The question I hear most often from my students is, “how am I going to use this in real life?” It’s a valid question. No one likes to suffer without reason. But I find myself reflecting that people don’t ask this of their music classes, their art classes, or even their literature classes. These studies are usually appreciated on their own merit, for the beauty, color, and depth that they add to life.

Albert Einstein said, “Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.” Mathematics can stretch us in ways that nothing else can. It tests the limits of possibility of our minds and the universe around us, and then takes us beyond those limits.

When I read the news, listen to political commentaries, and take part in the debates over current issues, I realize that we could do with a bit more poetry of logical ideas. Too often when it comes to the important things of life, logic and clear critical thinking get left in the dust and we find ourselves in confused and ugly messes.

Not that mathematics makes sense of everything. The same genius I quoted before also said, “Mathematics are well and good, but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.” Just when we think we have everything figured out, a black hole opens up and nothing makes sense anymore. That is the world of nature, and so that is the world of mathematics. It not only orders and classifies, but it is full of mysteries, such as why does that number pi keep showing up all the time? And how can two imaginaries come together to form something real? If I told my daughter that two unicorns can create a horse, she’d never believe me. Sometimes, math is a wonderful, powerful mystery.

The poetry, the logic, the mystery, the discovery- these are why math is addictive for me. And it’s why, in an institution of higher education, we require our students to at least try a taste, in hopes that they will go out into the world and infect it with a little more reason, a little more beauty, and a little more poetry.

Religion: a faith or an excuse?

For many it is a deeply held faith, but for others it is an excuse to avoid civic duty, operate outside the bounds of the law and grasp for power.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

They are the first words in the Bill of rights. I am no constitutional expert, but I can see where they would leave room for interpretation. What does "free exercise" mean? How far can it go?

It was intended to keep the government from getting involved in religion and vice versa, but what do we do when these two worlds cross? When a religious organization buys property, must it abide by all the laws that apply to other property owners? The taxes and codes associated with property fall under the authority of government, but would restricting the legal use of property be prohibiting free exercise of religion? On the other hand, how might allowing free reign to all religious organizations trample the rights of others? And does a religious organization need to be allowed to do anything it wants in order to exercise freely? Do these words mean that anything goes?

This has always been and will probably continue to be debated, but it is disturbing how often religious authorities use the shield of religion and faith to hide their own self-serving purposes, to wield power, or to oppress others. Not all religious people do this, in fact many are sincere in their faith that inspires them to good deeds. When some people's use of religion costs others, though, a line must be drawn.

It makes no sense, for example, that clerics do not pay the same in income taxes as the rest of the country. A minister does not have to pay tax on the portion of income used for housing, which includes rent or mortgage, utilities, furnishings, and all household items. This means that often half of their income is not taxed, and yet they still benefit from all those services paid for by all our taxes. How is it right that our tax dollars are subsidizing the clergy?

Labor laws, intended to ensure equity and justice in the workplace, hold religious organizations to a lower standard. Sex and race discrimination that are penalized elsewhere must be overlooked in faith-based organizations, as people use religion as an excuse for their bigotry. The government won't touch that.

But when religious organizations move out of their private sphere and into the world of education, medicine, and commerce, is it unreasonable that they must submit to the authority that governs these spheres? No, in fact we recognize in so many ways that this is reasonable. Religious schools must meet certain standards to be accredited. Hospitals must follow health codes. Churches must charge sales tax on commodities sold.

And so why, if the government requires specific minimum standards for health care insurance, standards set for the good of public health, would it not apply to all employers choosing to operate in the sphere of employer-employee relations? It may have been religious fervor that inspired the building of a hospital, but its existence is not necessary for the free exercise of religion. A high-minded faithful person may have felt called by God to start a university, but its parent organization does not require its continuance to practice its faith. Therefore, they fall under the regulation that any other organization would fall under, including laws that we all must follow for the good of society and for justice for all.

Over half of the states in our country already require that any health care insurer that covers prescription drugs include contraceptives in the coverage. This is nothing new, and the laws were created with public health in mind. If private citizens believe this shouldn't be required and want to do away with the laws, then they may. But it is time to stop hiding behind religion to dominate over others, and it is time that we stop catering to that behavior. Freedom of religion does not apply here.

What will you do when you're 111 years old?

"I'm too old to...."

Never mind, because in light of Warina Zaya Bahou, that excuse just crawled in the corner, released one last pathetic whimper, and died of asphyxiation.

Today at 2:00 p.m., Bahou, born in 1900, will become the second oldest person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States (who was the oldest? Fifteen minutes of intense googling did not reveal an answer).

The first time I tried the excuse I was just 14 years old. After playing violin for 4 years, I lamented that I wished I had chosen cello as my instrument, but it was too late to switch instruments- I was too far along in my musical career. I was too old. (insert eye roll here)

It's an easy excuse, one that is always standing by, waiting for the opportunity to jump to the aid. Pass by an opportunity 10 years ago? It's too late now. You're too old to begin something new now. Like Waterboy, though, the "mama always says" battles the creepy "I'm too old" excuse. My mama always said to me, "Well, two years are going to pass, one way or the other. At then end of those two years you will have either accomplished this or not. Either way, you'll be 2 years older. Saying it's too late isn't going to stop the two years from happening."

I wonder whether a similar voice whispered to Bahou. I don't know how long she worked toward naturalization, but even if it took 10 years, that would mean she didn't begin it until she was over 100. Did her mama's ghost tell her, "Well, in 10 years, you will be 111, there's no stopping that, and either you will be a U.S. citizen or you won't. Which do you choose?"

Suddenly, I'm feeling young, spry, and full of potential.