John’s blog

Sounds nasty, doesn't it? That's because it was meant to. Miscegenation is what people used to call interracial marriage back in the days before it was lawful in the USA [1]. The theory behind prohibiting it went something like this:

God created separate races for a purpose. Mixing the races defeats that purpose. Therefore, people of different races (black, white, asian,, hispanic [2]) should only be allowed to marry people of their own race.

This logic went essentially unchallenged until 1958, when Mildred (who was black) and Richard (who was white) Loving got married because she was pregnant [3, 4]. Because Virginia would nor grant them a license to marry, they went across the state line to Maryland, where they could and did get hitched. When they came back to Virginia, the state prosecuted them for “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth” [5]; in return for a guilty plea and an agreement to leave the state for 25 years, they were released. They moved to Washington and then began working to have the law overturned. When they wrote the US Attorney General, he referred them to the ACLU. In 1967, the US Supreme Court heard the case and overturned their conviction based on the “full faith and credit” and “equal protection”  clauses in the Constitution.

A similar battle is raging now, over whether or not two people of the same sex have the right to get legally married [6] and to have the decisions about marriage made in one state be valid in another [7]. Constitutionally, this is a mixed bag. The equal protection clause probably doesn't apply, as this legal distinction is based on the sex of the two people (which is not explicitly recognized in the clause), rather than their race (which is). However, most readings of the full faith and credit clause would argue that the legal contract [8] known colloquially as “marriage” issued by one state should apply in others. If the ultimate decision is “no”, then this opens the doors for every state to impose its own laws regarding credit [9], banking, and other interstate transactions - which was the mess that forced the Confederacy to call it quits and re-organize as a republic [10].

Several solutions have been proposed for this conundrum, from the adoption of a constitutional amendment to define marriage to separating the legal and religious definitions. Fallacious arguments abound on both sides, from the “marriage has always been between one man and one woman” [11] to “the Christian church has always recognized gay marriage” [12]. About all that can be said for sure is that, given that this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of noise and see a lot of heat generated over this issue – but have very little light shed on it. And no matter what the solution that they come up with is, there will be a lot of people who hate it - and it will cause more problems than it solves.

John
(This post inspired by an article on the aptly-named Mildred Loving, who challenged miscegenation laws and won.)

[1] Not to say it didn’t happen; it just wasn’t legally recognized by many states.
[2] Senso stricto, “asian”and “hispanic” are ethnicities, not races. And biologically speaking, “race” is a null concept. There are subspecies of animals, but humans are less varied than many other species, perhaps because of that close call we had some 70,000 years ago.
[3] Not to say that folks didn’t micegenate; they simply didn’t make it legal. After all, if they hadn’t been mixing, then we’d never have such evocative terms as octoroon, would we?
[4] In the 1950’s, being pregnant and unmarried was considered a bad thing and often was said to be “the girl’s fault” [a]. In the 1850’s it was not unusual – and frequently was considered to be part of the courting process [b].
[5] This law is still on the books in Virginia, BTW! However, the ACLU has challenged a similar law in North Carolina, which means that this law’s days may be numbered.
[6] As opposed to the right to get married in their church. The latter is not in doubt, except when more than two people want to get in on the fun.
[7] As previously noted, we’ve been down this road before. First with racially-mixed marriages, and then with “no fault” divorces.
[8] Socially speaking, it is a contract under state laws.
[9] Instead of everyone coming under Delaware’s business-friendly laws that permit universal default and other annoyances.
[10] What? You didn't know that the US was a confederacy before it was a republic? Where have you been?!?
[12] Er, no; it hasn't. Even if we just go by what is written in the Bible, there are numerous counter-examples from Lamech's matched pair to King Solomon's 700 wives. If we use what is observed in the world around us, there are customs ranging from the Romanesque primogeniture-based monogamy to the more common polygyny to the rare but interesting polyandry. About the only thing that humans don't seem to want to try is abstinence...
[12] Er, no; it hasn't. Though the original church was more likely to engage in free-love than in monogamy [c], very few sects of the Christians have ever accepted homosexuality (though many were willing to wink and nod at it).
[a] Though the last time I checked, there was only one birth on record where a man wasn’t involved.
[b] Hence the adage about eager brides being able to do in six months what took cows and countesses nine.
[c] Where do you think that bit about the “holy kiss” came from?

Has anyone ever done something so horrible to you that "I'm sorry" couldn't fix it?

