Champions of freedom should defend all sides

by Rep. Julie Parrish

Recently, a letter from the ACLU in opposition of HB 3241 reached my inbox at the Legislature. The bill would require a buffer zone between funeral goers and funeral protesters. In it, the ACLU describes why they believe the bill to be unconstitutional, and how the courts will continue to uphold the free speech rights of those like Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church followers. However, neither the original nor amended versions of the bill say people can’t protest at a funeral should they choose to be that obnoxious.

The slogan on the ACLU website says, “Because Freedom Can’t Defend Itself”.  I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that the authority to defend freedom and uphold the Constitution lies with the Commander in Chief of the United States, who shall, through executive order, direct the US Military and the militias of state governments, when called into the actual service of the United States, to be the defenders of freedom, specifically, to defend and protect the Constitution. Nowhere have I ever read in that document that the defense of freedom lies with the ACLU and its interpretation of our charters of freedom.

The ACLU’s opposition to HB 3421 engages in hairsplitting, and while that is their Constitutional right, it does a disservice to those who are the true defenders of our freedom. My husband puts on a uniform every day to defend the Constitution of both the United States and the State of Oregon.  He is willing to lay down his life for the freedom that a 235-year old piece of paper gives to every citizen, freedom which some Americans take for granted, and freedom that the ACLU seems hell-bent on “defending” through litigation to the most extreme position imaginable, typically for the ACLU’s own agenda.

I do not for one moment believe that our founding fathers, when constructing a document that allowed for both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, ever intended that one could exercise their right to freedom of speech for the purpose of overpowering another’s right to a peaceful exercise in religious worship.  Funeral rites are entrenched in nearly every known religion; so arguably, funeral and burial rites should have equal protection under the First Amendment.

Interestingly, if one were to simply weigh the value of the placement order of freedoms listed in the First Amendment, religion was the first order of business, with freedom of speech listed as subsequent to religion. People came to the United States not because they were opining a lack of free speech – they were specifically fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of speech was but one piece of the equation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As much as the ACLU decries the free speech issues in HB 3241, I have yet to see the ACLU champion the rights of those whose right to worship under the law is threatened by those funeral protesters engaging in a form of religious persecution.

Should the time come in our country that these freedoms are truly under attack, it will not be the ACLU that rides in to defend them, it will be the only body that is recognized by the Constitution to act in our defense….the United States Military at the direction of the Commander in Chief.  I have yet to see anyone from either the State or Federal military departments of any branch of service step forward and announce that HB 3421 is an attack on the liberties and freedoms afforded to citizens under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If the courts are siding with individuals like Fred Phelps and his family of protesters, it could be that the lens they use to evaluate the cases, freedom of speech, is being held at the wrong angle.  Light shines through every surface of a prism.  Maybe it’s time our courts see these cases not as a challenge to one’s right to exercise free speech, but rather, as an affront on one’s right to worship freely as they see fit.

The ACLU’s concern about free speech should not drown out the other protections afforded United States citizens. When this bill comes for a vote, I’m going to err on the side of the Constitution that protects citizens from obstruction, intrusion, and threats as they worship under the rights granted them by the supreme law of the land.


  • Joe

    These “protestors” are just a bunch of sad sack losers. Their pathetic lives have no meaning, so they do something like this, which takes no courage whatsoever, and then they feel important.
    It would be sad if it wasn’t so wrong.
    They are life’s hapless, luckless, meaningless losers. In spades.

  • John B.

    Um… I understand the ACLU is a favorite punching bag for conservatives, but your logic here is more than a bit tortured. The Constitution & the Bill of Rights are compliments to each other. The ACLU, through the proper remedial course of litigation, does serve to be a check on government. You may find their reasons for opposing a bill you are sponsoring or supporting to be wrong-headed, but they do help to protect our freedoms. Its good to remember that one of the ACLU founders was Felix Frankfurter, an eventual New Dealer who then went on to be a judicial conservative on the Supreme Court. I bring this up because he helped rein in governmental power just as the ACLU might be considering doing here. You provide a necessary function in your capacity as a Legislator fashioning what you believe to be the best remedy to a difficult situation and the ACLU also provides a necessary function as an interested party. In other words… I get what you’re sayin’, Julie, but you’re sayin’ it wrong.

    • Oregonnative

      John B.
      I like your response, but as any Organization that gets to big for the b_tts or briches…they tend to emplode upon themselves. A.C.L.U. is overpaying their execs. way to much, and spending a tremendous of donated funds on issues, while not protecting the defendant at the same time as since both think thier are right. It is a vicious circle and who make’s the choice. What can be said, except I would never send them a donation.

  • I think you’re a bit harsh on the ACLU here. The fact of the matter is this legislation restricts freedom of speech. It does so, because of the belief that the freedom to peaceably assemble and practice their religion deserves as much protection as the freedom of speech of the protesters. I think this is a worthy arguments and good legislation. But I also support ACLU in their belief that this is too much of a restriction of freedom of speech. They are entitled to that opinion even if I disagree with it, and I don’t think they have done anything wrong in this issue.

  • Pingback: prediksi bola akurat()

  • Pingback: iPad pillow()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: counter strike merchandise()

  • Pingback: watch tv show episodes()

  • Pingback: watch tv show episodes()

  • Pingback: kangen water()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: alkaline water machine()

  • Pingback: pay day loans()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electricians tool pouch home depot()

  • Pingback: minecraft maps()

  • Pingback: alkaline water brands()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: shop car insurance()

  • Pingback: pay plan()