You Don't Have to Go Home (But You Can't Stay Here)

Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam has proposed a new rule closing all city parks and open space properties between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. It wouldn't apply to pedestrians or cyclists passing through without stopping, but any hint of delay would open the lollygaggers to citation.

Communications Manager Patrick von Keyserling says this rule is not a response to the Occupy protesters, but rather is meant to protect their safety and health (a rather Orwellian description).

It is also meant to address illegal nighttime activity in dimly lit, sparsely populated areas. It's easier to stop all parks and open space usage at night than to just enforce existing laws.

However, my biggest issue with the proposal isn't its questionable justification. It's the legitimacy of the process being followed.


[more]

Does Why Matter?

A pair of recent local convictions brought up the issue of how laws against bias-motivated crime relate to free speech protections.

Joseph Coy was convicted of both second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime for his racially motivated attack on Nigerian CU student Oluyibi Ogundipe. Zachery Harris was convicted of bias-motivated harassment for using racial slurs against Ogundipe and his Saudi friend, Ahmad Abdulkareem.

The First Amendment was designed to protect expression that may not be popular, even expression that makes people angry. Yet, even the Supreme Court has ruled that it has limits. Some speech may be regulated within the confines of free speech.

Coy won the lottery with his two-for-the-price-of-one crime. Clearly, there was evidence to convict him of the assault. Was the bias-motivation a separate crime, worth doubling his punishment?


[more]

An Uncivil Union

There's no doubt in my mind that the opposition to the recently defeated civil unions bill was based in one group's need to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us.

There is no other explanation for the fervor of the testimony against the bill given by the largely religious groups. There is no other explanation for the obsession with protecting their tradition and their definition of a single word. And there is no other explanation for what I believe is the clear violation of the oath each member of the legislature took to support the Constitution of the United States.

These opponents can't stand the idea that somebody else is getting married in a way different than what their religion supports, and civil unions are just too darn close for their comfort.


[more]

The Big Cheese Stands Alone

One thing clear in the Wisconsin budget kerfuffle is that it's not about the budget.

If it were about the budget, when the unions and Democrats offered to accept all of the proposed financial concessions the Republicans would have jumped on the opportunity.

If it were about the budget, those concessions would have included all public unions, not just the ones that supported the Democrats in the most recent election.

If it were about the budget, the Governor's plan wouldn't include the ability for the state to sell off its power, heating, and cooling plants to whomever they chose, for as much or as little as they choose, without so much as a competitive bid.

If it were about the budget, it would not have followed on the heels of major corporate tax cuts.

No, the proposal to disempower public unions is a political move, a way to leverage Wisconsin's budget problems to accomplish long-term Republican goals.


[more]

Talking the Talk

A few months ago, I wrote that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party darlings were fanning dangerous flames with their violent imagery, but that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so.

I also predicted the public would lose its sympathy for Tea Partiers after an event like Tucson's assassination attempt.

It's too soon to say whether my prediction will come true. However, it is clear there's been a backlash, in the form of calls for "civility." I'm opposed to those calls.

It's not that I'm opposed to civility. I'm not. Civility is greatly underrated.

But the principle of free speech is a foundation of this country. The way to protect against speech you don't like is not to tell people to shut up. It's to make a convincing argument why they are wrong.


[more]

Terrorist Cell Phonies

By U.S. law, "terrorism" is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." But ask 100 people and you`ll get 50 different definitions. One man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter. As Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Just as most Muslims don`t want to blow up airplanes and most anti-abortion advocates don`t want to kill abortion doctors, plenty of people who are sympathetic with the Tea Party goals condemn violence in furtherance of those goals. Clearly, membership in these groups is not sufficient to earn a label as a terrorist. The Tea Party movement is not a terrorist group.

But something scary is going on.

[more]

Free Speech Means Just That

A couple of recent incidents in Boulder illustrate just how fragile free speech guarantees are.

