Funeral Picketing:
Fred Phelps, a cruel parody of a Christian, has pioneered the practice of protesting people's funerals. Starting with the 1980s, he and his people picketed funerals of gays while carrying signs saying things like "God Hates Fags." Now, they picket funerals of soldiers with signs saying things like "Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (the theory being that God is punishing America for its toleration of homosexuality).
Delightful. But is it constitutionally protected? A bunch of readers asked me to blog about this, so I composed this piece for National Review Online to answer that question.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Federal District Court Strikes Down Parts of Funeral Picketing Ban,
- Funeral Picketing:
- ACLU Backs Funeral Picketers:
- AP Error About Funeral Picketing Restriction Makes Its Way Into New York Times:
- More on Newly Passed Federal Anti-Funeral-Picketing Bill:
- Congress Enacts Anti-Funeral-Picketing Bill:
- Funeral Picketing:
- Funeral Picketing:
Something can be rude without being illegal. It least I care not for such intrusive laws. Part of our task is to encourage people to recognize bad behavior for what it is and why and to be quick enough to label it contemptable.
Surely there are other blogs on the subject. This ought to be part of ordinary schooling and it is not. Furthermore, what passes for character education neither shows character nor educates.
Your piece suggests a direct application of the distance limitations from the residential picketing cases (e.g. 200 or 300 feet) to content-neutral funeral-picketing laws. Do you think it's possible that a larger zone may be permissible in the funeral context because a cemetery tends to be open ground, where a protest is "focused" on a single funeral even if it is 300 feet away. Could a ban limited to places "within 1000 feet and in the direct line of site of the grave" be permissible?
As to his funding, it is mainly donations from like minded individuals and his "church." And of course, creative accouting, like getting a swimming pool written off as a tax deduction by claiming it as a "baptisimal pool."
http://www.patriotguard.org/
Why do you call Fred Phelps a “cruel parody of a Christian”? By all accounts, he is a committed Christian, and he is serious. While fortunately he is not a mainstream Christian, what he is doing is a result of his Christian beliefs.
I think it would be the same take-to-the-logical-extreme-endpoint argument that makes Alan Keyes a cruel parody of a Republican.
Phelps argues that homosexuals should not be allowed to get straight, but should die in their sin. Phelps is indeed a cruel parody. Of course, he was a lawyer--and a very successful civil rights attorney before he was disbarred. I guess a better description is that Phelps is pretty seriously messed up.
The idea that every form of expression is Constitutionally protected is rather like those who argue that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of individuals to own helicopter gunships, tanks, battleships, and nuclear weapons, or the person who argues that guarantees about search and seizure would apply to a terrorist transporting a ton of nerve gas into the United States. Logically quite elegant; practically insane; and for which the historical evidence of Founders' intent is either lacking or clearly false.
Public ownership is not the same as public access, of course--the Pentagon is publicly owned, but not public access--but cemeteries are usually open to the public to visit. I don't see any legal strategy that avoids confronting the freedom of expression question.
Really? and I thought Robert Spitzer only interviewed 200 handpicked ex-gays 78% of whom wrote favorably about changing sexual orientation prior to the study.
Further more, Dr. Spitzer is also on the record condemning the conclusion you just made.
I defy anyone to cite the scripture or recognized church doctrine that authorizes Phelps' evident joy at the prospect of people (he thinks) going to Hell, or his sneering cruelty toward family members of the deceased. This is not Christianity taken to its logical extreme, but a perversion of it.
Not that I believe a judge would give that much more consideration than a short funny look in my direction....
I haven't checked Tushnet's source, but have always found her trustworthy. I've also read in several places that Phelps is a registered Democrat, and has even run for office as such, contrary to the impression one would get from most people who mention him.
I don't entirely disagree, but it is worth noting that the analogous situations you describe were beyond contemplation when the Bill of Rights was written, hence not implicitly endorsed by the framers decision not to exclude them. But idiots like Phelps were about as common then as now. If the framers wanted to exclude very offensive speech from First Amendment protection, they could have done so. I think this argues for a broader interpretation of the First Amendment than, say, the Second.
I keep waiting for Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Dr. Dobson, whatshisname from the Catholic League, etc. to come out and say, publically, loudly, and unequivocally, "Phelps is no Christian; his views are a perversion of everything that Christianity stands for; he's either a psychopath, or a demagogue, or both; and he'd better change his behavior and good Christians everywhere should pray for his immortal soul, 'cause otherwise judgment day will be very unpleasant for him"
. . . and yet they don't.
