It seemed like a good idea at the time: Spare the state the infuriating potential expense of being ordered to pay the Phelps clan’s legal bills by submitting the new funeral picketing law to a preventive test of its constitutionality. But the Kansas Supreme Court last week signaled Attorney General Paul Morrison that it has legal problems with his lawsuit, giving him until Aug. 24 to explain why it shouldn’t be dismissed. Even if the pretest strategy doesn’t work, the law remains worthwhile, whatever court fights it invites. The state that is the unwilling exporter of the Westboro Baptist Church’s troop funeral protests needs to be on record opposing and trying to limit them.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
48 Comments
Duh.
Courts decide actual cases or controversies; they do not give advisory opinions.
The only way to “test” the law is to enforce it.
To the legislature: if you think the law is constitutional and wise (and I think it is), pass it. If you don’t, don’t. What it appears you’ve done at present is pass a meaningless exercise in public relations.
GMC,
The State of Kansas and City of Topeka lost a lawsuit on a picketing ban in the mid 90s, and had to pay the Phelps family several hundred thousand dollars. People in the Legislature remember this, and aren’t eager to go through _that_ again.
You’re right about that “advisory opinion,” though. The Legislature should just take a stand and move on. But that’s not how business gets done in Topeka…
Heh. Interesting move by Morrison–but how does the state’s top legal official even have standing to challenge, um, a state law?
Imagine, for a moment, that power in Kline’s hands. Ick.
Duh is right.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this. The Governor has also asked Morrison to file a lawsuit on the Casinos with the Supreme Court. Will they also kick that one back to Morrison?
Why can’t they get the City to just annex their land for a special project like they do in Wichita. That way they would have to relocate.
Then when they try to purchase land, everyone could just suddenly have a change of heart and take their land of the market, leaving the Phelps without a central meeting place.
They would probably try to meet in someone’s home which would be a violation of using private ownership as a non-profit entity.
Okay, so I made it up, my eggs are not finished cooking yet and I’m starving.
They have no business trying to legally infringe upon the 1st Amendment rights of Phelps. Phelps- as much as anybody else- has the right to picket upon public property at the funeral of anybody. While I agree that he is scum, even scum has rights. And if they don’t want to end up paying him again, they need to repeal this ill advised effort.
It appears that there is legal precedent for the case. This from the Cleveland Law Library Weblog:
http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/2007/03/statute_prohibi.html
Statute Prohibiting Funeral Protests is Constitutional
“The federal court, Northern District of Ohio, upheld the portion of 126th General Assembly Am. H.B. 484 , which prohibits picketing and protesting within 300 feet of a funeral service. The court struck down the portion of the statute which created a 300 foot buffer zone around funeral processions as unconstitutionally broad. Phelps-Roper v. Taft (Mar. 23, 2006), ND Ohio Case No. 06-CV-2038. To read the opinion Download phelpsroper_v. Taft.pdf . See Church Group to Picket Ohio Soldier’s Funeral by Carrie Spencer Ghose, Associated Press, The Plain Dealer, Mar. 25, 2007; Judge Upholds Funeral-Protest Ban by Mike Tobin, The Plain Dealer, Mar. 24, 2007.
March 25, 2007 in Constitutional Law, Federal Court”
The PDF on the decision is here:http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/files/phelpsroper_v.%20Taft.pdf
I doubt it was ever legal or proper for the Governor or the AG to file this suit ‘preemptively’. First off, who is representing which party? are there two parties or just the state of Kansas suing itself?
The legal hoops requiring judicial review _before_ enforcement were written into the bill, SB244. SB244 passed both chambers unanimously.
Here’s the relevant language; you can read the whole bill at http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/244.pdf
(i) Amendments by this act to this section shall be applicable on andafter whichever of the following dates is applicable:(1) If the action authorized by section 3, and amendments thereto, isdecided in Kansas state court, amendments by this act to this section shallbe applicable from and after the date the Kansas supreme court upholdsthe constitutionality thereof.(2) If the action authorized by section 3, and amendments thereto, isdecided in federal court, amendments by this act to this section shall beapplicable from and after the date of the judgment of the court upholdingthe constitutionality thereof.New Sec. 3. In accordance with K.S.A. 75-702, and amendmentsthereto, the attorney general shall seek judicial determination of the con-stitutionality of K.S.A. 21-4015, as amended by section 1, and amend-ments thereto. If the action authorized by this section is brought in adistrict court of this state, then the judgment of that district court shallbe appealed directly to the Kansas supreme court as a matter of right.