Seth Brigham, local activist, was first interrupted and then arrested when it appeared he was about to criticize a couple of council members during the public participation portion of a city council meeting. Fortunately, the charges were dropped, and council apologized. But there are still some on council who think the actions against Seth were legitimate. Council needs to immediately change the rules so that complaining about a particular council member during public participation is not against public policy.

Second, the local Catholic school told the lesbian parents of two students that they would not be allowed to re-enroll the children because of their homosexual relationship. Many in the community have taken the church to task for this decision.

Some have accused the complainers of being "intolerant". (Never mind that these people are themselves being intolerant of the complainers.) Since when has the right to free speech been limited to things that don't hurt someone's feelings?

The People v. Free Exercise of Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states." -- Defense of Marriage Act

Congress is prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion, yet an act of Congress invalidates Fran and Anna Simon's Jewish wedding -- sanctified by Rabbi Jamie Korngold. [more]

This is part 2 in a 3-part series. Read part 1.

How We Change Hearts and Minds

When Rabbi Jamie Korngold married Fran and Anna Simon in 2005, she made sure all present understood that the marriage had no legal standing.

According to Anna, "That was a surprise to many people." But, according to Fran, the wedding "really affirmed our relationship in their eyes, particularly the people closest to us."[more]

This is part 1 in a 3 part series.

Photo By: Peggy Dyer, www.peggydyer.com

Have You been Propositioned?

Fourteen simple words:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

And with those words, and the vote of 52.2% of the voters in California, the rights of roughly 120,000 people to wed in that state (estimated for three years) were taken away.

But shouldn't the wishes of the majority be respected? The voters in California (along with Colorado and 28 other states) have spoken. Well consider these very first words from the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

As well as the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clearly the U.S. Constitution has the authority to overrule any state's individual constitution and statutory code. Clearly the freedom from establishment of religion and the right to free exercise qualify as "privileges" and "immunities" under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that states cannot abridge these rights. And clearly, equal protection of the laws means that one class of people can't be subject to one set of laws while another group is subject to another.

Here's an analogy: The majority of the citizens of the State of Utah are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons have a number of beliefs and practices that are not necessarily adhered to by the majority of other members of society. For example, it is against Mormon law to have premarital sex, masturbate, view pornography, or have sexual fantasies. They also believe it is wrong to consume coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol.

There is nothing wrong with those beliefs. But suppose they were to put them on the ballot in Utah, and because Mormons have a majority in that state they were able get these aspects of their religion passed as state law. Because a majority believe it, it would be illegal to have a sexual fantasy or drink a cup of coffee.

How many people would consider that a violation of the principle of separation of church and state? How many people would be up in arms about their inability to get a cup of Starbucks, or watch just about any network television program?

Now, consider what has happened with gay marriage. Marriage is clearly a profoundly religious issue. A large percentage of weddings are performed by religious officials and/or in religious facilities. It is considered a sacred bond, and many religions speak out loudly on issues related to marriage. To many, gay marriage is an abomination. To others, it is a sacred celebration of love.

Although many weddings and unions are purely civil and secular, they cannot be separated from religion. In fact, ministers have been arrested for performing gay weddings.

That's right, they have been arrested for freely exercising their religion, something that is spelled out clearly as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights.

When our country was formed, the founding fathers had the idea that there were certain rights that are so basic that they cannot ever be taken away by the government. Not by Congress. Not by majority rule. Not by any individual state.

When gay marriage is allowed, its opponents lose nothing, except for the comfort of knowing that gay weddings are not taking place. But when gay marriage is banned, an entire class of people lose out on the sacred, emotional, financial, and other benefits of this institution. And that just isn't right.

One of these days, this issue will be brought in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as a First and Fourteenth Amendment issue, and I don't see how they could come to any other decision.

Fighting the Establishment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."

