This has been a year when several states have taken up restricting picketing at funerals. At least six states have placed limits on when and where the protests can take place and similar measures are pending in at least 12 more states. Now the U. S. Congress is taking up the issue. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said Wednesday he plans to introduce the Dignity for Military Funerals Act, which would require protesters to stay 300 feet from a funeral and is modeled in part after similar limits in six other states, including Indiana.
According to the Associated Press:
"Bayh's legislation would limit the area where protesters could gather an hour before and after funerals as well as while the services are under way."Meanwhile, Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Jeff Miller, R-Fla., announced separate plans to introduce legislation in the House that would require protesters to stand 500 feet from funerals.
"It is outrageous, appalling and indecent for an American citizen to commit perversions against a military family grieving at their loss,” Buyer said in a statement.
But attorney Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of a small Kansas church that has protested at several military funerals, said such a measure would infringe on First Amendment freedoms.
Kansas already has some limits on protests within 100 feet, but several states and, now with this annoucement, the federal government as well, have begun to look at expanding such limits to 300 feet. The Phelps group plans to go to Washington, D.C., next month to picket Congress.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Big fan though I am of free speech, funerals are pirvate events held on private property and primarily for invited guests. The idea of protestors at one is deeply offensive and keeping them 300 or 500 yards away seems more than reasonable.
Dave
2 - RedTard
It's really hard for me to go against freedom. Is this really enough of a problem to warrant an all encompassing law and a curbing of free speech? A very, very tiny minority of funerals are effected. The government cannot be expected to pass a law governing evey miniscule way a person can make an ass of themselves.
I'm not arguing that protesting a funeral is right, just pointing out that being free to do only the 'right' things isn't really freedom at all.
Perhaps we should just decrimalize the ass-kicking of funeral protesters instead.
3 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but it doesn' t really limit free speech, it just imposes a trespassing type limitation on a private function for a temporary period. The speech is still free, it just can't take place at a private event. You can stand outside the perimeter and say whatever you like.
Dave
4 - troll
RedTard - * The government cannot be expected to pass a law governing evey miniscule way a person can make an ass of themselves.*
unfortunately most governments can be expected to try to do just that
troll
5 - RedTard
All these tangled laws we pass in a knee jerk reaction to what some nutjobs did are burying the country.
What happens when a funeral is scheduled at a church near the 2012 Republican National Convention? Could the law be used to get rid of protesters?
Could the people at the Rosa Parks funeral who bashed the Prez be punished under the law? I don't know and we don't need supreme court cases to find out.
The guys at the Kansas church are assholes and passing an infinite number of laws can't change that. The government is not a weapon to be wielded against those you don't like, it is a referee who intervenes when conflicting rights are in play. The right to say something offensive in a public place should exist and probably trumps the freedom to be left in peace at a funeral. On private property it's a whole diferent ballgame.
If the protesters are trespassing then they should be restricted on current law, if not, then the harm to everyone's first amendment outweighs the damage protesters do at a very limited number of funerals.
6 - Naital
It's just government intervention to prevent one from comitting bad taste, and acting like trailer trash.
If you come to a funeral of which I am in attendance and demonstrate, I will personally kick your ass.
That is not a threat, it is a promise.
Go and placate your BS on someone elses time.
7 - ryan
I don't want to be a jerk, but I've never seen anything more prentious or delusion as your little "about me" blurb. "Supervisor at a major regional supermarket" Give me a break.
And the people who dance with signs on street corners should actually be referred to as "human directional advertisers"
8 - Sister Ray
Phelps' people have been hurling invective at gays' funerals for years. Apparently they didn't get enough attention then, and moved to a larger arena.
9 - Arch Conservative
The right to free speech does not give one the right to harass other citizens at a private event, especially one as sacred as a funeral. A law banning protesting at funerals in no way inhibits free speech. If these protestors wish to they can protest at other locations which are public or perhaps even outside the cemetary while the funeral is going on so as not to actually ruin the funeral.
The fact that we are even discussing this reveals the true nature of some of these radical anti-war protestors who supposedly care about the troops. If they truely cared about our men and women in military as they say they do they would have the deceny not to disturb the funerals of those who have died in military service. But they don't. The only thing they acre about is advancing thier own agenda. In fact they hate the military and look down on anyone serving in it as some kind of brutish neanderthal to be treated with scorn. We're talking your Code Pink, and Answer types here. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that all who express antiwar sentiments are uncaring, narcissitic, jackasses like these people. There are in fact many valid reasons a person may be antiwar. It's just that when you do something liek protest at a military funeral or outside a military hospital you're proving what lying, uncaring piece of shit you really are.