9/11 being a signal of God's anger; they'll say that; hurricanes being a signal from God; they'll say that, or support people who say it, and still get invited to White House prayer breakfasts.
On the other hand, who am I to interfere if my political enemies want to help me paint my picture of them?
I keep waiting for Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Dr. Dobson, whatshisname from the Catholic League, etc. to come out and say, publically, loudly, and unequivocally, "Phelps is no Christian; his views are a perversion of everything that Christianity stands for; he's either a psychopath, or a demagogue, or both; and he'd better change his behavior and good Christians everywhere should pray for his immortal soul, 'cause otherwise judgment day will be very unpleasant for him"
. . . and yet they don't.
9/11 being a signal of God's anger; they'll say that; hurricanes being a signal from God; they'll say that, or support people who say it, and still get invited to White House prayer breakfasts.
On the other hand, who am I to interfere if my political enemies want to help me paint my picture of them?
Sort of like Clayton Cramer.
Funny thing is that, depsite being morons, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed are Republicans. Phelps proudly proclaims his allegiance to the Democratic Party. He even helped Al Gore when he ran for the nomination in 1988.
Maybe you should be calling on Jesse Jackson to denounce him, since he's a Christian Democratic leader.
PS - I think we all agree, however, that Robertson and Falwell saying 9/11 was the wrath of God was pretty stupid, and showed them for the fools they are.
I heard (or rather read on the G-File a few years ago) that Missouri passed a statute that made beating up someone for desecrating the American flag a misdemeanor punishable by a fifty dollar fine. Apparently there was a movement to make the fine “pre-payable.”
Or perhaps they could hold that so long the rules are “content neutral” that cities or States can ban loud disturbances in a cemetery the same way that a public library can require you to keep the noise level to a minimum or leave.
The idea that every form of expression is Constitutionally protected is rather like those who argue that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of individuals to own helicopter gunships, tanks, battleships, and nuclear weapons, or the person who argues that guarantees about search and seizure would apply to a terrorist transporting a ton of nerve gas into the United States.
As another has already noted, the idea that you can compare something which was clearly in the contemplation of the framers (obnoxious or unpleasant speech) with something beyond their contemplation (nuclear weapons, for example) is unreasonable. Personally, I believe that any person who can "bear" a battleship should be free to do so on the grounds that our efforts to the contrary are unlikely to dissuade Superman from his chosen course of action. (The right to keep is not the right to use, after all.)
Frankly, it is a lot easier to distinguish between what weapons people may bear on the grounds of the potential harm at issue than it is to distinguish between speech which people simply don't like, and speech which is actually likely to cause serious harm. Once you admit that the First Amendment is not truly absolute, it becomes a test of public policy as to which exceptions should be allowed. The mere fact that, historically, the promise of free speech was not held to guarantee very much is hardly adequate reasoning to deny such in the future.
How would one further guarantee free speech in this context? Pass a new amendment with the same words? Or perhaps add "this time we really mean it!" Otherwise the amendment would have to be more restrictive on its text, because it would have to list certain things, but not others - and inevitably lead to problems with certain ideas or forms of expression or circumstances being overlooked - wouldn't that compel textualists to argue that our freedoms were further restricted?
The remaining comment is just silly, because it assumes the conclusion it wishes to reach. If you know someone is a terrorist and has a ton of nerve gas, you're hardly breaking the 4th Amendment when you search that person. If you don't, you're back to searching everyone without any particular cause. Perhaps that is justified, perhaps not - but such would still clearly violate the 4th Amendment.
the best thing is to totally ignore him and stay as far away as possible. In that way, we will all be doing a lot to deprive him on his income.
Sounds like Phelps is really a scientologist.
You beat me to it. He seemed to have been gone for a while; that was nice.
Something of an Archimedian feat, that.
The only two originalist ways to read the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the right only as to those firearms that have been invented at the time (and currently belong in a museum), or that it protects my right to C4 and Big Boy.
On the other hand, the first amendment was rather weak from an originalist standpoint. It was not considered at odds with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and "abridging the freedom of speech" seems to have nothing to do with the government determining what can and be done on government property - though originalists would also have to consider the use of certain types of government property as free speech zones in the 18th century.
I'm sure their is a court case, or more, out there that can be cited. I'd enjoy reading precedent.
You write: "IED claims generally require that the emotional distress be a result of/accompanied by physical injury, negligently inflicted."