What does this mean? Fundamentally, it means that Congress (and, by the Incorporation Doctrine, state and local governments) can't give preferential treatment to the ideas of one religion over another, without a clear secular purpose. This was in direct response by the founders to the naming of the Church of England as the official religion of England and its colonies.

What clearer violation of this principle could there be than laws preventing gay marriage?

Think of it this way. Certain religions consider gay sex (and by extension gay marriage) to be a sin. Other religions do not, and in fact would be performing gay marriages today if they could. (And they do in Massachusetts and California.) Even though it may be the majority opinion that gay marriage is "wrong", that does not eliminate the protection of the First Amendment rights of those whose religious beliefs include sanctifying gay marriage.

And it is not just the establishment clause. The First Amendment also prevents our government from prohibiting free exercise of religion. When ministers are arrested for performing a religious ceremony (gay marriage), there is no doubt that this right has been infringed.

So, is there a secular purpose to banning gay marriage that can be used to overcome this objection?

What about the argument that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is best for children? That is a completely bogus argument. This is about marriage not about child rearing. If this were true, then gay marriage opponents should be working to ban gay adoption and gay artificial insemination. Indeed, many of the same people who are so worried about the children in this instance would not dream of imposing government will on parents to protect them in other instances where the science is more clear -- banning parents from smoking and drinking, banning parents from serving soft drinks to their kids, etc.

But the more fundamental reason that argument is flawed is that it is not equally applied. Many people marry and never have children or ever intend to (including me). Think of the elderly people that remarry long after child-bearing years. That's clearly not in the interest of the children they will never have, but we allow it anyway. But by the anti-gay marriage argument, all of our marriages should have been prevented because they will not result in children, the only valid reason for marriage.

Another argument that is often offered is to protect the word, the sanctity, or the tradition of marriage. Well, these arguments come perilously close to being explicitly religious in nature, which goes against our quest for a secular rationale. For what other word are we willing to sacrifice the rights of an entire class of citizens?

Plus, if you honestly check other cultures and traditions past and present, in this country and elsewhere in the world, you will find many other interpretations of the traditions around marriage, many of which are contrary to the beliefs of the majority here today. For example, in the Native American tradition, gays were accepted, even revered, and would often marry members of their own gender.

What about the concern that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage? In what way? Nobody would be forced to marry anybody they don't want to, no church would be forced to perform gay marriages, and no existing marriages would be affected in any conceivable way. This argument loses me completely.

It is claimed that gays are trying to force their agenda on everyone else. But who is forcing anything on anybody? It seems to me that the people who are being prevented from marrying are the only ones being imposed upon.

Colorado is one of the states in which gays are explicitly prevented form marrying. It's now in the state constitution. It really makes me wonder how so many people can fail to understand something so clear as the First Amendment.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

Act of Congress or Sidetracked and Pompous?

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times ran an ad by MoveOn.org calling General Petraeus "General Betray Us." Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Senate passed a GOP resolution, sponsored by Texan John Cornyn, by a 72-25 margin, condemning the ad. Several of the Democrats who voted against that bill had earlier voted in favor of a bill condemning the ad along with several earlier GOP-originated attack ads.

This week, our very own Democratic Representative, Mark Udall, introduced legislation condemning Rush Limbaugh for comments he had made about phony soldiers. Colorado Senator Ken Salazar has publicly said he would support a censure vote against Limbaugh if one were proposed.

A while back, a group of kooks and rebels led an effort to try to interfere with the free speech rights of Cornyn, Udall, and Salazar. They weren't happy just arguing publicly against them. No, they had to try to amend the U.S. Constitution to make the Congress members' speech illegal.

Oh, these kooks and rebels had names like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and James Madison. Their proposed rule was part of the very first Amendment, and it read, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of ... the press."

And the First Amendment was adopted.

So, apparently, Senators Cornyn and Salazar and Representative Udall, you don't get to do that. So, please go back to arguing about the war in Iraq or whatever it is you do when you aren't getting your feathers ruffled by what someone in the media says.