If we don't ban protesting at funerals we should certainly take Redtards suggestion to heart and decriminalize the ass-kicking of funeral protestors.
10 - hawaiian_son
America... Love it, or leave it! That's what I'd say to those protesting the war or anything else, most especially, at military funerals.
If you don't like what's going on with government, than why are you still here? Stop taking and spending US currency, stop driving American cars or trucks, stop living in your plush American home, give everything back to the country you hate, and go live somewhere else.
It's okay to voice your opinions, but there are limitations, and there are proper ways to 'get things done.'
11 - ss
I could wrong on this, but I don't think it's the war they're protesting. I think they're upset with gays.
Either way- the soldiers are private citizens, not public figures, they didn't sign up to have their families harrassed. IMHO, case closed. No mincing over how many feet or yards. The church members can protest in front of a public building, or harrass a public figure, if they feel they must.
And of course you shoudn't have to die in your country's service to earn this modicum of privacy and respect, it should have applied at the funerals of gay people all along, as well.
12 - Arch Conservative
The ironic thing is that these people protesting at military funerals are the same people who scream that pro-lifers shouldn't be allowed to protest on the street outside abortion clinics. I guess they only believe in free speech if they agree with the speech.
13 - Dr. Kurt
Just to clarify, Phelps' crowd are ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christians. They have no record ever of being anti-war; they just hate gay & lesbian people, and wholeheartedly believe that our soldiers deserve to die because they are defending a nation that "tolerates" (!) homosexuality. As for leaving the country, they plan to do us one better: they are part of the exodus to S. Carolina, where they plan to establish a theocracy... probably with good-old-fashioned hangin's and lynchin's and witch-burnin's.
I have to agree with Red Tard, here; why do the taxpayers have to pay to provide police protection to keep rightously indignant bikers from beating these kooks into the ground?
Some good-natured folks simply hold up large signs/banners to block the grieving families from having to read Phelps' goons' placards. A civilized solution, I suppose.
14 - Arch Conservative
I was unaware of exactly whose these people were. As someone who considers myself fairly conservative I'd say these people sound like a bunch of jackasses.
Being conservative, I oppose gay marriage but have no problem with civil unions. However I do not believe it is right to say that all gay people are completely ammoral with no redeeming qualties or value to society. I think that's a bunch of bullshit and I would never disgrace myself or the memory of a dead person by protesting at thier funeral because of thier sexual orientation. In fact I can think of no reason to protest at someone's funeral.
If a gay person wants to fight for this country and put thier life on the line they should be honored and respected just as a heterosexual soldier should. However those who would oppose the don't ask don't tell policy that I agree with which we currently use have a lack of understanding of the military culture. The military is an organization that virtues like manliness, machism, agression and traditional sexual roles are revered and they do not want that to change. This doesn't mean that everyone in the military is a homophobe, it just means that while they might not object to gays in the military they just don't want the military to become a dragshow.
15 - Sister Ray
The soldiers themselves aren't even necessarily gay. Phelps believes God is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality by letting soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are civilian groups who volunteer to block out the protestors with flags and patriotic signs, with the family's permission.
Phelps is really fixated on anti-homosexuality.
16 - Jet in Columbus
It has happened in each generation, and will happen again. Our culture today is being fed by the self-righteous fundementalist community, whereby someone has to be hated in the name of "morality" in order to make people agree with their radical ideas.
Hitler did it in World War II with the Jews, McCarthy did it with Communists, Nixon nearly succeeded when he did it against Catholics in the '61 election, and the radical right is doing it now with Gays. All in the name of "Christianity" Each time they eventually failed, but look at the cost of each campaign, and wonder who'll be next and if it'll ever stop?
It could be you or your children
Historically, to get attention for a radical cause, you'd have to distract your subjects into thinking it's for a noble cause instead.
The arguments against gays in the military are just a smoke screen for these people's blatent and immoral hatreds, and is identical in both quotes and scope to those 40 years ago against blacks in the military-including references out of the bible, and rabble rousing the Congress.
