I don't think we need more of the Duncan v. Koppelman debate

[Robert O'Brien]

I want to thank Michael Newsom for the reference to Gusfield's _Symbolic
Crusade_.

> I find the parallels powerful and strong.  My question to those like
Duncan
> who appeal to an anti-gay marriage majority is whether and to what extent
do
> they want to have the law and legal enforcement harnessed in support of
their
> morality, since these folks, at some level, want to control and manage the
> lives of others.  Those on Koppelman's side, if I have it right, are not
> interested in deciding what other people can do or cannot do.  They merely
> seek to have the law adopt what might be called a live-and-let-live
approach.
> The question of legal enforcement is obviously quite different in the two
> cases.

I find similar parallels in the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
particularly in the early 1940s.  The "moral" majority used whatever laws
they could--peddling, licensing, littering, tresspassing, disturbing the
peace, sedition--to oppress the JWs.  One ACLU informant, a college dean,
saw no civil liberties issue in the jailing of a large number of JWs in his
town because they were held in jail only a short time and were not fined and
because being "forced" to listen to them on Sunday morning was really a
bother (this after discribing sending the JW caller from his door without
listening to his spiel).  (Fortunately, the people at the ACLU headquarters
evaluated the situation differently.)

Robert J. O'Brien
obrien at wvwc.edu