Earlier this month, Log Cabin stood alone among gay groups praising Mary Cheney for telling her story and acknowledging her father’s (Vice President Dick Cheney) outspoken opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, noting that it was “the only time since being sworn in as Vice President that he publicly expressed disagreement with the President.” A state Log Cabin leader reminded me that yesterday Log Cabin once again praised a Republican, this time applauding the president for signing legislation banning protests at military funerals.
Fred Phelps, an anti-gay pastor, not satisfied just to protest at funerals of gays, had begun to protest at the funerals of servicemen and women who died fighting the war of Terror. That Kansas Democrat claimed “the fallen service members deserve their fate because of this country’s tolerance of gay and lesbian people.” Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero said that the new law, the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, “gives the families of America’s fallen heroes the dignity and respect they deserve.”
The law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance to a national cemetery as well as within 150 feet of a road leading to the cemetery. It’s unfortunate that crackpots like Phelps have to make spectacles of themselves by dishonoring the dead in order to attract media attention. This creep makes Madonna’s publicity stunts seem banal by comparison.
While I’m always skeptical of laws designed to limit protest, even those of creeps like Phelps, in this case, legislation seemed necessary in order to allow the families of our fallen heroes a chance to mourn their loved ones in a dignified manner. Given that this new law has been narrowly tailored, it should mass constitutional muster.
Congress and the president did the right thing. Kudos to Patrick Guerriero and Log Cabin for praising the president on this one.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.5037.eh:
Here’s a location for the text.
I don’t agree with the law on constitutitonal grounds. I also am troubled by how the law elevates the right to privacy for grieving military families above that of the general population, affording their families individual rights others do not recieve. We must be weary of military service becoming the basis for a class system.
Actually, having read the law just now, it is indeed narrowly crafted. Though I still feel it runs amouk of constitutional protections. However, I should clarify, it would be the state laws, which Section 4 specifically advocates for in seeking to “restrict demonstrations near any military funeral”, that elevate the rights of military families over those of the civilian population.
I assume, then, that you also object to the corresponding restrictions on abortion protests.
The military are why you can sit there writing this nonsense.
Here in Michigan we just passed a similar state law –nearly unanimous. The legislators who objected did so on the grounds that it was an unnecessary restriction on free speech. No one –either as editors, pundits, radio talk hosts or legislators– objected because it placed the military “class” above the rights of “regular” people.
What a load.
It’s troubling that no one here has mentioned that Phelps’ funeral protests have been going on long before the Iraq war even started. Families of gay people who were murdered endured this sick group’s protests for years (like many, I became aware of Phelps when Matthew Shepard’s was murdered). Where was the outcry from politicians (of any political party) then? Is it just that these nuts are protesting these funerals, or does it also include the fact that most of their signs read “god hates fags” and they don’t want their deceased loved ones being called a fag?
By the way, what’s the point of referring to Phelps as a “Kansas Democrat”? Seems to me that everyone who reads here agrees that Pehlps is a whack job who really has no political stance on anything. I notice a number of people harp on liberal gays for linking themselves to “nuts, crazies, etc” and miss the point of working to forward gay rights. seems to be you’re being disingenious by insinuating that all democrats linked to Phelps.
Kevin, fair point in the first paragraph.
As to the second paragraph, I called this nut case a Democrat because he is one. And were he a Republican, the media would mention that. So convinced are some in the MSM of GOP perfidy that CBS even labeled corrupt New Orleans Democratic Congressman Jefferson a Republican.
I still object to the law on constitutional grounds myself. Having said that, when it’s gutted or struck down by the courts I wouldn’t be opposed to a narrowly-tailored amendment…
I’m not sure I agree that it provides “military families” special rights, consider it in this light;
At a military funeral, part of the ceremonial is provided…if not presided over…by military representatives of the Federal government in the form of the honor guard, the bugler, and other former or current members of the military. The officer who presents the folded-flag is riually standing in for the U.S. Military and the Federal Government expressing public grief and respect on the behalf of the entire Nation. The military ceremonial is not a private act, it is a Public Act on the behalf of a “Grateful Nation”.
It is not the military families who are being protected, it is the “Public” ritual of the ceremonial…hence the Government’s interest in protecting and regulating that Public Act. I would suggest that it’s similar to laws preventing campaigning within so-many-feet of a open polling station; or the laws regulationg the dignity and manner of displaying the U.S Flag.
Out of curiousity, did you know that ONLY the U.S. Military may use and display a U.S. Flag with gold trim around the edges. Yet most public-display flags in courthouses, schools use them and are carried by honor guards.
rightwingprof in Number 4: why is it necessary for you to dismiss Erik’s comments as “nonsense”? I notice that quite often, when you disagree with someone’s opinion, you resort to insults and name-calling. You need to go back a few weeks and read GayPatriotWest’s plea for civility.
rightwingprof, it is true that the military protects our free speech, my speech, which you dismissed as nonsense.