These guys have all vowed to uphold the Constitution, but apparently they haven't even read it!

On the Slopes, Two Wives Are Better than One

G. Lee Cook of Salt Lake City wants to get married again, but he is happy with his first and current wife. Unfortunately, according to state law in Utah (not to mention everywhere else I know about), that would be illegal.

I have previously argued that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Isn't that a slippery slope argument that will just open the flood gates to polygamy and other mixed metaphors? Why, soon we'll be wanting to grant religious freedom to everybody, even people that don't agree with (gasp!) me!

I say, let's open the gates. Let's slide down that slope. It sounds like fun. (Of course, I live in Colorado, and slippery slopes are an entire industry here.)

Cook, his current wife, and his prospective wife have brought their case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Utah Assistant Attorney Nancy Kemp argues that it is ok to ban polygamy, because the ban applies to everybody. As far as I can tell, this amounts to saying that it is ok to prevent people who are members of a religion from practicing that religion as long as you don't let anybody else practice it either. An interesting (but vitally flawed) interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't expect the courts to agree with me. But, after all, any judge who doesn't take my point of view is an activist judge and should be thrown from office. Wouldn't be constitutional, but it might be entertaining and ego boosting. And, in fact, that's what it's all about.

The Most Dangerous Man Alive?

Is it possible that someone can be more evil and more dangerous than Osama bin Laden? That is a very tall order. And for that position I nominate the Pastor John Hagee.

How can an evangelical preacher be that evil and dangerous? Well, for one, he and his growing national following have the ear of our Republican administration and Congress. He believes that rapture is imminent.

Personally, I don't care what he believes, whether he can convince people, or whether he can get these gullible people to send him millions of dollars every year. What I do care about, however, is that the end times he is calling for require a certain sequence of events, including widespread nuclear war (both in the middle east and in the red states of our country.) He is calling for the so-called Christian community in this country to back him, and is pushing the government to implement his policies.

These policies include, for example, doing everything to avoid a cease fire in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflicts. They include no room for any negotiations with Iran. They include the exploitation of Israel and the Jewish people for his own purposes (while pretending to be supportive).

At least with bin Laden, we are pretty much united in this country that he is evil and needs to be stopped (although we may not agree on how that should be done.) Pastor Hagee has a twice-daily broadcast on religious television. He is also meeting with the Congressional leadership and members of the administration. These members of our ruling party clearly do not believe that this man is evil and dangerous, and many are signing on to help him.

If you read my rantings regularly, you know that I believe strongly in the First Amendment. This means that John Hagee has every right to believe and preach anything he wants and people are free to follow him. What become a problem is when our elected government officials, who swore to uphold the Constitution, disgrace it instead by basing policy decisions on their religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of kooks like this. It becomes even worse when those religious beliefs are founded on the destruction of our country and planet.

We the Politicians

Allard Attacks the Constitution

In his defense of my challenge to his proposed anti-gay marriage amendment, Colorado Senator Allard did not respond directly to my fundamental point. I'll try to make that point more clear here.

The position against gay marriage is a religious position. The loudest voices on this issue come from religious leaders like James Dobson, and the politicians trying to suck up to them. At the same time, there are religions in which gay marriage is celebrated. For example, in the Unitarian church several ministers have performed gay marriage (and been arrested for it!). Clearly, when leaders of one religion believes one thing and leaders of another religion believes something else, this is a matter of religious belief.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, violates the First Amendment in two ways. First, it violates the establishment clause. It is a law passed by Congress that mandates the beliefs of a certain set of religions (in other words, establishes those beliefs as law). Second, it violates the free exercise clause, by preventing members of those religions that support gay marriage from freely exercising their religions. Arresting a minister for practicing her beliefs is in direct contradiction to this core principle laid down by our founding fathers.

What about putting the gay marriage ban into the constitution? Doesn't that get around this problem?

