Thursday, March 3, 2011

Talk about mixed feelings ...!

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in re Snyder v. Phelps (09-751), 8-1 in favor of the vile Fred Phelps and his loony pack of family members/disciples, Westboro Baptist.


... [T]here is significant pressure on the courts and legislatures to remove “hate speech” from the shelter of the First Amendment. And it’s precisely nutjobs like the Phelps family who make such an action appear reasonable and desirable. And it’s precisely because we Christians include homophobes within our ranks that gay activists feel justified in cleping even the most charitably-phrased opposition “hate speech”. While a public-safety argument could be made for placing restrictions on “hate speech”, the problem remains: who would be in control of the definition?


On the one hand, I suppose I should be grateful that discussions of matters such as same-sex marriage can't be shut down on grounds of "hate speech". But a part of me can't help but wish that others besides A.J. Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, had paid more attention to the "captive audience" part of the plaintiff's argument. No matter what Westboro Baptist believes, that they inflicted it on a family suffering grief and at a Christian religious service is not merely cruel—it's blasphemous.

This isn't a Pyrrhic victory. But it feels just as unsatisfying.

Please pray for the repose of Lcpl. Matthew Snyder, USMC, and the comfort and healing of his family. Semper Fi, Marine.