The state is worried about paying Phelps bills? Dont they do that now since Marge and Fred Jr both work for the state
Republicans have no desire to silence Phelps and they won’t.
Phelps represents the view and voice of the silent majority.
OkLets put some facts on the table:
Representative Rajive Goyle of Wichita wrote and carried this bill, in the House. Goyle is a former ACLU attorney. The ACLU has stood up for Phelps on several past occassions.
Goyle, in the last election, beat up on Bonnie Huy for not “doing anything” concerning Phelps.
—What, exactly, has Goyle done with this bill?
This law is not much more than a toothless “Resolution” with no enforcement power.
However, a point can be made that, if there were no “trigger” in this law (The AG Court Test) —Phelps would have a profit motive in challenging the law, and getting Kansas to pay his bills.
Goyle gets to claim that he “did something.”
Phelps doesnt get to make any money on the meaningless “law”.
By the way, the legislature can order the AG to file suit in order to test any law. In fact, I think it only requires one House of the legislature to pass such an order. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
In this particular case, Phelps would have challenged the law, rather quickly. So, the legislature ordered the AG to test it first.
But, there is NOTHING to challenge until the law is enforced against someone, is there?
Can’t the constitutionality of a law be challenged? Or does it have to be by someone damaged by the law? I would think that if a law is unconstitutional on its surface, that it could be challenged.
Econ,
Because of the history Phelps has with picketing the funerals of gay and lesbian Americans, their families, their places of business and worship, their employers, and their homes, I followed this subject very, very closely this year.
You have your facts wrong. The bill that passed, SB244, was a Senate bill, not a house bill. The House bill Goyle, along with Jeff Witham from Garden City, authored was HB2020. Senate bills start with “S”. House bills start with “H”. Simple enough, right?
SB244 was heard, amended, and passed by the Senate. Then it ended up in the House Federal & State Affairs Committee. Goyle doesn’t sit on that committee, although he was there to testify, along with about a dozen other people, in favor of both HB2020 and SB244.
House Fed & State combined the language from SB244 & some from Witham & Goyle’s HB2020, which was never actually considered by the House. The committee-amended SB244 was then passed unanimously by the full House, and unanimously concurred to by the Senate.
It’s true that Goyle used to do legal work for ACLU. He’s never tried to hide that. In my conversations with Goyle and other legislators about these bills, I can tell you with certainty that Goyle worked very hard to come up with language that will pass Constitutional muster – language that will protect the Phelps’ rights to free speech, and the families’ rights to grieve in private and dignity.
It looks to me like you’re trying to stick Goyle with a charge of grandstanding on this issue. While it’s not my job to defend Goyle’s or anyone else’s record in the Legislature, I know for a fact this is not true.
It also looks like you’re trying to single out this issue as the reason for Bonnie Huy’s loss to Goyle last year. Bonnie Huy lost because of her abysmal record, including her vote in favor of continuing to allow adults to marry children as young as 12 in this state.
TomBonnie Huy voted against one marriage bill, that was too restrictive, but in favor of another bill, that made more sense.
Huy’s point, on that issue, was that parental permission and other compelling reasons, such as health insurance, which might save state Medicaid funds, were a good reason to allow some exceptions to an outright marriage ban. Huy voted FOR a change in our marriage laws that originated in the HOUSE. The law that Huy was criticized for voting AGAINST, in the HOUSE, never became law anyway!—-As far as Goyle and the funeral/Phelps bill,
The Wichita Eagle even gave Goyle CREDIT for getting the bill passed.Goyle had EVERYTHING to do with the public relastions, around this new “law” — even though you are now trying to distance him from it!Goyle does have the right to talk to Senators, even outside of hearing rooms, does he not?Goyle CAMPAIGNED on the Phelps issue.Goyle TOOK CREDIT for this funeral protest ban, AFTER it passed.Sorry, your arguments are weak window dressing.
