Who Are You, Who Are So Wise in the Ways of Science?

Watching one of my favorite movies the other night, I was struck by a mysterious sense of familiarity. I’d seen this scene played out before,  but not in the context of the Monty Python oeuvre.

Then it dawned on me.

What does this classic bit of comedy remind you of?

Marriage is Dead! Long Live Marriage!

Photo: homyox/stock.xchng

So the the majority of voters in Maine have decided that certain civil rights should be based upon the collective chromosomal makeup of the pairs of its citizens wishing to exercise those rights.

This issue is destined to be argued, with significant expenditures of individual and taxpayer monies, over and over again in the next few years. It is quite likely to end up in the Supreme Court, as have other civil rights issues.

Let’s all just save our time, money, and breath, and decide that the term “marriage” has no legal meaning.

Marriage means different things to different people, and my definition isn’t necessarily your definition. Currently, all of the following scenarios meet the legal definition of marriage:

• A man and woman who have filed the requisite paperwork and made vows in front of legal witnesses in a church—presided over by a member of the clergy;
• A man and woman who have filed the requisite paperwork and made vows in front of legal witnesses almost anywhere—presided over by anyone empowered by the state to do;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not love one another;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not live together;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not intend to have children;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but engage in sexual relations with other parties;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, one or both of whom who have been legally married to others any number of times, provided they have also undergone the necessary legal steps to dissolve previous marriages.

While all of these scenarios meet the legal definition of marriage, some do not meet the definitions held by various religions. Some of them do not meet my personal definition of marriage.

Marriage, as a legal entity, is a contract. And while the state places certain limits on who may enter into contracts, I am aware of no precedent for prohibitions based on the gender of the parties. So let’s call the legal state of “marriage” what it is—a domestic partnership—regardless of the gender of its participants, and make it available to any two individuals who would normally be entitled to form such a partnership.

It’s time to return “marriage” to its rightful place: the hearts of individuals.

Joyce DiDonato: Talent + Moxie=Sexy

Photo: Sheila Rock

On the off chance that my fellow opera-loving readers (both of you) are not also consumers of “men’s” magazines, I’m quick-blogging an item you might have missed.

Mezzo-soprano extraordinaire Joyce DiDonato is included in Esquire magazine’s current list of “sexy women of 2009” (she’s #14 in the slide-show.)

Now, I happen to think lots of opera singers are sexy, but until recently it seems my tastes have not been shared by the conventional connoisseurs of pulchritudinous womanhood, and it is especially rare to see a mezzo-soprano  feted for her feminine charms, given their customary relegation to the realms of “witches, bitches and britches.”

What evidently grabbed the attention of Esquire’s arbiters of female sexual appeal was DiDonato’s tough-gal gig as Covent Garden’s Rosina (Il barbiere di Siviglia), when she carried on with the show after fracturing her leg. She went on to finish the run on four wheels rather than two legs.

Bravi! to Esquire’s editors for recognizing that sexy isn’t just full lips, big boobs and a propensity for adopting children from Africa/marrying superstar footballers/proclaiming one’s willingness to have sex with other women—it can and does include qualities like:

• Talent
• Dedication
• Humor
• Humility
• Warmth
• Gratitude

Qualities Joyce DiDonato has in spades.

E-mail this post

A Tiny Victory for Reason

Img. courtesy tomaso619/Flickr

My daughter’s pre-school has a table for parents to exchange information about parenting-related topics and services.

About a week ago, among the flyers for private elementary schools, music teachers and local children’s activities, I found a glossy, professional-looking  brochure bearing the title: “Acupuncture ‘Flu Shot’—Safe Protection Against Swine Flu.” It advertised a regimen offered by a local upscale purveyor of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine.

The group’s website made the shopworn claim that their protocol could “boost your immune system” via the application of needles to “six immune-stimulating acupuncture points” on the arms and legs, to which they add “powerful anti-viral homeopathic remedies” Engystol and Gripp-Heel (see here for an FDA warning letter on similar claims.)

According to the website:

“The protocol also includes taking a homeopathic nosode preparation of H1N1 for one month to protect the body specifically from this virus. Homeopathics DO NOT contain any of the virus, but do stimulate the body to recognize a disease-causing entity, provide a level of protection, and assist in the elimination of the pathogens naturally.”

A “Union of Concerned Scientists” for Vaccines?

Img. courtesy Gray cells/Flickr

I’ve been thinking about the apparent permeation of anti-vaccination attitudes into mainstream culture, and how the scientific community and its supporters could better combat it.

What if we were to create a group similar to the Union of Concerned Scientists, focused on vaccination?

One of the biggest problems we face is popular mistrust of government and medical organizations, who are perceived to be in the pockets of “Big Pharma” vaccine-makers, and of the occasional and lonely high-profile pro-vaccination scientist, like Paul Offit, who get vilified and effectively smeared by anti-vaccination groups as pharma shills.

A coalition of scientists, with expertise in areas related to vaccination, not funded by pharmaceutical companies, with complete transparency regarding potential COIs of its leadership and members (such as pharmaceutical company funding of members’ research projects) might bring sufficient authority and gravitas to become an important, independent voice in the vaccine discussion.

Whatever its shortcomings, the Union of Concerned Scientists seems to be a force to be reckoned with on global climate change, and might serve as a useful model for addressing public perception of scientific issues.

I recognize, of course, that there are already a number of excellent independent writers, bloggers, journalists, as well as organizations like Every Child By Two, the Immunization Action Coalition, and Voices for Vaccines, who  present science-based vaccination information to the public, and do it very well, but many of these suffer from their relatively small reach, and (once again) the perception of undue pharmaceutical company influence.

E-mail this post