Chief Abides By His Own Constitution

Whatever else he may be, police chief Norm Stamper fancies himself an expert in constitutional law. Chief Stamper recently participated in a local “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Parade/March” while wearing his uniform, but denied the right of other Seattle police officers to parade in uniform during a “March for Jesus” the day before.

Stamper said the event in which he participated was constitutionally defensible because it was part of “community policing.” Allowing officers to march in uniform during the March for Jesus would have violated church-state separation, he said.

The chief’s decision, which he says is based on department policy, is another example of government’s growing hostility to anything “religious” that does not support what activists and others deem the politically correct position.

In the gay rally, which attracted an estimated 40,000 people, numerous placards were visible opposing two proposed ballot initiatives that would not allow special rights for homosexuals. Organizers of the Jesus march, which drew an estimated 12,000 participants, specifically prohibited any political overtones. Still, Chief Stamper says the religious content of this event was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote about Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion.

According to Seattle Police Department policy, officers may participate in any parade, or any function with a political agenda, as long as they don’t wear uniforms and, therefore, become representatives of the police department. Critics say, however, that Chief Stamper violated this policy because the gay rights parade had a clear political agenda and the Jesus affair did not.

“If you sum up my politics,” said Chief Stamper, “it’s the politics of diversity.” Well, not exactly. His view of diversity apparently is not diverse enough to include those Christian police officers who might have wished to march in uniform to support a Leader and some principles in which they believe. Some of those officers believe the gay rights agenda represents a religious point of view. Would Chief Stamper allow his officers to march in uniform in a parade organized by the gay Metropolitan Community Church at which “God is gay” signs were prominent? That might test his constitutional theories to the breaking point.

Government officials damage constitutional principles when, in the case of abortion, they seek to limit how and where protests may be conducted, and in the Seattle case, when they selectively offer or withhold the city’s stamp of approval.

Such an approach limits, rather than expands freedom. It should be up to officers to decide, under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment, when and where they can march. Otherwise, officers should be banned from participating in ANY event while in uniform.

In the past, conflicts with government about moral and religious issues were mostly won by the church. Today, the state is winning most of these battles because the church has lost its moral voice, too often preferring a political to a spiritual agenda; an earthly to a heavenly kingdom.

Still, Chief Stamper is wrong to single out one event and one category in which uniformed officers may not participate. He should reread the Constitution.