Goyle, while employed by the ACLU, was a free-speech radical.
He may also be an opportunist.
That remains to be seen.
CORRECTION
Above, should have said:
“HUY voted FOR an underage Marriage Ban, as ammended by the Senate, that made more sense”
A guy who is in favor of free speech is a “radical”? Yeah, I like free speech too, perhaps some day you’ll come to like the Constitution too Paul and join the rest of us “radicals”.
Econ,
If you read other papers from other cities in Kansas, they quoted _their_ state senators and representatives. Not only that, but sometimes the Eagle just gets it wrong, or exaggerated. What a shocker, huh?
You’re making it sound like Goyle was the only proponent for this bill. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Legislators from both chambers were working this issue. It passed both houses UNANIMOUSLY. Do you know how often those people agree on _anything,_ nevermind unanimously? True enough that Goyle was one of the chief proponents of HB2020, but he was _far_ from the only one.
I spent almost the entire session in Topeka, working with my organization’s lobbyist on tracking and working five bills, including SB244. (I testified in favor of SB244, even though I consider myself even more of a free-speech radical” than even some ACLU people.) I was there, Econ, every day. I saw what was going on with these bills, I saw who was talking them up and moving them through the process. Who should I believe? You, or my lyin’ eyes?
And Bonnie Huy….HAH. She voted to ban _any_ relationship recognition for consenting adults who happen to be gay and lesbian Kansans, but voted for 12 year old girls to be married off to adult men. Spin that vote however you want; she was the ONLY Representative in Topeka to vote that way.
Goyle did grandstand on this issue. But the bill was written by Sen. Schmidt.
If the legislature passes a unconstitutional law, the damaged party, (Phelps) deserves to receive legal fees if they win the case. That is how it works. This stupid idea of having the court look at it before it goes into effect is worthless.
DougI opposed McCain Feingold on Free Speech grounds.
I, peronsonally, won an appeal in the US 10th Circuit Court, with the help of Free Speech Advocates.
Do not preach to me about Free Speech!
Doug, you are a piece of work, just like Goyle.
How can you try, through the law to shut down Phelps if you think that ANY speech is justified?
You want it both ways.
You CANT have it both ways!
Tom
I respect your knowledge of the facts, on the funeral legislation.However, I was on the receiving end of Goyle’s campaign mail.
Goyle wants it both ways! While an employee if the ACLU, he thought virtually any form of speech was protected. Then he runs for office and —-?—-Bonnie Huy DID vote to restrict underage marriage.The Kansas Senate never voted on the exact bill that Bonnie voted against.Bonnie voted for final passage.
Phelps would not be denied his free speech, only the location where he can deliver that speech. But that is not unlike bush ‘no protest zone’, so I doubt it will hold up. Some soldiers family just needs to sue phelps for emotional and psychological damage and bankrupt his organization.
I know Fred’s deranged…I wonder why his kids have followed in his foorsteps? You’d think that after they grew up they’d see the destructiveness of his hatred. I feel sorry for his grandkids that are forced to take part in their family’s outrageous behavior.
There are limits to free speech, just as there are limits to gun rights or any other right.
Paraphrasing the gun grabbers, “Do you really NEED to protest at a funeral?
My understanding is that some of the Phelps Clan have “fallen away” or avoid crazy Fred.
I wish Fred would go protest at a funeral for a kid related to the Russian Mafia or something like that, or the Hells Angels.
Bet he wouldn’t be able to call those guys names and get away with it!
Actually, I don’t want that to happen, because those Vets deserve dignity and respect, too.
It is too bad that our goodness and decency can be used against us like this.
Sooner or later, he will cross the wrong person.
Econ–
Goyle was a LAWYER for the ACLU.
As GMC repeatedly points out, lawyers can work for clients without having to be a radical in their cause.
Clearly, what’s involved in this case is not whether “one believes in free speech or not.”
It’s a conflict of values: when does the value of free speech infringe on the value of living one’s life free from harassment.
For example, local court found that free speech does not extend to four activists of Sunflower Action Group who marched up to City Manager George Kolb’s house with signs and bullhorns.
