A Civics Test for America: Snyder V. Phelps

This week the Supreme Court opened its new term during which it intends to hear oral arguments in the case of Snyder v. Phelps. It just may be one of the most important First Amendment cases in decades. The case pits Albert Snyder, father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq in 2006, against Rev. Fred Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.

Phelps' small congregation of primarily extended family members for 20 years has shown up at disasters around the country -- most recently in West Virginia where 29 coal miners died -- tormenting survivors that their tragedy was an act of a wrathful God furious that America tolerates homosexuality. "Thank God for 9/11," says Phelps' daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper. "Thank him, because we all deserve death in hell, and he has mercifully spared us and it's time for repentance."

In 2005, the group began targeting funerals of service personnel, claiming the deceased was damned for defending such a depraved country. Whether the Phelps suspected the soldier of being gay appears to be irrelevant.

As Snyder family members arrived to grieve the loss of Matthew, Phelps' clan confronted them with songs, chants and signs bearing incendiary wording such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags."

Snyder contended the protest was an invasion of his family's privacy and sued. A Baltimore district judge awarded Snyder $10.9 million but the verdict was overturned on appeal on the grounds of First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. The court added insult to injury by ordering Snyder to pay Westboro Church $16,000 in legal costs.

The facts in the case surely will inflame emotions. Even those who oppose homosexual rights will be sickened by the disgusting affront to the grieving families of our heroic troops. My thesaurus doesn't contain enough synonyms to describe the despicable, nauseating, contemptible, loathsome behavior of this crowd.

The vast majority of Americans may finally coalesce around something. Unfortunately, it may be around the wrong something. The public reaction here is similar to a few years ago when language taken from the Bill of Rights was proposed as a "possible" amendment to the Constitution and over 70 percent of those surveyed rejected it as too radical and un-American.

It's easy to defend speech with which everyone agrees. It's speech as vile and offensive as Phelps' that tests America's commitment to its basic values.

The Supreme Court should direct authorities to establish demonstration guidelines, including adequate separation, to spare families as much anguish as possible, but, I hate to say, it must find for Phelps or do lasting damage to our essential freedoms.

So, hold your nose, root for the preacher and defend an American birthright.