Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2004
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Finally - Some Congressional Debate on the Patriot Act | Main | What me worry? Google's unhelpful reassurance about users' privacy »

February 03, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c69e553ef00d8343db55453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bill to keep gay books out of libraries officially read by Alabama legislature February 1, 2005 - Text of HB30 :

Comments

Alabama is so fucked up =S we have horrible politicians who are elected because they take popular vote with the Christian sheep. Stuff like this and the sex toy ban really piss me off... I had a petition going for it but, naturally, nothing came from it. I'm so glad it died.

This bill has died, due to lack of support. However, the sponsor has promised to introduce the bill again during the next session.

See: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions/story/6473383p-6353469c.html

The guy from g0ys misread something in Alabama's law "No public funds shall be used for the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle or encourages or proposes to public school children that they have a legitimate right to decide or choose illegal conduct."

Those who believe this is a good idea should take a look at the book "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury.

My teacher had us read this is 11th grade. She told us that we would probably never need to worry about censorship such as this because we live in a free country. But alas I see ourselves on this path. Knowledge is power, and no state or country has a right to tell me or my children what they may or may not read, or have access to. This is my decision as an adult and the decision of parents, not of the state. Banning these books will only seek to support prejudice against the gay and lesbian community.

As far as anal sex being more dangerous than vaginal sex. This to a point is true, if one is not careful it can cause anal tearage which can lead to hemmoraging, but this can also happen during vaginal sex. STD's are transmitted more analy then vaginally, only because people do not feel they need condoms when performing anal sex. Using common sense, testing and monogomy will handle these issues. People aquire gential herpes orally from giving oral sex, is there a suggestion now that oral sex should be outlawed because of the few people who refuse to practice safe sex? Should we outright ban all sexual acts because the behavior of few is unsafe?

Also I believe some people should remember the point of our constitution. It's to protect the rights of the few against the opinions of the many. I'll leave on that little note

Sodomy is not limited to gay anal sex. It also includes oral and anal sex by straights and gays. So this ridiculous notion that the scope of this law only impacts gay men who engage in anal sex is a figment entirely of g0ys imagination.

To the last poster, I direct your attention to the last sentence of Section 1(a) where the bill states "No public funds shall be used for the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle or encourages or proposes to public school children that they have a legitimate right to decide or choose illegal conduct."

In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court stated that "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Gay bigots? Yup. The text of the proposed law makes no mention of "homosexuality". See it for yourself: "To prohibit the expenditure or use of public funds or public facilities by any state agency or public entity for the purchase, production, or promotion of printed or electronic materials or activities that sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state."
See anything "gay" there. I don't. Now ... there is a group of bigots (fairly large) that insist that "gay-sex"="Anal*sex". As a man who is a Kinsey-6 (yup I'm into maleness), - I DETEST the entire butt-play media model of what "gay" is about. I'm not alone. There is a growing group that calls itself "g0ys" (Spelled w. a ZER0) that consists of guys who love guys but shun acts that diminish the man. We have no problem with "anti-sodomy laws" the way they are described in most law books. As far as the health issue goes -- based on numbers from the CDC, "Anal*sex" is +400% more likely to spread STD's than any other form! When you look at the effects across large populations where Disease=(Population)^(Iteration*Risk) where Risk is the difference between a number less than 1 vs. a number over 1 ... then it becomes blatantly obvious that "Sodomy" (Anal*sex) is the very reason why the globe is awash in STD's like AIDS.
So the nest time someone says that "Anal Sex" is on par with other forms of intimate expression ... you'll know better; -- And next time someone wants to say that "Gay*sex"="Anal" ... you'll know better. BTW> Many Biblical scholars now believe that the prohibitions in Leviticus against "Man lying with man as he lies with a woman" are specific prohibitions against men playing the female role (being penetrated) -- N0T prohibitions against male/male intimacy. The common-law domestic contract between David & Jonathan would support this view. Likewise: Romans 1 is not forbidding "homo-sex" ... it forbids ANAL*sex. Scriptures like Galatians 3:28 are in agreement with this. It's time to rightfully divide this issue. Anal-sex is a FETISH (a sexual preoccupation with a non-genital organ). Whether M/M or M/F -- the act is OBSCENE & therefore does NOT enjoy 1st amendment protection.
- good day

Mike-

Sodomy is no longer illegal. Consensual activity between two people can not be legislated any longer. And honestly, what books have you been reading that tell you that anal sex is any more inherently dangerous than vaginal sex. They weren't medical texts, which would explain that sex in general is safe and healthy but can be dangerous to anyone that is not informed of the health consequences.

Mike - this is purely a speech regulation. Libraries have books on all kinds of topics, check out Dewey Decimal 364 section for books on true crime.

Mike, parsing apart the conflation of homosexuality, illegality, and sodomy and "deviant sexual behavior" in state statutes is really outside of the scope of this blog.

Equating of these occurs within the language of the bill itself (read the last sentence of section a) and the analysis of sex laws in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)). For more about the history of regulating sexual practices, read Becker, Mary, "Family Law in the Secular State and Restrictions on Same-Sex Marriage: Two Are Better Than One," University of Illinois Law Review, 2001:1-56 (Winter 2001)

What is important for the library community is the viewpoint discrimination inherent in the bill.

The bill uses langauge that is supporting the earlier "law" that sought to crimalize the act of sodomy. Now, if we are questioning whether or not the government can sanction or condemn a certain act done between two bodies, that is one thing. But, if we are arguing that homosexuality is contingent on the act of sodomy, I'm not sure I buy that. I would be opposed to a law stating that homosexuality is illegal, but sodomy is inherently more dangerous than normal penis-vagina intercourse and could be seen as an attempt to outlaw harmful acts engaged against oneself (like suiside) or against others (rape, murder, etc.)

Since James Dobson of Focus on the Family "recognizes" homosexuality everywhere, even in animated sponges, this bill would ban his works from all libraries in Alabama. Right?

Felix

First, they try to eliminate your history (or any printed record of your existance). Then, they try to erase YOU.

Further thoughts: Although this is a spending case, we have a recent appellate decision that, I believe, says a specific government message cannot be forced on an institution as a condition of receiving general funds (as opposed to a GENERAL message forced on libraries using targeted funds, say, for Internet access). See
FORUM FOR ACADEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD

I'm surprised, after all the criticism, that this bill was officially introduced. It's so outrageously against the First Amendment that it makes a mockery of the democratic process.

The comments to this entry are closed.