The SCOTUS found that free speech does not extend to a kid with a sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
I happen to believe that in both those situations, the court was too restrictive in supporting the second value.
However, it clearly shows that “free speech” does not trump all other rights . . .
Econ,
Who would you rather have work a bill that treads dangerously close to impinging on First Amendment rights? Some farmer who’s only in Topeka to vote against abortions? Or perhaps an attorney with a civil rights background who has experience with these kinds of cases?
I’ll remind you that Kansas has already had to pay the Phelps hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and damages from a prior law. No one in the Legislature wants to be in that position again, trust me!
One of the big worries with SB244/HB2020 was “are we gonna have to pay the Phelps again?” I heard that from more than one lawmaker with long memories of dealing with the Phelps clan.
I’m assuming you do know about the bill that died in the 2006 session – the House and Senate couldn’t agree on the “buffer distance” between protesters and cemetery entrances. The failure to pass a bill on 06 was an embarrassment, and was an issue in more than one campaign around the state.
Quite frankly, Econ, what I think part of your argument is is “sour grapes” over Huy’s trouncing by Goyle. But whining about it doesn’t get you anything, any more than Democrat whining about the 2000 presidential election got THEM anything. Sometimes you’re going to lose, especially when your candidate is as completely horrid as Bonnie Huy.
Capnamerica, your two examples have huge differences from the Phelps protests. Sunflower protested on private property and left thier signs. The kid holding the bong sign was a student.
If we can take away the Phelp’s right to protest on public property, then we can do it to ou also.
I have a brochure here that Goyle mailed to everyone, in the last election.
Goyle clearly claimed that HE could “stop” Fred Phelps!
Ronald–
The Bush administration already took away my right to protest on public property–
Google “free speech zones” and “George W. Bush” and tell me what you find.
Hint–it involves “buffer zones” around the pResident of sometime MILES.
What Phelps does is not free speech. It is the kind of disruption and harrassment people should not be subjected to.
My point still stands–we value freedom and safety, honesty and politeness, legality and privacy.
These values are often in conflict. You can make people SAFER by forcing them to wear seat belts or wear motorcycle helmets. But that takes away a little of their FREEDOM.
Or you can let them be more free and less safe.
Buffer zones around grieving family members to protect them from harrassment doesn’t mean I have to give up my free speech.
“If we can take away the Phelp’s right to protest on public property, then we can do it to ou also.”
Ronald, the case in Kansas’ link cited some fundamental distinctions:******************************”The parties agree that the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided that the restrictions are content neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). In this case, there is likewise no dispute that the statute at issue satisfies the requirement that time, place, ormanner regulations be content neutral. (See ECF # 18 at 9, ECF # 19 at 5, ECF # 20 at 3.)Accordingly, in order to resolve the pending Motions, the Court need only determine whether thestatute is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and whether it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. See Ward, 491 at 791.
The first issue before the Court is whether the State of Ohio has a significant interest inprotecting its citizens from disruption during the events associated with a funeral or burial service. TheSupreme Court has held that, in certain settings, a state has an interest in protecting its citizens fromunwanted communications. See, e.g., Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988) (finding that thegovernment had a significant interest in protecting residential privacy). Although a state cannot protectits citizens from communications solely on the ground that the citizens may find the communications atissue to be offensive, “a state may protect citizens from unwelcome communications – includingoffensive communications – where the communications invade substantial privacy interests in an essentially intolerable manner, as where the communications are directed at citizens in their homes or
where the communications are directed at a ‘captive’ audience and are so obtrusive that individuals
cannot avoid exposure to them.” McQueary v. Stumbo, 453 F. Supp. 2d 975, 990 (2006).
Accordingly, the analysis of whether a significant governmental interest exists depends upon whether thecommunication at issue is so intrusive that an unwilling audience cannot avoid it, see Frisby, 487 U.S. at 474, or whether, for example, the audience can avoid “bombardment of their sensibilities simply byaverting their eyes,” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971).