But to make my point, lets use a case like Matthew Shepard’s. Why is it ok for Mr. Phelps group to be able to protest at the funerals of murdered homosexuals, while saying it is unlawful for him to protest at military funerals? Are the famlies of murdered homosexuals, like Mr. Shepard’s, less entightled to privacy in their bereavement than those of military soldiers?
When you have a law like that, that is what the government is saying. I simply am not comfortable with that. If you say Mr. Phelps can’t protest at certain funerals, namely military funerals, but can protest at all other funerals, you are making grieving military families a privledged class.
Ted B.,
The public ritual is not threatened by the protest. The protests, however despicable, are not violent and cause no disruptions, aside from provoking ocassional verbal reactions by the funeral attendees.
The aim of the legislation, that which legislators have expressed time and again, is to protect the family from having to deal with the unpleasentness of seeing the protest.
7: Would you have identified him as “That Kansas Republican” if he were a republican? I believe I read somewhere that Phelps said he stayed a democrat because “his party abandoned him, but he didn’t abandon it”. Seems to me that makes what ever move the democratic party made a step in the right direction for everybody’s sake.
8: I’m actually dismayed to see the ACLU in on this case (gasp). It seems clear that while other hate groups have been protected (ie the KKK marching the Skokie, IL years ago) there’s a big difference in the speech being delivered. In the case of “peaceful” protests by these groups, they generally stick to spouting their doctrine in general, making all efforts to carefully avoid direct racial slurs (which is known to be part of their ideals). In the case of Phelps, they are not there to espouse a specific doctrine, but instead to verbally harass and inflict emotional distress upon the participants of these funerals.
As it has been though, laws across the nation give more favor to punsh criminal conduct for criminals when it comes to military and law enforcement. The idea being (whether you agree or not) that groups like law enforcement are on the front line to stop criminals and therefore justice should be harsher for crimes against them, say stiffer sentences for murdering a police officer. Being that Phelps’ protests though are not a “crime” in the strict legal sense, then if this law was passed, it should have affected any and all funerals where Phelps shows up.
The text linked to in comment #1 doesn’t conform to the description of the law in GPW’s post.
The text linked to in #1 (HR 5037) purports to forbid demonstrations on grounds of military cemetaries without a permit (which I would analogize to a parade permit, and which, one would presume, would be issued on a “content neutral” basis), and within 500 feet of a military cemetary (which may include private property) between 60 minutes before and after a funeral there. The linked-to text doesn’t mention anything relating to 300 feet of the entrance of a military cemetary, or 150 feet of a road leading to the cemetary.
Which is correct?
Re #6 Kevin — May 31, 2006 @ 6:02 pm – May 31, 2006
By the way, what’s the point of referring to Phelps as a “Kansas Democrat”?
Because if the post characterized Phelps as a minister in a Baptist church in Kansas–which he is–all sorts of people here would be all in a tizzy. Same if the post characterized him as a lawyer (although I believe he’s been disbarred–but, even if he has been, that wouldn’t prevent him from bringing lawsuits pro se, as has been reported he has done).
Phelps is a self-promoter, regardless of whether he is registered as a Democrat (anyone can register themselves in any party he wants), a minister in a Baptist church, or a lawyer.
We must be weary of military service becoming the basis for a class system.
Are you kidding? If liberals could create a class of victims out of veterans, you can bet your ass they’d exploit it just like blacks, gays, Hispanics etc.
Kevin at #6; Erik later
I don’t know about other states, but here in Michigan we have been vocal about Phelps and the Klan and other hate groups (neo-Nazi being the most recent in May) hiding behind the 1st Amendment before the issue became a “media attention” darling at military funerals.
As I wrote here late last year, we have been confronting these hate-mongers with civility, with truth, with donuts and pizza for reporters and with all the PR sensitivities so that their message of HATE didn’t rule the day unassailed. We’ve done it with mariachi bands, formed human chains of tolerance, brought together prayer groups, and other efforts.
It works; I’d suggest you try to motivate others in your state to do the same.
At other points in comments here, people raise the spectre of Matthew Shepard as some kind of icon of gay hate crime and heinous murder. While I agree his death was heinous, the early PR buzz about it being a “hate crime” –despite Prez Clinton’s best efforts to make that view a reality– has been discredited.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
Shepard was a troubled, likely depressed, drug addicted youth who already had an entire life’s worth of sorrow at the tender age of 21. Unfortunately, his life before hooking up with McKinney & Henderson that night parallels the life of too many gay youths.
He isn’t worthy of poster boi status for gay hate crimes; there are many other far more compelling cases for that moniker. Sadly so.
As for the constitutional question, I reiterate my comment from when this came up before: Time, Place, Manner. You can’t regulate the content of a message, nor suppress it entirely, but you absolutely can regulate the time/place/manner of speech. This is a very well-established First Amendment principle.
They are a privileged class.
If you think calling nonsense nonsense is uncivil, then you need to start seeing a psychiatrist.
Apparently, none of the republicans here is able to reconcile the two versions of the law, proposed, passed, and pandered to by the republicans. No surprise.