San Francisco, CA (WEB Wire Service) July 4,
2000 - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in San Francisco, has
decided a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) which was formerly
Protestants and Other Americans for the Separation of Church and State
(POASCS). The court ruled that the cities in California that have the names
of Christian saints have to change them to secular ones. In a press conference,
Barney Freiheit of the ACLU praised the decision as a great step in freedom
for Americans.
"This decision is pivotal in our struggle for the freedom
of individual Americans. It is our opinion and the court agrees," he said.
"Our argument had two thrusts. The first is that there exists a Right of
Comfort that is fundamental. The second is that this violates the separation
of church and state. If even one American is made uncomfortable by the
name of a city, then the person's right to being comfortable must be upheld.
We will continue our fight to make the Right of Comfort as fundamental
as the Bill of Rights. Also, the state of California has stepped over the
line in supporting and maintaining the imposition of religious names on
people who not only do not know Spanish and/or are not Christians. This
is clearly a case of the state supporting religion and at the same time
making these citizens uncomfortable."
Horace Saxon, the lawyer for AUSCS (POASCS), nodded agreement with Mr.
Freiheit and explained the thinking of the court.
"The justices were very clear in their ruling. They have
found in the Federal Constitution the Right to Comfort. The justices invoked
the 'insure domestic Tranquility' and 'promote the general Welfare' as
significant in their thinking. Section 8 was also referred to as it has
been so often in ground breaking rulings. Amendment XIII, section 1. played
a role for a number of the justices. Just having to live in San Francisco
was deemed involuntary servitude. A yoke no citizen should have to bear.
The religious question is straight forward. The state of California is
establishing religion by having these names for the cities. Nothing could
be clearer."
Ordinary citizens had mixed reactions to the announcement. Outside
of UCLA, two honor students were amazed to discover that the original name
of LA was El Pueblo de Neustra Seņora la Reina de Los Angeles.
"Like I don't get it, man", said one. "Isn't LA just LA?
Like in UCLA."
"Names don't mean anything anyway", chimed in the other. "Only Muslim
names have meanings to them. I learnt that in Diversity 101."
Other reactions were not as nonchalant as these. Tony Bennett, the famous
crooner, vowed to continue singing 'I Left My Heart in San Francisco',
laws or no laws.
"Can you imagine 'I Left My Heart in Frisco', he asked?
Or Golden Gate City? This is terrible. The meter is all wrong."
Harsh criticism also came from an unlikely source when the decision was
condemned by The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) which has
been aligned with the ACLU in the past. The spokeschicana, Maria
Jose Lopez-Gomez, wasted no time in calling for an appeal to the Supreme
Court and decried what she described as an attack on Hispanic history.
"If those anglos in San Francisco think they can steal California
from us, they are mistaken. We will breed them into oblivion", she shouted
over a bull-horn in front of a statue of Quetzalcoatl in the Plaza de Cesar
Chavez at San Jose. "They stole California from us and we aim to
steal it back. There will be picketing all across the state. A boycott
of table grapes will start tomorrow. This will not stand."
Others appeared to be in favor of the ruling. In San Francisco, Guy Gay,
a supervisor, lauded the ruling as long overdue and just retribution against
Christians who force their outmoded sexual mores on others.
"This is the greatest. I'd like to see their faces over
there at the bishop's palace", he told a news conference. "We are already
working on a new name for the city. It looks like Harvey Milk City has
the lead in the polls. I'm going to introduce legislation to have a study
done on finding a new name. It probably wouldn't cost more than $150,000
but Harvey Milk City is OK with me."
The Attorney General of California, Bill Lockyer, deferred questions as
to whether California would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Lockyer stated "We haven't had time to review the ruling
but the cost to California will be very great. When you consider the road
signs, maps, and official papers... this will run into big money."
Reaction outside the state of California came faster than expected. See
the companion article on C9 in which a Texas couple, recent immigrants
from Alsace-Lorraine, is suing to have the name of Fredricksburg changed.
They are claiming the Right to Comfort and residual mental anguish from
the results of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. |