I would also like to point out that Phelps is mentally deranged and his views have nothing to do with party lines. This should be obvious in light of the fact that the Democratic Party takes a much more reasonable view of homosexuality. The Republican Party and their so called moral majority are the ones overly concerned about the personal sex lives of consenting adults and want to regulate these activities with laws. It is my belief that too much focus is placed on sexual matters and other than rape, incest, public solicitation and child molestation have no place in politics.

I am not in favor of Bush and his policies but I do support our troops. They are dedicated individuals out doing a job just like other responsible adults do everyday. I think that most Americans agree with this. I have not heard of any incidents where people are protesting the war at the funerals of soldiers. But as I pointed out earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech was designed to allow citizens to speak out about the government officials and their activities. I have no problem with people protesting the war at government buildings and functions. Decent, respectful people understand that a funeral is not a public function.

I would also like to point out that Phelps is mentally deranged and his views have nothing to do with party lines. This should be obvious in light of the fact that the Democratic Party takes a much more reasonable view of homosexuality. The Republican Party and their so called moral majority are the ones overly concerned about the personal sex lives of consenting adults and want to regulate these activities with laws. It is my belief that too much focus is placed on sexual matters and other than rape, incest, public solicitation and child molestation have no place in politics.

I am not in favor of Bush and his policies but I do support our troops. They are dedicated individuals out doing a job just like other responsible adults do everyday. I think that most Americans agree with this. I have not heard of any incidents where people are protesting the war at the funerals of soldiers. But as I pointed out earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech was designed to allow citizens to speak out about the government officials and their activities. I have no problem with people protesting the war at government buildings and functions. Decent, respectful people understand that a funeral is not a public function.

Note that it isn’t the Ten Commandments separate from the other origins of the law; it is a part of a general tableau of various sources of our laws, and as I said, it’s my opinion that sort of a display (with the other sources) is highly appropriate; not, however, the Ten Commandments standing by themselves.

The precedents passed by the various Supreme Court decisions appeared to skewed the original intent.

I would think if we could develop it it might pass muster as not “establishing”.

Ben, I read Paul’s leasing suggestion as being something more than seasonal, and more of a perpetual lease, if I may put words into his mouth. On your idea of a rotating “lease”, I’m lukewarm to this, but won’t reject this out of hand right now.

If you did that, who would represent comedian Rush Limbaugh in his prescription drug defense?

I have an idea Vaughn, but it involves deportation of lawyers to the Antarctic. :)

I guess there could be problems when a Santaria sect wants to lease to kill chickens or something …

There’s got to be some way to resolve these First Amendment issues without the seemingly endless litigation.

To make my position clear, I’ve no problem with public religious displays on private property; I do have issues with the same on governmentally owned property.

Your concept of use of public property to display the Ten Commandments as an educational exercise to illustrate the differences in various “versions” thereof is again, IMHO, violative of the Establishment Clause, as the same seems to promote the Judeo-Christian religions. If, however, you wish to display the Ten Commandments together with the Code of Hammurabi, Lex Romana, and other examples of the genesis of legal codes to educate the public on the seminal bases of Anglo-American Law, I’ve no issue with this.

My “gut” on your parade permit idea for a funeral service is unneeded, again IMHO.

As is perhaps clear from this overly-long post, I want government to be “religiously neutral”, while allowing individuals to believe as they wish and worship in their church, synagogue, temple, or other building (or no building), displaying nativity scenes, the Ten Coomandments, or other physical examples representing their belief on their own privately owned property.

If you want to march in our Pride parade, we’d be happy to have you. It’s June 24; lineup starts at 1:30pm, and the parade moves at 2:00. We just ask that you be respectful.

Parade spectators aren’t subject to any kind of limits on their attendance. So you can stand on the curb and holler anything you want :)

I have an honest question:

As a person who watches 1st Amendment issues closely, I have some unusual solutiions for some of our perenial 1st Amendment arguements.

Where flag burning is concerned, I think local governments should be encouraged to pass safety rules and require permits. The permit could, reasonably, require purchase of said flag, by requiring a receipt, or require a notarized statement of ownership from the permit applicant.Also, we could, I think, require a fire extinguisher or a garden hose be close at hand and require a statement of liability, on the part of the flag burner, for any property damage or personal injury.None of these things would prohibit the speech, in question.All of my restrictions would serve a complelling public purpose, discouraging theft and vandalism and protecting the public.

Likewise, I believe that we could come to some comprimises on the Christmas and 10 Commandment issues with the “lease” or “permit” concept.The City of Wichita, for instance, is free to lease Century II to any religious group that wishes to use the facilities.Why can’t the City also “lease” areas for Christmas displays?Likewise, why can’t any local courthouse “lease” property to organizations which purport to uphold principles of law and order?The display of the 10 Commandments could even be comparitive, between different books of the Bible, the Torah, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent versions.(There really isnt much difference, but the differences would be educational, none the less.)Anyway, permits could be seasonal or put up to public bid.The charities, or churches, which participate could be asked to donate money or time to a favorite charity, or go pick up trash on the Court House lawn or parking lot or the highway.A simple requirement that the message could not be intentionally demeaning to any segment of society would prevent the Phelps clan from outbidding everyone else for sheer spite.Or, instead, the local unit of government could specify that part of the “rent” for these locations would go towards English as a Second Language classes, AID’s treatment and other worthwhile programs. This would prevent skin-heads and Phelps types from deliberate sabatoge of a good idea.Anyway, I think you get my point.

I would respect the ACLU more if they respected ALL speech. They clearly don’t, as they try to censor some Speech whil supporting other speech.

There are ways to thread these needles, but nobody seems to try very hard. Maybe Left and Right want to fight over these things forever?

More to the point, why cant local governments “declare” an automatic “parade permit” exists for any funeral or burial, and declare that the privacy rights of the decendant and family require time and place restrictions be placed on those who are not a party to said parade?

After all, I can’t march in a Gay Rights parade if the organizers of that Parade dont want me involved in it, can I?

I don’t agree with your conclusion that political speech has less protection now; anonymous political speech, perhaps, but not political speech itself.

As I have posted before, on more than one occasion, I have no issue with any “natural person” making monetary contributions to any campaign in any amounts he/she desires. What I want is immediate (no more than 24 hours) disclosures of the identities of the contributors and the amounts contributed on a publicly accessible web site, say one set up and maintained by FEC.

I also want repeal of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (not that such will happen), and tighter regulations on nonprofit, tax exempt entities on the use of funds raised by the same for political purposes. As you can see from my emphasis on “natural person”, I’m not in favor of PACs, whether operated by labor, business, or any other ‘group’. I see no issue with limiting the ability of corporations, LLCs, etc. as an entity to make political contributions; the individuals who make up these entities, whether officers, directors, shareholders, members, et al, should, however, have the right to make political contributions using the individual’s own funds in such amounts and to which campaigns each individual wishes.