X-Sender: kevyn@pop.ksu.ksu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 16:21:44 -0600
To: Kansas Queer News <kqn@casti.com>
From: kevyn@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (Kevyn Jacobs) Subject: (TOPEKA, PHELPS) TCJ EDITORIAL: Picketing Petition is Democracy Sender: owner-kqn%vector.casti.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU Precedence: bulk


FROM THE TOPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 - EDITORIAL PAGE
===================================

Picketing Ordinance:
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

*Citizens now stand ready to go over the city council's heads to get an effective picketing law.

We come now to another fork in the road. 

With a citizens petition now certified by the county election commissioner, city officials have yet another opportunity to either lead or follow. 

Though the city council already has passed a mild law prohibiting picketing outside of religious services, at least 4,000 residents have signed petitions seeking a tougher law.

Now the city council has 20 days to either pass the tougher law--put forth by the religious leaders of Interfaith of Topeka--or schedule a public vote for later this year.

Compared with the city's law, the Interfaith version would prohibit more kinds of demonstrating for longer periods of time--and would push pickets farther away.

Since the city's version went into effect earlier this summer, it has appeared largely ineffectual.

Some--most notably the pickets themselves--claim the Interfaith proposal is unconstitutional. The Phelps family of antihomosexual pickets promises to fight it in court and to cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so.

City council members shouldn't be intimidated by overinflated estimates of legal challenges. First of all, it's likely that a civicminded lawyer will represent the city at nominal cost. And even if it comes at great cost, this question must be asked: At what price should we abandon our principles?

There is also some talk that some city council members might refuse to put the Interfaith law on the ballot because they fear it may be unconstitutional. Poppycock. That's an uncertainty. What is certain is that state law requires the council to act. 

What the council should do is simply approve the tougher law and avoid the $75,000 cost of an election. The legal challenge by the Phelpses appears unavoidable--but the cost of the election can be averted easily enough with decisive action by the council.

But if council members can't find the courage to stand up for Topekans' rights to worship without being harassed, then at least let the citizenry do so.