Becky Lourey Seperates Herself from Crowd
From the Kare 11 site
The Minnesota Senate passed a bill Thursday that would limit the types of protests allowed at soldier's funerals. This is in response to the recent Anoka protest at a funeral of a soldier who served in Iraq. The protesters, a Kansas-based group, are traveling around the country to funerals of soldiers who served in Iraq claiming that the United States is being punished because it is tolerant to homosexuals. The group believes that the United States should outlaw sodomy and give the death penalty to offenders.
The bill passed 58 to 1, with the sole dissent coming from Gubernatiorial candidate, Becky Lourey. Lourey is the only Minnesota legislator with a son killed in Iraq. In a Kare 11 interview, she said that although some free speech is 'ugly,' it needs to be protected, and she believes that this freedom of speech is something her son died for. The Minnesota house has unanimously passed a similar bill, and Pawlenty is expected to sign it into law.
Noble move by Becky Lourey or political stunt? Should we limit free speech in this case?
2 Comments:
Becky Lourey is clearly a woman whose vote in the Senate is motivated by love of the Constitution and joy in service to the people of Minnesota. She does not play political games. Is it noble to vote to protect the right of free speech as was wisely written into the Constitution? Yes Senator Lourey often separates herself from other legislators when it is a matter of principle and that is why her vote should be seen as it is; Noble.
Very well put, Helene. I agree that it was not a political stunt by any means--Becky does not seem like the kind of person to pull that, particularly in regards to her son, and whatis the practical gain from it?
I still don't know whether I agree with her vote against, though. First of all, protesters who target funerals miss the point, I think: it's not about the soldiers, but rather about the government that moves them around like so many pieces in a Risk game.
They also miss the point of funerals: to celebrate the life of the individual. It is a moment where the people who knew him/her get together to remember that life's impact on the world. If the person was an abortion doctor, you don't see pro-lifers out there protesting; if the person was a logging baron, you don't see environmental groups protesting. Even Sam Walton was able to go to his grave peacefully.
What I'm trying to say is that we generally accept as a society that peoples' deaths are their own, and the moment of the funeral is for those who knew them to recollect all that person meant to them. We would not allow any other form of protest related to an individual's occupation--why should we allow this? I am speaking from the point of cultural acceptance, not legality, although one would hope the two are somehow related.