They'd break up soldier unity and morale, and would disrupt the cohesion of the men to have the inferior blacks fighting alongside the whites. Nowadays the military is mostly black, and still the best trained and dedicated fighting force in the world. Can you imagine if the same pattern holds true in the future that we could have a mostly gay military?
They'd do just as the blacks did and prove that they're just as honorable and tough as anyone else.
10 to 1 there will be a smart-ass comment to disguise any rational argument to this point.
17 - Arch Conservative
Let's be fair Jet. You seem to believe that the only radicals in this nation are on the right. There are plenty of kook whackjobs on the left as well.
I am a conservative, Christian, Republican and I think this Phelps character is a total nutjob. That being said I also oppose gay marriage and believe that god intended for men and women to be together and not people of the same sex. However this does not mean that I hate gay people or that I wish to do them harm. I however sick of the homosexual lifestyle being glorified and forced upon young children in the public school system. I don't recall a time when our public schools taught about heterosexuality so why now must they teach the "homosexual" lifestyle. They couch this indoctrination in terms like "diversity" and "sensitivity." It is not the public school systems place to teach children what values they ought to have. Instead the school system should be teaching them how to read and write, how to do math, and the history of this nation, not the revisionist crap they offer up now with an anti_American view. The public school system in this nation is a disgrace as it has become beholden to the NEA who care more about political causes like supporting pro-abortion groups than they do about providing a quality education for our children. Catholic schools spend much less per pupil in thier schools but their students on average perform much better on tests that measure things such as math skills, geographic knowledge, grasp of the english language, and knowledge of history.
The left is currently waging a war on Christianity in this country. The ACLU supposedly sticks up for civil liberties of all Americans but this is a bunch of horseshit. They are an organization devoted to removing all aspects of Christianity and traditional American culture from society. They get thier panties in a bunch every time someone dares esposue and Christian sentiment but have no problem if someone's promoting Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. They routinely twist, misinterpet, and selectively apply the first amendment to this end.
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Based on this the ACLU and other left wings zealots have seen fit to sue based on everything from children handing out candy canes in the public school with notes that say god loves you on them to children saying grace before they eat at lunch in school. The founding fathers intended for us not to establish a state religion which we haven't done. They never intended for all expressions of religion by citizens in public to be banned. The left usually argues that it is offensive for someone to express thier christianity in a public school. First if it is the individual expressing it it cannot be logically said that school is endorsing a religion as long as all faiths are allowed to be expressed. Second I fail to see how it is offensive if a child politely expresses their religion. It's not as if children are saying a christian prayer at lunch and then adding " by the way all other religions are garbage." What about what is offensive to Christians? Are only non-chrisitans allowed to object and have the rules changed because they are "offended?" Nowhere in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution doe sit say that people have the right to "not be offended" by anything another citizen may do that's legal let alone by another citizen expressing thier religion in public.
18 - Jet in Columbus
Thinking like "Arch"'s results in "offended" squads of men roaming the streets in Asia beating women for not wearing burkas or simply showing their hair or faces.
It's thinking like yours that results in holy places being bombed in Iraq because other sects were "offended"
It's thinking like yours that resulted in "Offended" Catholics killing and beating "offended" Protestants and vice versa in Ireland just because of their religion
Wake up "Arch"; you're so ashamed of your own "offended" opinions that you won't even put your own name to them.
It's thinking like yours that'll eventually make Religous teaching the Law of the land, instead of the people's will because something "offends" them.
*********************************************
First the “Arch Conservatives” came for the Jews, but I wasn't Jewish so I didn't speak out
Then “Arch Conservatives” came for the Catholics, but I wasn't Catholic so I didn't care
Then the “Arch Conservatives” came for the gays, but I wasn't gay so I didn't complain
Then the “Arch Conservatives” came for the Buddhists, but I wasn’t one, so I didn’t protest
After the Catholics and gays and Jews were marched off to the gas chambers and death houses-because the Bible (Leviticus in particular) teaches that they must be put to death for their sins, the “Arch Conservatives” began looking for anyone else who didn’t believe in their unyielding “fundamentalist” beliefs, and rounded them up to be retaught to their way of thinking, and since I didn't agree with them, I was taken too, but there was no one left to speak for me.
