Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

I would like this to be a reasonable debate. Pro assumes the case of Albert Snyder, and Con will assume the Westboro case. Primarily, this scopes the right to privacy and to grieve vs. the constitutional amendment to protest under the First Amendment. The only rule is that you can not use the Supreme Court ruling as evidence in the debate. Good luck in the debate, Con. =Opening Statement= In a nation ravenged by war, it is universally beholden as truth that the lives given to protect another in our military are sacred and consecreated. "We have come to dedicate a portion of (this) field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives so that a nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." (Abraham Lincolin, Gettysburg Address) The story is one of sorrow. A young Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, gave his life for our country's survival. On the beginning of a quiet day of his funeral, with his parents, friends and family grieving at his memory and ultimate sacrifice, cries rang through the air. Let it be known that on that solemn day, there was a protest held at his funeral, with claims "Thank God for dead soldiers." and "Praise God for dead soldiers/Thank God for 9/11!" What I say is not an exaggeration, though I wish it was. According to wphtv.com "The group said soldiers deserve to die for fighting for a country that tolerates homosexuality." =Contentions= 1. The right to protest should not overlap a right to privacy and to grieve. The goal of the church was to demonstrate him and his death, not as an honored sacrifice, but as a dishonorable attempt to protect an undeserving country. They held this protest immediately outside, and at the same time, as the funeral process. This was to intentially and maliciously damage the memory of this soldier. He will be dead forever, yet they chose his burial time, the peak time of his death, to dishonor him. 2. It was the intention of the church to damage the memory of this soldier and harm his family and friends. At the loss of their only son, the family grieved as best as they could with the cries that his death was deserved barraging them. I would like the audience to imagine the incident, close your eyes for a moment if you will and really envision it. Someone you love, dead, dying to defend the rights of people. Meanwhile, people exercise the rights Snyder died for to dishonor his memory and sacrifice. =Conclusion= I stand firm that the protest should have been carried out at a different time or a different place at the time of the funeral, so it would not lap over the right to grieve. What they did was reprehensible, and it was their intention to harm and is so their claim that he deserved to die because he defends a country that is "tolerant" of homosexuals. 1. http://www.kake.com... 2. http://www.whptv.com... 3. www.cephas-library.com/...god/assembly_of_god_member_killed_her_sons.html -