Letting the Qur'an Burn Makes Us Stronger

The phrasing in the headline isn't accidental. I said "Letting the Qur'an burn," not "Burning the Qur'an." Let me be clear that I think burning the Qur'an, the bible, any country's flag, the US Constitution, or even a copy of Fahrenheit 451, is a really bad idea.

Just in case that's not clear, let me repeat: it's a really, really bad idea. I do not in any way approve of anybody burning or destroying something that is sacred to somebody else.

But our country is strong because we allow people, even bigots and racists and just plain stupid folks, to have opinions which are -- you got it -- bigoted, racist, and just plain stupid. And burning stuff is just one way of expressing your opinion. If the Taliban or Al-Qaeda were in charge, you wouldn't be allowed to dissent. You'd have to do it in secret or risk being stoned to death.

If you're one of those radical, intolerant Christians who want to destroy something sacred to somebody else, you're not alone. In fact, you're just like the people you claim to hate the most. The Taliban destroyed buddhas, including the ancient and irreplaceable Buddhas of Bamyan. And as for Al-Qaeda ... maybe you've heard of the World Trade Center. Burn some Qur'ans and you'll be in great company.

We're better than that. We let people dissent. We know that a few bad people, like Qur'an burners, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, do not represent all Americans, all Christians, or all Muslims. Just like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Jones do not even come close to speaking for either all Christians or all Americans, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not come close to representing all of the Middle East or all Muslims.

So, hey, you want to be stupid, go ahead. The rest of us aren't interested in inciting more hatred.

We still have a long way to go

Fast on the heels of Loving Day, today is Juneteenth, celebrating the emancipation of Texas slaves, on June 19th, 1865. Although the Emancipation Proclamation had been signed three years earlier, it wasn't until Union forces arrived that slaves in Texas were actually freed. Of course, it took much longer than that to free all of the slaves and another 100 years (and counting!) for full racial equality.

I hope that someday there will be no need to celebrate Loving Day or Juneteenth, or any of these holidays. I hope that the world will consider discrimination and bigotry quaint and a remnant of the long forgotten past.

Even though it takes far more effort to hate than to love, people seem to love to hate. We still have a long way to go.

More info:

• Juneteenth.com
• Juneteenth on Wikipedia
  

Today is Loving Day

Yes, it's true. Our country used to tell people who were in love that they couldn't get married, just because some other people were offended. Back then, it was the color of the skin. Politicians and judges argued that such marriages were just plain wrong, that it was necessary to preserve the "racial integrity" of marriages, and, of course, that god didn't want mixed-race marriages.
But, on June 12th, 1967, the Supreme Court made it very clear:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

The last law prohibiting mixed-race marriage wasn't taken off the books until 2000. Meanwhile, bigots of a different kind are busy creating new discrimination laws. But, if you read that paragraph above from ten feet away, it sure sounds to me like the Equal Protection Clause protects all people.

I know that there are some people who are so insecure in their own marriages or in their religious beliefs that, somehow, what other people do threatens them. I think these people need to take a hard look inward, not outward.

My marriage isn't threatened.

For more information:

• LovingDay.org
• Loving v. Virginia at Wikipedia
  

My Marriage Is Threatened

My wife and I will have been married 20 years this coming October, but our marriage is threatened by others who do not respect the institution of marriage. These people want their marriages to be recognized just like the rest of us. If people who are unfaithful are allowed to marry, nobody is safe.

Well, I say it's time to put our foot down. Marriage is the basic unit of every civil society which has been tested and reaffirmed over thousands of years. Yet there are people who cheat on their spouses and expect us to look the other way. If you're cheating on your spouse, then you're not really married!

Not only have the legislature and the courts looked the other way, but we have prominent politicians and jurists who have been guilty of infidelity. Presidential candidate John McCain cheated on his first wife, then divorced her and married his mistress. By the way, she's rich. When former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani cheated on his second wife, he did it in public, not even caring that people knew about it. Eliot Spitzer paid for it (and then he paid for it). And let's not forget Congressman Larry Craig, who tried to cheat on his wife in an airport bathroom. Like many cheaters, Craig told the world he was faithful, while he cheated in secret. And I fear that the number of judges who've had affairs is too large to count.

How can we possibly trust these people to defend marriage?

Over the years, they have continually eroded the institution of marriage to the point where the rest of us are not secure. They threaten the customs, laws, and social norms of human experience. Not only are these cheaters demanding full marital rights, including tax benefits and the ability to make medical decisions for their spouses -- they're getting it! Yes, that's right -- the cheaters get the same benefits of marriage that us faithful people get.

This threat to the traditional meaning of marriage is ongoing. Some would say that marriage is already defined as a union between two faithful people, but, clearly, that is not enough. We need protection. Marriages between adulterers should be annulled as soon as the adultery is learned of. People planning to be married must be investigated to see if they have already cheated and they must be denied a marriage license if they have. If these laws were already in effect, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Eliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, and many others would not be married today.

We need a constitutional amendment banning unfaithful marriage and we need it now!