God Bless America and save it from people like you,
Proudly,
Jet Rendrag, Columbus OH
19 - Cathy Morales
Bravo Jet! The first paragraph of comment #16 says it all!
Arch, you [Deleted] deserve nothing but to be ignored!
Cathy Morales, San Diego CA
20 - Brock Yates
It's [Deleted] "Arch Conservative" that give the words Christian and Republican a bad name. I've been using people like you to teach my sons what kind of men NOT to be.
Our God is one of love, not hate, and certainly not prejudice of people that are his own creation.
Public School is not teaching Homosexuality, it's teaching ABOUT homosexuality-there's a difference.
You fear what you don't understand, and Arch sound like he's got a lot ignorance, which translates to fear in him.
Cathy you're right, comment #16 says it all
Jet, I'd be proud to introduce you to my associates and at my church as my friend.
Brock Yates, L.A.
21 - Arch Conservative
Cathy and Brock...two examples of what I was talking about.
I don't "celebrate" the gay lifestyle so I'm a "homophobe," and I'm "ignorant".
Public school is not teaching about homosexuality.. they are campaigning to glorify it. This is why they use terms like "celebrate the homosexual lifestyle."
You people are the true ignorant ones. You claim to be tolerant of all people and then slander anyone who doesn't agree with you by calling them ignorant or homophobes. You're just a bunch of Chritpohobes.
It's people like you that hate everything that was ever traditional and decent about this country. You [Deleted] that March in lockstep with evrything the ACLU and secular progressives agenda dicatets are the ignorant minority not me.
Here's a little proof for you.
17 states have had ballot initiatives on which citizens of the states themselves voted on wether or not to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. In EVERY state the bans passed, including liberal states like Oregon and Michigan.
So I guess you guys would label the majority of people in these 17 states ignorant as well. The truth is I more closely represent mainstream American though and sentiment than you [Deleted] who worship at the altar of moral relativity and political correctness.
22 - Brock
Arch has deluded himself into thinking that just because he says it, it must be so! This is typical of radical right-wing fools that are convinced that not only are they the only ones who can possibly be right, but that God is on their side.
I genuinely feel sorry for you, but must still love you because you are after all one of God's children.
I'm proud to call myself a Christian, you obviously aren't, as you still refuse to put your name to your posts.
It might be interesting to note that 17 is NOT the majority of 50 states. If this country had gone with the majority, blacks would still be slaves.
IF WE'RE GOING WITH A MAJORITY HERE, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT GEORGE BUSH ONLY HAS A 30% APPROVAL RATING-what's that do to your argument?
As I recall the majority of Germans went along with Hitler too, and slaughtered millions of Jews, does that didn't make it right?
The majority of people are right handed, it used to be that any left-handed person was considered perverted and evil!
As for the ACLU, if it weren't for them, you wouldn't be able to put your hypocritical words on this page! If it weren't for the ACLU churches would be taxed for the billions they take in from the poor, only to turn around and use it to fund the Republican Party.
I am ashamed that there are Americans like you.
I agree with Cathy, your long-winded self-serving, hate-mongering prostelizing deserves nothing more than to be ignored.
23 - Dave Nalle
This is typical of radical right-wing fools that are convinced that not only are they the only ones who can possibly be right, but that God is on their side.
Pretty similar wo the radical left-wing fools who are convinced that they are the only ones who can be right because they care about everything more than anyone else.
I'm proud to call myself a Christian, you obviously aren't, as you still refuse to put your name to your posts.
So your full and legal name is 'brock'? Kind of like Madonna?
Dave
24 - mysterymeat
Arch-conservative: I like that, it means that you consider yourself to be a "superior" conservative. Better than all those run-of-the-mill conservatives (before you launch a counter-offensive, look-up the meaning of "arch" please). And an Arch-enemy of sanity and logic? All this religious mumbo-jumbo is based on the huge assumption (and improbability) that there is a god and that he is on your side. Doesn't the Bible warn against hubris? and promote humility?
Well, maybe not your Bible, yours promotes intolerance and self-righteousness. What if Kurt Vonnegut is right, and it is "presumptuous to think that somebody up there likes you"?
Being a dissenting-opinion-rageaholic must be a full-time job for you (where do you find the time to manage that major supermarket), because I imagine a great many people disagree with you.
25 - RedTard
Oh those evil religous nuts. Luckily the secular world has great leaders not bound by god like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.