Well, Senator Allard and all of his peers took an oath, which reads, in part:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... and ... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

This means placing respect for the Constitution at the highest level. Authoring an amendment that violates the principles of the First Amendment seems to me to be the exact opposite of supporting and defending the Constitution. Attempting to change the will of our founding fathers does not seem to exhibit true faith and allegiance, but rather a religious-based attack.

In fact, I would maintain that Allard's amendment, even if it were to pass, would not be Constitutionally valid. Because the introduction of Allard's amendment to the Senate is tantamount to making a law that violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, that act in and of itself is unconstitutional and should not stand.

Let me be clear here. My position is not anti-religious. It is pro-religious. I encourage Wayne Allard to believe and practice the religion of his choice. The history of mankind is full of examples of people using religion to accomplish great things. However, our country was founded on the principle that no religion can have supremacy, and that the beliefs of the minority need to be protected against the tyranny of the majority.

Senator Allard, get your religion out of my Constitution!

Allard Defends Anti-Gay Amendment

A few weeks ago, I challenged Colorado Senator Wayne Allard over his proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Allard has since responded; see below for details.

I will respond to his arguments in detail over the next few days. I note now, however, that the Senator did not respond to my accusation that he is attempting to write his personal religion into the Constitution and hence violating his oath of office to protect the Constitution. My assumption is that his intern ("SK") noted the topic and that I am from Boulder, and decided it wasn't worth any more effort than sending the standard talking points on the issue.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the issue of marriage. I appreciate you taking the time to write on such an important issue.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. The definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology, and ethnicity. Marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of our society. It is the one bond on which all other bonds are built and from which families and communities are grown.

As you may know, on January 24, 2005, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 1 along with 32 of my Senate colleagues. Known as the Marriage Protection Amendment, the resolution states that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Unfortunately, traditional marriage has been under attack by those who wish to redefine marriage to be something that it is not. Activists have chosen to debate this issue not through the democratic processes such as state legislatures, the Congress, or ballot initiatives, but have instead turned to unaccountable and unelected judges.

The purpose of my amendment is two-fold: First, it defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman, and, second, it ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on individuals. This amendment would not affect civil unions as created by state legislatures, nor the ability of private employers to offer benefits to same-sex couples. This amendment simply affirms the traditional definition of marriage and allows state legislatures, and not courts, to decide the issue of civil unions or domestic partnerships.

I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. My decision to introduce a Constitutional amendment was made in direct response to the carefully coordinated campaign to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts.

I am pleased that on June 7, 2006, a majority of Senators voting voted in support of my amendment. Although it did not receive enough votes to end the filibuster, the progress that was achieved in the Senate and the states since the first vote on this amendment in 2004 is proof that marriage remains an important issue to the American people.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.


Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:SK

Allard Violates His Oath of Office

The U.S. Senate voted today on an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. This amendment was authored by Colorado's own Senator Wayne Allard.

Senator Allard: How dare you!? You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And here you are attempting to write your personal religion into the Constitution. This is the height of arrogance.

Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech for Anti-Choice Protesters

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling yesterday confirmed that racketeering laws can't be used against anti-abortion protesters. This has been cited as a big win for the pro-life cause, while the pro-choice crowd is deeply troubled by what they see as a big loss.

However, as I see it, we all won on this one. The first amendment of the U.S Constitution grants all of us the right to protest. If laws can be passed that prevent one group from protesting on one specific issue, then we are all at risk of losing something vital.

If you are pro-choice, imagine how you would feel if congress passed a law that said you are guilty of extortion and racketeering if you protest obnoxiously outside the house of James Dobson or other anti-abortion nuts. You'd be up in arms, as you should be.

So, let's try to take this as a win for both sides. In at least one case, the right-leaning Supreme Court has avoided the judicial activism of imposing their own beliefs on all of us. And let's continue to have a vigorous debate in the public forum on the real issues of women's rights vs. fetal rights.

Bring it on! If we can't take your protests, we don't deserve to win.