Judge renames couple’s baby, needs First Amendment refresher

We write a lot about the ridiculous things government officials in Illinois do, but make no mistake: officials in other states do plenty of outrageous stuff, too. In Tennessee, for example, there’s Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew. When two unmarried parents had a dispute over whose last name their child should take, Judge Ballew decided to...

We write a lot about the ridiculous things government officials in Illinois do, but make no mistake: officials in other states do plenty of outrageous stuff, too.

In Tennessee, for example, there’s Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew. When two unmarried parents had a dispute over whose last name their child should take, Judge Ballew decided to change the child’s first name – from Messiah, which the parents had agreed upon, to Martin, which Judge Ballew preferred.

The judge ruled that the “word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ.”

American public school students may not know much about history and the U.S. Constitution, but I’d bet that most of them know what this judge apparently didn’t: you can’t do that. Under the First Amendment (and its counterparts in the Tennessee Constitution and the Illinois Constitution), one thing the government definitely cannot do is decree the identity and quantity of Messiahs. And, of course, a government official shouldn’t be choosing your child’s name, anyway.

It’s disgraceful that these young parents have to go through this ordeal, but there may be a silver lining: at least it provides a reminder that even the judges who are supposed to know the Constitution better than anyone often get it very wrong.

The protection of our constitutional liberties can’t be left to the courts alone – it’s up to the public to be vigilant and decry abuses such as this one when they occur. Hopefully, when another judge hears an appeal of this decision next month, he’ll side with the court of public opinion – which appears to overwhelmingly favor the child’s parents – and the First Amendment.