I don't think that's right. *Intentional* infliction of emotional distress cases don't typically require any kind of physical injury at all. It just requires intentional conduct that the defendant knows or should know is "outragreous" that actually does inflict severe emotional distress.
Courts traditionally required some sort of contact or injury for *negligent* infliction of emotional distress (although a number of courts don't even require that anymore). But if there was an emotion distress claim made in a case like this, I assume it would be intentional inflction, not negligent infliction.
No, the 1st amendments protects you from the government infringing your speech.
It's not really content specific, though if the speech includes some sort of crime, that crime is forbideen (not really the speech). Like if I ask someone to kill my spouse, that's forbideen, but only because of the crime included. Same thing with 'fire' in a theatre.
But beyond speech that includes a crime, the 1st amendment means that the government cannot infringe on any speech. Whether it has anything to do with the government or not. I can protest the cocacola if I want.
Conversely, of course, the 1st amendment does not protect your speech from private individuals. I can't say whatever I want on this blog because it's privately owned and I dont' own it.
While it may take Superman to carry a battleship, it doesn't take Superman to carry a vial of anthrax nor, if we develop one, a suitcase nuke.
Your first two paragraphs is why I asked my question. If the 1st Amendmenet protects "me from the government infringing my speech", then what protects Fred Phelps from me infringing on his speech? Conversly, why does the 1st amendment protect his rights to infringe on my rights to peaceably assemble to memorialize a soldier, yet not protect my rights to infringe on his speech.
My understanding from civics class is that what you say is true, and that Fred Phelps is within his rights. But I hope you understand the logic I'm using and can tell me where it is wrong. I suspect a yelling contest to drown each other out is acceptable, but somehow I think all of us would be up in arms if the federal government used the same tactic (e.g. Bush playing Country Music from loud speakers to drown out protests in Lafayette Park).
On a more practical level, what prosecutor in their right mind would press charges against someone attending a funeral of a soldier that was protested by Fred Phelps, who got upset and beat the shit out of him? And even if you could find a prosecutor silly enough to press charges against the funderal attendee (perhaps, on the ground of deterring vigilantism), what jury would convict him?
That's incorrect. First of all, according to this definition, the 1st Amdt. protects no speech that a state or Congress makes a crime. The 1st Amdt. is much broader than that.
It's also more narrow. There are content-neutral time, place and manner regulations that the government may infringe on. For example, the government could probably tell you that you are not allowed to use a loud-speaker near a school, without making it a crime.
Dustin, I'm not sure if you read the Volokh piece, but I recommend you go back and read it, before speaking authoritatively on the Bill of Rights.
Due Process, Equal Protection?
The comments are mostly irrelevant, but there's a long post by Stu_Padasso regarding Phelps-as-litigation-machine that's worth a reading. I can't link to that comment directly but you can use "find in page" to search for "Stu_Padasso"
It is a tribute to military self-discipline that no one hasn't, already. Sure, he can sue, but a jury is the conscience of the community, and the conscience of the community wants the crap beaten out of him.
While at Interior, I was told how this principle was used when KKK applied for a permit to protest near Martin Luther King's grave (apparently on government property) on his birthday. The agency responded yes, you have a perfect right to the permit. However, all of our park police will be tied up elsewhere that day. Good luck. I was told the KKK withdrew its application.
So you would agree that freedom of the press and of speech does not apply to television and radio broadcasting? Those are certainly beyond the Framers' contemplation in the same way that nuclear weapons were.
It demonstrates that the freedom of speech and of the press didn't mean to the bunch that passed it what you want it to mean today. There might be an argument for unlimited freedom of speech and the press (meaning that laws against child pornography go away, running snuff movies in storefront TVs becomes lawful, libel and slander of private parties is lawful, incitement to riot ceases to be a crime, treason that consists entirely of speech ceases to be a crime), but it isn't based on the First Amendment.
Look at the meaning of the term "arms" at the time. It is a stretch to argue that it included battleships. Privateer warships certainly existed, and there is a specific provision of the Constitution for granting letters of marque and reprisal. However, "bear arms" implies weapons that one can pick up and carry.
In practice, small arms are generally all that is necessary to make a thuggish government reconsider its ways. Enough small arms and you can capture the helicopter gunships.
And yes, the primary objective was to fight the government, but the right to defend oneself from criminals was assumed. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the rights of Englishmen.
Dr. Spitzer said "However, to my horror, some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any homosexual who makes the effort."
