No, I’m complaining that the ban is unconstitutional in two different ways.
The funerals are being protested to make it more difficult to hide the fact that American soldiers are dieing. The coffins are not allowed to be shown on tv. Its a way of homogenating the war. Fact is people are dieing and getting wounded.The administration is trying to hide it. They are not trying to protest an easily protestable war.
The funerals are being protested, because Phred Phelps and his merry band of loonies are a bunch of sick, twisted, sadistic control freaks who do not have the morals and decency that God granted Larry Flynt. Let’s get that part straight.
These guys get their jollies tormenting the families and friends of the fallen soldiers, and the only thing I can find in their favor is that what they are doing happens to be protected by the First Amendment.
They’re not trying to warn America. They’re not trying to spread the gospel. They’re not trying to spread the truth. They’re just a bunch of circus freaks who escaped the cages so that you can see them for free.
I don’t know how up you are on the Phelps clan but they are not protesting the war at these funerals. They are actually celebrating the deaths of American soldiers because (in their minds) they were defending a country that tolerates homosexuality. In Phelps lingo, this makes them all “fag enablers.” They hold up signs that say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers.” Assuming that their protests have anything to do with lamenting the tragedy of the war is affording them way too much credit and humanity.
I’m a Canadian. I have no stake in this. That said, I would expect that if I was in the United States I would be free to stand in front of a church holding a soldiers funeral with a sign that expressed my displeasure at the current illegal occupation of a foreign nation. For me, that is the United States of America. That is the right, the value, the whatever which the soldier died for. If you ban that, well you shouldn’t claim to be exporting these values, the values which supposedly make “America”, in justification for your clearly illegal occupation.
Eh…depends on where you stand. If you’re on church property, they can, will, and should kick your ass out of there. If you’re out on the sidewalk, as long as you’re not blocking anyone from going in or out, you’re fine.
According to the OP cite the federal ban will only apply to national cemetaries. I’m not sure that such cemetaries are public places for the purpose of staging disruptive demonstrations.
I heard that GW signed the law today, Memorial Day. In any case, the new law will probably be challanged and we’ll find out.
Maybe you should go find a discussion of people who are protesting the occupation then. Phelps is not. He is celebrating the deaths of soldiers in order to get the message out that he hates homosexuals. He is celebrating the deaths of soldiers because it hurts the families deeply, enrages everyone in the vicinity, and gives him lots of press.
As much as he has his rights, I feel that the families have the right to hold a funeral service without being harassed.
Most posters in this thread seem to have taken the position that the legislation in question is a good thing from a moral perspective, but not defensible from a Constitutional perspective. I feel exactly the opposite way. I think that the legislation passes legal muster, but on a personal level, I don’t want it to pass. The Westboro Baptist Church is one of the best things that ever happened to the gay rights cause, because it amply demonstrates the type of insanity that comes once you decide to obsess over what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. I reckon that every time these loons stage a military funeral protest, they win some new converts to the cause of equality for gays. Shut them down by force and you immediately lose those converts.
That answers one of the questions brought up in this thread: why is Congress caring so much about these WBC protests, but not about earlier protests at AIDS victims’ funerals. Phelps has become an embarrassment to the cause of homophobia. His nonsense makes the homophobic cause less popular whenever he shows up in public. Since Congressional Republicans made homophobia a central part of their strategy in 2004 and intend to do so again in 2006, he’s a liability to them. Better to push him out of the way by force; even if the lawyers eventually do shoot down this law, it won’t happen until after the election.
I feel anyone low enough to disrupt a funeral deserves to be jailed for disturbing the peace.
Wallow in all the political opinions you want; just leave a grieving family alone.
My position is that the legislation is wrong morally and is unconstitutional.
My personal feelings about Phelps have to do with his particular message. I think he’s insane and despicable for holding such opinions about homosexuals and for wanting to disrupt funerals with this despicable message.
However, given that I believe his opinion is deranged, I believe he is right to express this deranged opinion in the way that he does.
From my point of view, he’s not doing any more or less than the people holding a funeral in a public cemetery. To me, that funeral itself is imbued in political and social messages to the people attending and to the public at large.
Why hold a funeral? To share a message with the people who attended it. That’s public communication. That is an exercise of free expression. It’s not a purely private function.
Why hold a funeral in a national cemetery? This is even more of a political act. The family of the fallen soldier are asking the public at large to acknowledge the value of the person who died, yes, but are also affirming the value of the whole system that resulted in his or her death. I’m not saying they’re wrong; but it is a political message nonetheless and I think it is perfectly valid for Phelps to show up and counter it with his own political message, so long as he is not intruding one someone’s private property.
And, I forgot to add, these funerals are paid for with public funds … . So even though they are ceremonies to comfort the loved ones of the dead, they are definitely public, political events–even a “demonstration” of a kind–that should not be immune from counter-demonstrations, even by a lunatic like Phelps.
By that logic, everything a government employee owns is “paid for with public funds”. Does that give me the right to go invade my neighbors home (which was paid for with city tax money via her salary)?
Yeah, maybe … If that one fact had actually represented the entirety of my argument.
Add up the two adjacent posts, and then apply it to your situation. My argument is that the funeral of a member of the military held in a public place and paid for with public funds serves purposes of public communication and political messages (as well as purposes of private grief). The very fact that we have cemeteries supported by public funding is a political situation.
A salary is something that everyone gets and it is used to serve individuals’ private needs. Not everyone gets a publicly funded funeral. Some people do, and they do for reasons that are not limited to their private needs.
Bad analogy. The home wasn’t paid directly by city tax money. The government doesn’t decide how its employees spend their money. The government, or more specifically, the Department of Defense, pays for the funeral, the flag, and two members of the armed forces.
That’s not exactly right, is it? The benefits package for the deceased doesn’t, IIRC, include a fully-paid for funeral.
Beg pardon? The people holding the funeral are peaceably mourning the loss of someone whom they respected.
So, when did Phelps and his cew get the invitation to attend? The mesage that the people holding the funeral are communicating is that they are mourning someone’s death.
Perhaps because the deceased is entitled to burial in a national cemetery?
Ah, I think I see where some confusion has entered the discussion. “Funeral Honors” does not mean “funeral.” Funeral honors include folding & presenting the national flag, the playing of Taps, and a gun salute.
That can be done just as easily without holding a ceremony on government property (a public place) and without government supplied benefits. As I said before, the very fact that the government is sponsoring the event gives it a political aura. In addition to their own private grief, the participants are also sending social/political messages about the value of the dead and the value of the system he served. That’s a political message being communicated in public. Phelps doesn’t need an invitation to contribute his own political message in a public place.
Why is the deceased entitled to burial in a national cemetery? Why do national cemeteries even exist? In my view, these are political questions. The existence and use of a public cemetery for the funerals of certain persons who are deemed entitled to burial there is an act of political expression and should not be protected from other political speech.