We sympathize with those whose eyes water, fists clench or guts churn whenever they see someone destroying an American flag. It is generally a juvenile act by someone who just wants to attract attention by shocking the straights.

But living in a free nation requires putting up with a lot of attention-getting behavior, especially the kind that neither breaks our arm nor picks our pocket.

Thus much praise is due Utah's Sen. Robert Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson for showing the political maturity to again oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to "prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

That amendment passed the House Wednesday, with Utah Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop in the 286-130 majority. It now goes to the Senate, where Utah's Orrin Hatch will again push for its passage.

It is sad to see Hatch, who has been showing some wisdom born of soul-searching on issues such as immigration reform and stem-cell research, still clinging to this rote response to a problem that doesn't exist and wouldn't need solving if it did.

For one thing, the amendment is represented as a simple patriotic statement. But the fact is that it would, if passed by two-thirds of the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states, become a field day for anti-anything activists, smarty-pants lawyers and activist judges.

By one definition of the word, to "desecrate" is to defile a sacred object. Sacred is a religious, not a civil, term. Thus it could be argued that it is etymologically impossible to "desecrate" a symbol of an earthly nation.

The other meaning of the word is basically to treat something with disrespect. That would including burning and soiling. But would it also include the woman who just the other day wore a flag-patterned bikini top to frolic in the Olympic fountain at the Gateway?

The rare act of torching an American flag is one of two things: pointless or meaningful. If it is pointless, the worst it could be called is vandalism, and should be treated as such. If it is meaningful, even full of meaning we don't like, then it is, and must remain, constitutionally protected expression.