You said previously "About half of homosexuals who make a serious effort to do so manage to change not just their behavior, but their orientation"
Which is certainly not the case. Incidentally, even the details of the study that I linked to (which btw is at an Exodus affiliate, or "ex-gay ministry) don't indicate a change in orientation even from a HAND PICKED sample. All it shows is that people SELF REPORT FEWER thoughts related to same sex attractions and in some cases self report a degree of heterosexual attraction. The flaw in that of course is that a straight person (by definition I think its reasonable to claim that an ex-gay person purports to be heterosexual and not homosexual) wouldn't have ANY thoughts of homosexual attraction particularly.
Damaged from what? There's no direct evidence of a gay gene of course, although that's not to say there's no evidence of a strong biological component to sexuality (which incidentally implies more strongly the influence of the pre-natal womb). A good example of early evidence suggesting a link between genetics and sexuality is this story by CBS News (fortunately Dan Rather did not contribute in any way to this report).
It seems like you're throwing out a lot of misinformation and old stereotypes rejected by the majority of mental health organizations today (there's NARTH and... who else? that shares your view?) and it seems you're doing so with very little science to back up your positions.
Who let Clayton Cramer out of the dark ages? Please send him back.
Sedition Act? There was no federal blasphemy law (to my knowledge), but such state laws were on the books at the time, and New York enforced such a law as late as 1815 (if I recall correctly).
Are you saying that these ex-gays weren't REALLY homosexual before? Oh my, yet another redefinition of homosexuality as convenient.
As I have mentioned before, at least one survey done by the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health found that 28% of gay men reported having been sexually abused as children, as did 48% of lesbians. (That's about 3x what you would expect for the men, and about 1.5x for the women.) Some also reported in that survey that they had only recently recovered memories of that abuse.
Hmmm. You have a population with a different sexual orientation; high rates of drug and alcohol abuse (as is also common among straight survivors of childhood sexual abuse), and a large subgroup for whom sexuality is heavily tied to pain, violence, humiliation, and what are normally considered childish obsessions with excretory products--and another subgroup that engages in insulting parodies of normal gender (the extremely effeminate fraction of gay men; the diesel dyke fraction of lesbians). I've also talked to way too many homosexuals (male and female) who report either sexual abuse as children, or insist that at 11 they were actively pursuing strange adult men for sex--but insist that this is just coincidence. And then there is the rather strange relationship that homosexual activists have with NAMBLA--formerly quite accepting of them, now claiming, "They aren't part of our community." Do you suppose that there might just be a connection there?
It may not be that every homosexual is that way because of childhood sexual abuse--but there's enough bits and pieces that make you wonder.
1/3rd of straight women were sexually abused as children? I'm sorry, but are you getting these numbers from the Institute of Clay Cramer's Ass? [I'm usually not so shrill, but this is ridiculous].
How do you feel about blog commenters who engage in insulting parodies of normal human beings?
I notice that you don't have any substantative response to my question. Look: I used to believe that homosexuals were just like everyone else, except for who they loved. I grew up in the 1970s. I remember when California repealed the sodomy law in 1975, and I could not for the life of me understand why all these preachers were up there talking about what an abomination homosexuality was. Hey, whatever feels good, do it!
But then I moved to the Bay Area--and I found that all those vicious stereotypes of homosexuals were alive and kicking. Guys dressed up as the world's most unconvincing women, looking for customers in the Tenderloin. Women smoking big fat cigars, wearing chains for belts, and generally behaving like the most insulting parodies of blue collar men. Adult guys behaving like 12 year old girls (which in itself is an interesting item--like someone is emotionally stuck at the age that something bad happened). Women who clearly hate men (which, really, isn't too surprising, if they were the victims of sexual abuse--and I knew a few marriages that broke up because the wife's sexual abuse history eventually caused her to leave for a woman). Guys having completely anonymous sex with a dozen strangers in an afternoon, face down on a couch, without even ever seeing who is sodomizing them.
Not every homosexual I met fit into these stereotypes--but I met an awful lot who did--in fact, more than I met who were otherwise normal and mentally healthy. After I saw that San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey, I dug into into the materials on child sexual abuse, and the paraphilias associated with survivors had an uncanny similarity to many of the more peculiar subgroups of the gay community.
