Yep, Fred Phelps. The article fails to mention why his church has become so controversial, and I don't know whether it is because they ran out of space, or they were trying to make the ACLU look a little bit better than it would if WaPo had published relevant photos with the article. You know, stuff like this:
You know, the ACLU doesn't have to take every potential case -- I imagine Mr. Phelps can afford his own lawyers. Defending someone's Constitutional right to carry signs that say "God hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" at funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan can be viewed, I guess, as a check on government's ability to stifle political or religious speech -- I can acknowledge that. It's just that this Phelps guy is so odious, and his following so deranged, that it is difficult to understand why any smart lawyer (and the ACLU is full of smart crusader types) would use Phelps as a plaintiff in the suit. I mean, there are plenty of folks who are willing to picket at a soldier's funeral against the war in a perfectly peaceful and non-"God hates Fags" kind of way that would be much more sympathetic. Bad tactics, in my view.