In this case, Plaintiff argues that mourners are not a captive audience, powerless to avoid themessage of the WBC. (ECF # 24 at 5-6.) To the contrary, Plaintiff asserts that mourners make thechoice to voluntarily attend funeral services, and they can “avert their eyes” to avoid any unwanted communication. (Id. at 6.) This Court disagrees and, as set forth below, finds that the State of Ohio has an interest in protecting mourners, a captive audience, from unwanted speech.”*********************************
That’s on Page 7 (Kansas’ link, once again:http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/files/phelpsroper_v.%20Taft.pdf).
Sure it’s free speech. But what’s at issue–and is a bitch to figure out–is how protect mourners from these idiots whilst letting them exercise their rights somewhere in the reasonable vicinity–what’s called a “time, place and manner” restriction (the concept dates back quite a ways). It also has to be content-neutral–it shouldn’t matter WHAT they’re saying (that would ban the Patriot Guard as well).
Bush’s “free speech” zones (ya gptta love it!), incidently, violate both principles–they put protesters wayyy out of SIGHT based on the content of their message.
IANAL, and I’ve only skimmed the Ohio decision. I haven’t even read the Kansas law. I’ve never been entirely sure what should be done (and that why it’s GOOD, Paul, to have an ACLU lawyer looking at it!). But those are, IMHO, the issues we shoud we arguing about.
P.S. The seminal case in the 40’s had to do with sound trucks (ask GMC or Vaughn about it).
It’s hysterical watching all of you really, really smart professionals and state workers carry on about how to handle the picketing of WBC.
Rather than fretting yourselves over how you can bend words to such bizzaro-world meanings so you can prevent citizens from standing on public sidewalks addressing public issues along side a public frenzy of patriotism (that you liars pretend is a private funeral), I’ve got a couple of simple suggestions.
How about you obey God’s plain commandments and teach your fellow citizens and countrymen to do the same … so he’ll stop sending your children back from the battlefield in pieces!
How about stop chasing every filthy sinful practice you can find and diving headfirst into it with every ounce of your very being! There is simply no filthy practice that this nation doesn’t publicly pursue and market for all other nations to publicly and aggressively pursue! Even the churches hold special meetings to generate sex partnerships on a routine basis!
How about stop using all of the powers of government and private industry trying to band together to pierce a sharp stick into what God calls the apple of his eye — his humble little group of saints at the WBC — making him seethe with rage!
How about get over your pitiful selves and stop imagining that its all about you and what you want, you flaky hypocritical crybabies!
But you won’t take these suggestions because you’re all smarter than your Creator … which is why you are blinded both to repenting and to having a clue about shutting up the servants of God. Here’s the answer — and it’s free of charge for all who have a genuine interest in it:
You’ll NEVER stop the preaching of WBC — exactly where and when our God sends us to preach. Your efforts only serve to further publish God’s final message of doom to america and the world, which is our only goal.
Magormissabib!
OMG, I think it’s one of THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hehehehehehe
::sprays “nut job be gone”::
There, maybe THAT will take the stink of the phelps post away.
hee hee hee hee
Hey paulie rosselli?
Want a little cheese to go with that whine? hee hee hee hee
BON BON IS GONE GONE!!!!
And there isnt a damn thing you can do about it. Although for the volume of paul’s whining, you’d think maybe bon bon wants to run run again?
Bring it. She’ll get her ass kicked again. And again. And again.
Ever hear the saying “lie down with dogs and you will get fleas”? Paulie, if you back a loser like bon bon, you WILL get metaphorical fleas.
Just stop bitchin’ when you scratch!
::dabs Frontline on the back of paulie’s neck::
“Can’t the constitutionality of a law be challenged? Or does it have to be by someone damaged by the law? I would think that if a law is unconstitutional on its surface, that it could be challenged.”
You have to be a party affected by the law to challenge it- or a “person with standing” before the court in most cases. If they pass a law- let’s say “the penalty for marijuana shall be death” but nobody is ever charged under it then there will be nobody with standing to challenge it.
Econ,
Your 12:47am post kind of proves my point: You don’t like Goyle. The rest of this argument has only been window-dressing for your attack on him.
Amazing how nut jobs such as those leading the Westboro Church exist to spread hate.
I blame the leaders as the children are innocent and doing the bidding of their parents.
For those who have not seen it, here’s my latest video at youtube.http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2cxW9PVcBwg
By the way, the Fred Phelps was made in 3D graphics and not his real head.
