|
|
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
|
|
OH, LEAVE THE HOMO ALONE!
I'm constantly amazed by the inconsistency of the "strict constructionalist" judges that are usually found in the South. These are the guys (and they are almost always male) who went ballistic when Congress passed a law outlawing protests within 300 feet (or whatever the actual limit was) of an abortion clinic, citing the preciousness of the First Amendment. And in a way, I agree. I think that law was wrong on strictly constitutional laws. The First Amendment seems pretty clear on the point and those anti-abortion psychopaths should be allowed to yell at pregnant women seeking medical treatment. And I should be allowed to beat the living fuck out of any person who so harasses a woman I accompany for that treatment. I don't like the protesters, but I do recognize that even stupid, evil motheruckers have rights. Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that the protest ban was constitutional and that appears to be the end of that.
But now we get to test how committed to free-speech the formerly outraged conservatives are. Let's say that there's .....I don't know, a gay high school student running for school body president in North Carolina. And let's assume said gay kid points his sexuality out in his campaign posters (with slogans that I'm jealous of. They're pretty witty for a kid.). The school would, as schools in North Carolina may reasonably be expected to do, order those posters down. So the kid gets the ACLU to sue the school board, citing the abridgment of his First Amendment rights. Does said judge share the outrage?
Of course not. After all, Jesus doesn't love gay kids as much as he loves unborn ones.
|
|
|
| |