Where did you pull THAT from exactly? I think there are 3 possible interpretations to the study. 1) the self reported people lied because they had too much of an industry based on their claim, with 78% choosing to actively write on the matter and no contact with the subjects when they claimed to have a homosexual orientation this cannot be ruled out. 2) It is possible that some level of perceived change occurred. Although the study does not conclude that a signifigant number of the participants (most of the focus of the study seems to be on 20 people, or 10% of the participants from the hand picked sample) had a 100% change from being predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexexual it is possible they self identify as ex-gay because they perceive that a change has occurred (and that goes for whether any such change occurred or not, this is a study of perceptions afterall). 3. It is entirely possible that the men and women in this study who experienced a degree of change or perceived change are in fact bisexual. Although the word bisexual is not, I believe, used in the study it is clear that the study finds a pattern of mixed sexual attractions as self reported between the two studied time frames. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that a bisexual with predominantly homosexual attractions but also attractions for a heterosexual partner may alter the balance to having predominately heterosexual attractions.
I'm aware of most of the literature you're referring to about abuse rates and such, but this? I don't suppose you have a reference you can show me for Coprophilia rates among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals do you?
Another thing I'm curious about. Can you provide a recent (within the last 10 to 15 years if possible) quote of support from a gay group to that group of child molesting sickos? I'm aware the left-wing ACLU supports their speech rights but I'm not aware of any literature with a direct link from homosexual groups and NAMBLA.
About 1994, I was still debating homosexuals in the Internet newsgroup soc.motss about this--with many defending NAMBLA's involvement in gay parades. Of course, the ILGA lost its observer status at the UN because of NAMBLA's involvement--and when ILGA kicked NAMBlA out--they lost their budget, and became a moribund organization. A number of the financial angels for ILGA were terribly offended by excluding NAMBLA and a Dutch equivalent pedophile group.
I'm sure that responsible gay groups no longer defend NAMBLA, because it is bad PR, and because some homosexuals REALLY hate child molesters. But I read a very depressing account of what happened when the No on 9 campaign was organizing itself in Oregon, a few years back. One gay activist who was there described in soc.motss watching the various parties spend a couple of hours trying to find a way to exclude NAMBLA, without offending other groups, like Radical Faeries, who consider NAMBLA an affiliate organization.
I find it appalling that you include the qualifier "some." As someone who knows a lot of gay people, and doesn't seem them through a foggy hatred prism, I can honestly tell you that all gay people, just like all straight people, hate child molesters. To be sure, most child molesters are straight - just as most people are.
"you and I both know" is not objective peer reviewed science. Its a specious and unsupportable claim that is meant to smear (in this case quite literally) homosexuals. I'm aware of no homosexual man or woman who is involved with has ever been involved with, or has any interest in BEING involved with coprophillia or coprophagia for that matter.
I HAVE of course heard the claim before, but always from very socially conservative sources with little or no reference material to back it up.
So, you're saying you have no direct evidence for your claim again, you're pointing out that ILGA did in fact exclude NAMBLA from their activities and yet you assume the only reason NAMBLA is not recognized by gay groups is "bad politics" even though you don't support this assertion.
As for your debates in a newsgroup, I could just as easily make broad judgements about Republicans on a message board (how about Free Republic?) or Democrats (Do people honestly think Democratic Underground is representative?) but that doesn't mean its what the average political party member thinks, its the opinion of a few radicals.
I feel neither obliged, nor entitled, to call upon any Christian public figure, whether Marxist, radiclib, neocon, or paleocon, or even Whig, to say or do anything. Been and been called many things; a Christian isn't one of them. If a co-religionist of mine starts doing stuff as publically offensive as Phelps' crap in the name of MY religion, I'll squawk loud.
Q:
"Archemedian"? As in:
sets fire to ships with big polished shields?
claws up the fronts of ships with big sharp thingies?
runs through the street naked yelling "Eureka" after discovering the way to measure density by displacement?
proves that the area and volume of the sphere are in the same ratio to the area and volume of a circumscribed straight cylinder?
You'll need to be more specific, or less classically obscure...
rfgs
Don't forget the getting speared from behind while doodling in the sand.
And 9 out of 10 vocally anti-gay conservatives turn out to be either gay themselves or to have gay children whose lives they make hell. So which one are you Clayton? Why is this such a huge issue to you? The hard line against child abuse itself is good and admirable. But the obsession with homosexuals is just a bit creepy. Is Idaho's massive gay population putting that much of a crimp in your style?
Rep Rogers (R-MI) has dropped a bill in the House and Senator Bayh (D-IN) and Senator Chambliss (R-GA) have dropped a bill in the Senate that would severely restrict these types of demonstrations. Will one of the "chosen few" who provide such great insight on legal issues pull the bills and provide comments on the potential challenges of such legislation?
