June 12: A Love-Hate Date

Almost perfectly bisecting the most popular month for marriages (named after the domestic goddess Juno) is June 12^th. That date—defined by two notable circumstances (and geography)—now has diametrically opposed meanings. Herein, the love-hate contours of today's political divide are clearly illuminated.

In a nod to Juno, let's start with the good. In the commonwealth whose tourism slogan is “Virginia is for Lovers”. In Richmond, a new historical marker denotes a cultural milestone: a “loving” 50^th anniversary. Ironically, this sign stands outside the building that once housed the Virginia Court of Appeals that was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling: Loving v. Virginia, 1967. That decision ended Southern states’ bans on interracial marriage. Synchronistically named, Richard and Mildred Loving were a white man and a black woman. Their successful legal challenge facilitated today's commonplace marital experience. That means 11 million are wed to a person of another race. Per Pew Center statistics, that's 1 in 6, or 17 percent compared to 3 percent in 1967. Thus, how appropriate that for Virginia June 12^th is henceforth known as Loving Day. What could be more life-affirming than that?

By contrast, in Orlando, Florida, June 12^th marks an infamous one year anniversary. How unfortunate that the horror of mass murderer Omar Mateen—who killed 49 (and injured more than 50) innocents at the Pulse gay nightclub—should correspond on the same day. Yet, that it does is instructive. For both events demonstrate the deep-seeded influences that shape our ever-evolving society. Are we to once again embrace harmony: the shared melting pot experience of being Americans? Or do violent leftist protesters, name-calling, baseless Russian conspiracies and “headless” stunts continue to dominate our political discourse? Do we rise to a new day delivered by the 2016 election, or descend further into the polarization that epitomized the last administration?

As Richard and Mildred persisted, so we must embrace our collective goodness—despite these divisive signs of our time. This must happen for the continued well-being of the nation. That means honoring the past, not tearing down old monuments; or otherwise opening old wounds with spurious claims like certain lives matter, and others don't. We would be wise to heed the Lovings's quiet and dignified example over the ratings-garnering, destructive possibility. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Interracial marriage: a big deal now?

Interracial marriage was indeed a hot-button issue in America—in 1958. With the aptly named Lovings—a white man, Richard, married Mildred Jeter, a black woman—in violation of Virginia state statutes against miscegenation. Undoubtedly 57 years ago racial tension was a seemingly insurmountable issue reflected by novels like To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) and in film with “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner” (1967). Contrast that to 2013 when a record-high 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data. So, in light of a factually-supported more open cultural dynamic why is Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal—apparently stuck in a time warp—writing about it in now?

As Bob Dylan prophetically sang of social mores in 1964, “The Times They Are A-Changin.'” And they have to an amazing degree with a black man cooling his heels in the Oval Office for 7 years and minorities at all levels of American society. Today, for example, it would be unconscionable for public opinion to condemn interracial marriage or children of mixed parentage (who tend genetically to embody the best of both). And while there will always be unfortunate, isolated circumstances to this obvious societal trend (as the divided family Ms. O'Neal highlights) one must recall that gay marriage has recently been embraced in all 50 states. In any case, however one evaluates others' marriage choices, to be black in America—compared to past generations long gone—is beautiful.

Naturally, per First Amendment guarantees of free speech (which in particular protects unpopular views), differences of opinion are healthy in a democracy and all should be respected. Therefore, individual bigotry is to be pitied as a throwback exception to our society's 21^st century rules of widespread tolerance. Ms. O'Neal's bumbling attempt to trumpet the rare exception as more than it is is nothing but the vain creation of a tempest in a teapot.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

The evolution of marriage

Once again, in her column "Courting gay marriage," Tammy Bruce demonstrates the wisdom of a modern day King Solomon.  The LGBT community, under the principle of equal protection regardless of sex, race, gender, class or sexual orientation guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, should be entitled to marry.  This is the identical right of any heterosexual couple.  On a practical level, "gay" marriage doesn't diminish the traditional ideal of male-female unions in any way.  In either case, it is two consenting adults choosing to lead their lives together which generally strengthens the societal fabric and should be celebrated notwithstanding the disco balls, margaritas or drag queens.  

 

As Bob Dylan prophetically sang of social mores in 1964, "The Times They Are A-Changin.'"  Today, for example, it would be unconscionable for public opinion to condemn interracial marriage.  However, it was not so long ago—previous to 1967 to be precise—that it did.  In 1958, in a Washington, DC ceremony (where gay marriage is incidentally currently legal), the aptly named Richard Loving, a white man, married Mildred Jeter, a black woman, in violation of Virginia state statutes against miscegenation to which they plead guilty.  In lieu of serving a one year prison sentence, the Lovings could not return to Virginia together for 25 years.  Fortunately a decade later the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held this prohibition to be unconstitutional.  This decision is appropriately commemorated on the 12th day every year in June—named for Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage—not surprisingly the most popular month for weddings.

 

Naturally, differences of opinion are healthy in a democratically free society and all should be respected.  However, using the mechanisms of progressive government to mandate some artificial, one-size-fits-all, top-down solution won't work in this situation.  That’s splitting the baby in half: neither the traditional Christian nor the GLBT community wins.  Therefore, when two sets of competing values with equal validity exist each state should determine its position based upon regional cultural standards.  At the moment, 37 states and the District of Colombia are doing just that.  If the other states don't permit the performance of homosexual marriage ceremonies so be it.  These others should just respect the legal contract that gay marriages confer from their state of origin.  No fuss, no muss, the problem organically solves itself.  No doubt King Solomon, and Ms. Bruce, would approve.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/