I say let’s dance on his grave when he dies!!How sad to waste his entire life being so mean spirited and getting people to hate you…he must be a very miserable and pathetic soul.At least he makes it easy for the rest of us to see just how ugly hatred really is, that’s his only positive contribution to the world.
My lefty friends:If you think that you won several elections, in the last cycle, due to some huge, tectonic “shift” —I invite you to look at how Goyle defeated Huy:
She was VASTLY outspent, for starters, and there is no way that the Left can do that in EVERY race, statewide.
Where was the money spent? In Goyles case, he sent out misleading advertising claiming that Goyle could “STOP” Fred Phelps.
Also, Goyle beat up on Huy for voting against the under-age marriage law, before final passage, never bringing up the fact that the State Senate agreed with Bonnie Huy, since Huy voted FOR the Senate version!
If I were Huy, I would have voted differently. However, Senators listened to Huy and changed the final Bill, in part, because of Huy’s courage.
Look, again, my side will not always win. I understand that.
However, you can’t claim vast public support for your side when your side is not straight with the facts!
Also, I am simply holding Goyle “accountable” — I thought that phrase was in vogue, these days?
If someone can actually “STOP” Phelps, I will be the first to shake that person’s hand, regardless of party label.
However, as you have pointed out, Goyle KNOWS the law, and Goyle KNEW he was LYING when he sent out that “STOP PHELPS” mailer.
However, you can’t claim vast public support for your side when your side is not straight with the facts!Posted by: Econ101 | July 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Okay….paste in where I claimed “vast public support” for anyone in this discussion.
Bonnie Huy spent almost $50,000 on her race, and ended her campaign with almost $13,000 still sitting, unspent, in the bank. Dumb, dumb, dumb. If she’d been serious about getting re-elected, she’d have spent everything her donors gave her. After all, that’s WHY they gave it to her. That leftover $13k is more money that is _SPENT_ on many legislative races in this state.
Oh, and speaking of Huy’s donors – over the years, she has taken thousands from Harrah’s and Potawatomi Nation. You know, the CASINO operators. And then she repeatedly voted AGAINST more casinos in Kansas. Why would Harrah’s and Potawatomi donate to Huy? Because they knew she’d protect their gaming operations in Topeka and Kansas City, that’s why. It’s outright vote buying. Bonnie Huy sold her vote to people she has “moral objections” to, just so she could get re-elected.
We see how well that worked out for her.
Phelps and WBC:
Blasphemy is also a sin that God might not forgive, according to my understanding of Christianity.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
Presumption can lead to Blasphemy.
Do not presume to speak for God in all things.
You are Heritics. How God deals with you is up to God.
The same is true for those that you so obviously hate: Their fate is in God’s hands, not yours!
TomI believe you are taking this discussion personally.I am trying to be objective.Your points are well taken.
Please remember that this is a Blog.Some responses are rhetorical and not intended, directly, for you.
GMC opened this up with an astute and lawyerly observation, with which I totally agree. There are some states, to my understanding, which by statute or otherwise sanction advisory opinions from their Supreme Courts (or in New York, the Court of Appeals). Kansas is not one of them. Thus, the “signal” of the Kansas Supreme Court is as it should be.
Tom, you’re correct that some legislators have long memories, and this explains the effort to have a decision made by the Court before there is a “real” Plaintiff. Bad idea, though, in my opinion.
Econ,
You and I are the only ones talking about the Huy v. Goyle race, so how else should I take the “you claim” statement?
Anyhow…
Thank you for acknowledging the points I’ve been arguing. I appreciate your candor and honesty as well, and am glad you don’t use these kinds of arguments to launch personal smear attacks. It’s clear we disagree on many issues, but it’s refreshing that we can discuss them rationally.
Tom
Posted by: Tim | July 30, 2007 at 03:50 AM
Hey Tim,Would you care to teach me where in the Bible it says ‘God Hates Fags’?
In Leviticus, but not in those words…I don’t believe the Bible is the “word of God”. I think religion is only man’s way of trying to understand and explain life and his purpose in it. The Bible can jusify a lot of bad things, and many people use it as a weapon to control and condemn others.