Thanks
Huh? How can you not be able to decriminalize something? The constitution does not criminalize behavior on its own, nor does it require behavior to be criminalized (not even slavery), so a legislative statement to the effect that something is legal, or repealing a prohibition, could not be seen to be unconstitutional.
Civil liability is more tricky, but even then, except in the case of a civil rights violation by the government, or a violation of the 13th amendment, I don't see how a legislature could not eliminate civil liability for non-governmental parties. The constitution does not regulate private behavior, except for the 13th amendment. So, the elimination of civil liability for non-governmental parties could not be unconstitutional.
That leaves a court's inherent authority to assess civil penalties, such as in the context of contempt proceedings. But my understanding is that civil contempt is limited to situations where the court is enforcing its own orders (prospectively), not punishing someone for past behavior (that's criminal contempt). The lines defining criminal contempt are set by the legislature, are not part of any inherent authority of the courts, and must be enforced by juries. A court would have a very hard time shoehorning a civil penalty for battering Fred Phelps into a civil contempt fine.
So I repeat the question, why not just create an exemption to the battery laws for people who react violently to funeral disruptors? My guess is that this would serve as a powerful deterrant to Fred Phelps and his ilk.
Kinda blows some people's conclusions about me....
Perhaps he should find out.
At least you didn't wait till marriage! Sorry, Randy, that's a cheap shot :-(
I do have some sympathy for the slippery slope argument put forth by Volokh in his NR piece. The same argument applies in the abortion and same-sex marriage arena.
How do you think a decriminilation of battery against blacks would fare, constitutionally? Or of battery against women? Against Democrats? Scientologists? People criticizing George Bush?
--Philistine
You might want to move to Los Angeles or San Francisco for a while. It will open your eyes.
ILGA excluded NAMBLA only after substantial debate, and because they had to do so to maintain their UN observer status--and the internal debate within the gay activist population was so acrimonious that the major funders of the ILGA cut them off for doing so. This is a sign of a really seriously split movement.
Based on my experiences living in the San Francisco Bay Area, Democratic Underground represents a sizeable fraction of Democrats.
I've been married for 26 years, and neither of my children is gay. Part of my concern about homosexuality is:
1. NAMBLA was an accepted participant in San Francisco gay pride parades (as well as New York City's) for many years. Only after it became a political inconvenience did they suddenly start getting booed.
2. When undercover reporters for San Francisco channel 4 showed up for a NAMBLA meeting in a meeting room at the San Francisco Public Library, it produces a short burst of questions. The appropriate gay leaders asserted that of course NAMBLA wasn't gay, and had nothing to do with the gay community. The reporter asked Roberta Achtenberg, a S.F. county supervisor if this was the case, why four out of five gay bookstores in San Francisco carried NAMBLA's publication, "BulliTEN." ("Ten," as in an age--get it?) Her only response was that the First Amendment protected freedom of speech. That's a crock--there's no obligation for a private bookstore to carry any publication.
3. ACLU is not only defending NAMBLA in a civil suit that alleges NAMBLA published materials on how to rape children and get away with it, but they argued in the Limon case that teenagers had a "due process liberty interest" in having sex with adults. True, this isn't necessarily a complete bar to any government regulation--but it wasn't the minor who was being prosecuted in Limon--it was the adult. The ACLU was arguing that laws that interfered with minors having sex with adults were suspect. How...interesting.
4. Idaho doesn't have a huge gay population (or at least they aren't having sex in public places). As near as I can tell, most gay Idahoans would prefer to be left alone, and vice versa. My experience in the Bay Area is that once critical mass is reached, like other identity politics groups, they insist on imposing their will on others.
5. There were a lot of very disturbing aspects to the gay community's power in the Bay Area. The Bodega Bay deputy fire chief, for example, was openly gay. He also kept getting arrested supplying alcohol to 14 and 15 year old boys. Most people would correctly recognize the gross impropriety of that; he insisted that it was just homophobia.
6. In much the same way that a small number of wealthy and powerful slave owners corrupted the legal and political system of the United States, homosexual activists (and let me emphasize that most homosexuals aren't activists, and many just want to be left alone) have corrupted the legal system of the U.S., striking down the authority of the voters to amend state constitutions, and imposing same-sex marriage on the states through judicial activism.