"I'm sorry" never fixes it; "I'm sorry" is a weasel's attempt to get out of responsibility by placing guilt on the one who was injured.

What does fix a transgression? Take a lesson from the Catholics - add works to atone for the sin [1], not just words. And go forth and sin no more.

So when you've done something horrible to someone, don't say "I'm sorry". Apologize by fixing the window that you broke, or telling folks that you were the one in the wrong, or by doing something else that corrects the mistake that you made. And then you can say "I'm sorry" and the person will know that you mean it.

Until then, "I'm sorry" is like the garden that Ben Franklin  described.

John

[1] That's what these are - social sins. And "I'm sorry" is an attempt to magically use patter to atone.

How do you stay in shape?

Round is a shape, right?

John

What personality trait has gotten you in the most trouble? 

That's easy - my assumption is always that when someone asks a question he wants an answer [1]. Thus, if I know the answer, I give it. You'd be surprised how many people resent having their questions answered.

My second most troubliferous [2] trait is my belief that curiosity is a divine mandate, not a sin [3]. Thus, my preference is to "run and find out" [4], which means that I will fearlessly wander through the hidden markets of Bangkok or the tomes of Nostradamus. This becomes a problem because of my trick memory, which allows me to retain an unusual amount of the information so gleaned and so provides me with the answers to all those annoying questions...

My third annoying trait is that the combination of curiosity and knowledge has led me to be able to answer most questions correctly. Even when I do not know the answer, my understanding of the semiotics of knowledge and knowledge systems helps me to find the answer quickly. The problem with this is two fold: first, my answers come fast [5], which can mean that others don't get to play the game. Second, my batting average is good, but not 1.000. As a result, sometimes I forget that my answers can be in error [6]. Fortunately, I have experienced enough embarrassing assertions of errant rightness that this is not the problem it was when I was much younger and much dumber.

John

[1] As opposed to sympathy or ditto-heading.

[2] A portmanteau of "trouble" and the geology all-purpose "-ferous", meaning "carrying".

[3] You'd be amazed how many people (religious or otherwise) feel that curiosity is evil. Or at least, a form of self abuse likely to drive you blind [a], insane [b], or into a hermitage [c].

[4] Geek points for the reference!

[5] And sometimes furiously.

[6] Either because the source was wrong, because my memory was wrong (and I failed to double-check), because my logic was wrong, or because the person wasn't asking what I thought they were asking.

[a] Insert snide comments on my visual acuity...

[b] And about my mental acuity...

[c] What do you know - three for three!

What role did you play in your school play?

Audience member.To paraphrase a famous composer, I can't sing, I can't dance, and I can't act - I'm a triple threat [1]!

John

[1] Musical geek points for the reference!

From my eleven year old nephew:

Attending a wedding for the first time, a little girl whispered to her mother, 'Why is the bride dressed in white?''

The mother replied, 'Because white is the color of happiness, and today is the happiest day of her life.'

The child thought about this for a moment then said, 'So why is the groom wearing black?'

In the words of Socrates: "I've corrupted the youth. Now where's that damn hemlock?"

John

There is nothing more boring than being forced to look at someone's vacation pictures. So move on by if you don't want to be bored!

Hey, kiddies! Here's a fun game to play the next time that you are traveling; it is called Spot the American!

Quick - in the photo below, Spot the American! Bonus points are awarded if you can answer the following questions:

1. His wife let him out dressed like that?
2. Really?
3. No, really?

John

Show us a photo of you with a funny haircut.

That would be all of them. But this is the one that captures my style best, IMHO...

John

Just spent the day at the site of a minor skirmish in WWII with far-ranging philosophical implications. The site was overrun with German and Japanese tourists [1], and surrounded by the sort of tacky souvenier shops that realize that they don't have to give you a good deal because some tourists will pay anything for a tacky plastic reminder of their stay [2].

The interesting thing about the site [3] is that it was the location where Allied servicemembers and local civilians died in order to bring about the end of the war. Without their deaths, the Axis might have been able to drag out the war in that theater for months or even years longer. The strength of courage and the willingness to do the necessary thing, even when it had a moral cost measured in thousands of innocent lives, is something that our modern leaders sadly lack, IMHO.

John

[1] Not the philosophical point in question, but amusing in an ironic way.

[2] Sort of like the French Market in New Orleans, actually...

[3] I'd post photos, but then you'd know where I had been!