The headline story of The New York Times online edition was a story about the Supreme Court ruling that picketing at a funeral of a fallen soldier was acceptable.

The Supreme Court ruled that  the protests were protected by the Constitution under our right to freedom of speech.  Under the law, this decision does make sense.

However, while the protests are lawful, that does not mean that they are morally acceptable. The Baptist Church protesting America’s attitude towards homosexuals at the funerals of soldiers who have fallen in combat reveals more about the moral condition of America than the judicial condition.

A ruling that increased an implied right to privacy by stating that the protests were not allowed would have been made on shaky constitutional grounds.  The Constitution explicitly states in the first amendment that all Americans have the right to freedom of speech.

The Constitution never explicitly states that Americans have a right to privacy. That power has been built and implied over time, which does not make the power any less significant, only less stable.

The question that should be asked is, why would anyone think it was okay to protest the government’s stance on homosexuals at the funeral of a soldier who died in combat?

There is a time and place for everything. A funeral for a soldier who died for our country is neither the time nor the place to express your opinion about homosexuality.

What those protestors did was heinous. Even if they can protest under the law, it is up to the other citizens of America to show our disapproval for this vile, uncouth act.

Meg Kirchner is a Reporter at “The Patriot” and jcpatriot.com.