7. The gay community doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about rape. Doe v. Capital Cities et al., 50 Cal. App. 4th 1038 (1996):
By the way, a footnote identifies who these rapists are:
Some of these are pretty common names, so Google doesn't help much. There is a Fred Goss in the entertainment business, and his web page talks about "Goss, along with his partner, Nick Holly..." as does this page. There is also a columnist named Fred Goss who writes opera reviews for The Advocate (a gay newspaper). I don't know if these are the same guy. It seems most unlikely that one or the other of these self-identified gay men named Fred Goss isn't the rapist named in this lawsuit. It seems extremely unlikely that there are three gay men all named Fred Goss in the entertainment and arts business. I guess drugging and raping someone isn't a big issue in some circles.
8. Puberty is a very difficult and sometimes sexually confusing time. Where I lived in California, teachers strongly encouraged homosexuality. One of my daughter's friends came out of one of those homes that fit the Freudian model perfectly: weak and emotionally absent father; strong and domineering mother. Noah was very effeminate--and even though he had not actually defined himself as gay yet (he was still in middle school), his teachers were encouraging him to think of himself as gay. (I guess it made them feel so liberal.) Eventually, he rose to the occasion, and by high school, he was hanging out in the men's rooms at the community college, providing servicing to random strangers. I'm sure that his middle school teachers were so proud of what they caused.
9. There is enough evidence to make me suspect a connection between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality. It may not explain every homosexual; it might only explain the most outrageously and obviously self-destructive expressions, such as the gay man who spends his time cruising public restrooms and gay bathhouses for anonymous sex. (This isn't that rare; soc.motss used to be full of gay men defending this as a wonderful way of life.)
One of the reasons that the APA ended up removing homosexuality from DSM-III is that none of the models that they had for homosexuality fit every case. Hormones? It fit a very few cases, but not many. The weak father, domineering mother Freudian model? It fit some cases, but usually did not.
I don't believe that the psychiatric community ever examined a possible sexual abuse connection (although a number of experts in sexual abuse clearly have thought about it, and some have dropped hints in their books that there might be a connection), partly because in 1973, it was not yet known how widespread sexual abuse of children was.
Furthermore, it appears that the APA was looking for a single cause of homosexuality, and there may well be multiple causes. This may be why none of the different theories (including the genetic ones) seem to be consistent across multiple studies; there may be multiple causes.
My concern is that legitimate examination of this connection has been completely stifled in the scientific community--because that would imply that homosexuality, at least some forms of it, is traumatic in origin--and gay pride prevents any examination of it. Even prominent gay people who have publicly acknowledged being sexually molested as minors--like Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres--often insist that there was no connection to their adult sexuality. Call me skeptical.
One difficulty with the "fighting words" doctrine from Chaplinsky is that while those particular examples might have qualified as such back then, almost any list of "fighting words" that is correct for one year will be irrelevant twenty years later. This reduces us to writing vague laws that prohibit use of language that qualifies as "fighting words" but leaving them undefined.
I am profoundly offended by Phelps's actions at these funerals--something that he started when he picketed Randy Shilits's funeral in San Francisco many years ago. A funeral is a rather special situation, in that people that are present are grieving a loss, and such actions are likely to provoke an overreaction in a way that they would not at say, a wedding.
Even if it were not at a funeral, I would find Phelps's language profoundly disturbing and unnecessary--but I suppose a society that tolerates much of the crap that gets displayed on movie screens can certainly tolerate Phelps's temper tantrums.
So gay activists, representing a group that, until recently, has had the least political and social power of just about any demographic in the country, who were regularly beaten, abused, discriminated against, etc., are the equivalent of wealthy slave owners who were the dominant social, economic, and legal forces in their society?
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with a tiny minority of gays in your days in Califorian. It was clearly so scarring that you have lost the ability to reason or see things in perspective.
The gay community doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about rape.
And this is based on one court decision about a man being raped and your speculation that there may have been a known gay writer involved? On this basis any sane person would have to conclude that the heterosexual community (of which, by the way, I am a part) not only permits all manner of sexual abuse, but condones it fully. Did you know that heterosexual men actually rape people every day? Shocking isn't it. And some of these men don't even serve time in prison! The heterosexual menace must be stopped!
Oh, and a kid you know turned out gay and likes to blow men in bathrooms. This is an excellent and irrefutable basis for a larger argument about homosexuality.
I do take comfort in the fact that most of US society is not nearly as obsessed with finding any possible reason to condemn gays and lesbians as you are. I'm fully confident that most states in the US will eventually recognize that people should have the right to marry whomever they want and that people with opinions like yours will be justifiably viewed as the equivalent of people who objected to mixed race marriages and educating blacks. So enjoy your last moments of sputtering hatred. Reason will win out and you'll be left behind.
Today, the problem is that antidiscrimination laws are beginning to be used to suppress the right of conscience--for example, a print shop owner in Seattle who did not want to print gay wedding announcements--and was fined for refusing to do so.
I'm not sure that it was a tiny minority.
Give me a list of heterosexual men who commit rape and yet continue to hold influential jobs in their communities.
You are starting to argue like a homosexual: a failure to understand that giving one example does not mean that there are not other examples.
More gay argumentation style.
"Oh yeah? Your argument is totally gay!"
I think the kids would say you just got pwned
More gay argumentation style.
This is getting fun. The more I let CC talk the more idiotic he sounds. So is "a failure to understand that giving one example does not mean that there are not other examples" somehow inherently linked to a sexual attraction to people of the same gender? Of is this a result of child sex abuse? What exactly is a "gay argumentation style"? I hate to break it to you, CC, but the syllogism was invented by men who liked little boys (though I'm not sure if they also enjoyed eating shit). Does this mean that anytime you employ logic that you're using a "pedophilic argumentation style"? Or do I argue like a homosexual because you just assume that while making my argument I also happen to be contemplating how to redo my living room?
By the way, I strongly agree that the poor man in Seattle should not have been fined over refusing to print the wedding invitation. I'm also against hate-crime laws. But to state that gays somehow hold the same type of power in our society that wealthy slave owners did in their's is just absurd. How many gays have been elected president? How many are serving in the Senate? How many head major corporations?
But please, I'd prefer that you elaborate on the gay arguments and what it means to argue like a homosexual. I want to be sure to avoid such "phallacies" is the future. Get it?!? 'Cause it sounds like the word for penis!!!
No thanks, not everyone wants to associate with someone interested in fecal matter as a sexual experience, why you chose to for any length of time is your business.
You recently said: "I feel neither obliged, nor entitled, to call upon any Christian public figure, whether Marxist, radiclib, neocon, or paleocon, or even Whig, to say or do anything."
You confuse me, for your first post said: "I keep waiting for Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Dr. Dobson, whatshisname from the Catholic League, etc. to come out and say, publically, loudly, and unequivocally, "Phelps is no Christian; his views are a perversion of everything that Christianity stands for; he's either a psychopath, or a demagogue, or both; and he'd better change his behavior and good Christians everywhere should pray for his immortal soul, 'cause otherwise judgment day will be very unpleasant for him"
. . . and yet they don't."
Um, if this isn't calling on someone to say something, perhaps I don't understand the English language as well as I thought I did.
Or is it that you only feel that you should call out Republican Christian leaders, and give Democrats a free pass, especially since Phelps is a Democrat?
Oh come on, first of all I've yet to see any evidence that Phelps is REALLY a registered Democrat, I believe someone posted that they "thought" they read somewhere that he was. Even if he IS a registered Democrat... Isn't that a bit like calling Timothy McVeigh or David Duke a republican? They may belong to a particular political party but they don't necessarily reflect the views of most people in the party and aren't necessarily defended on the basis of party membership.
My point was never that he was representative of the Democratic party. My point was that R Gould seemed to jump to the (incorrect) assumption he was a Republican, probably due to stereotyping. Additionally, when it was pointed out that Phelps was a Democrat, he tried to backtrack and say it wasn't his place to call on anyone to denounce him. However, he had no trouble calling for denouncement when he thought the guy was a Republican.
Every Democrat I know finds Phelps offensive, and I would expect no less. My point was the stereotype played up by R Gould that he seems to think Republicans are all homophobes, bigots, etc, and had done exactly zero research on Phelps' background.
Read this string and NEVER TAKE CLAYTON CRAMER SERIOUSLY ON ANY MATTER AGAIN.
Religious leaders on the right, with close connections to the present administration (Jesse Jackson? Has GWB been inviting him to a lot of prayer breakfasts lately?) also have close affiliation with folks who've said stuff like "Homosexuals are an offense to God and God's going to punish (or "is punishing") the U.S. for tolerating openly homosexual conduct". Phelps' pronouncements are, as Doc Volokh said originally, a
parody of that position, and one that I thought would be too close for comfort for some real Christians.
My original note ("I'm waiting..." ) was not a call for right-wing (or other) Christian leaders to do anything; they probably won't give two rats' legs for my opinions, or those of other self-described leftist Buddhists generally. I was simply thinking that it'd be a good tactical idea for them to distance themselvews from Phelps, so as not to provide folks like me opportunity to point our the similarity...