Posted on 12/01/2004 3:48:43 PM PST by pete anderson
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."
The bill also would ban materials that recognize or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Alabama. Allen said that meant books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too.
His bill also would prohibit a teacher from handing out materials or bringing in a classroom speaker who suggested homosexuality was OK, he said.
Allen has sponsored legislation to make a gay marriage ban part of the Alabama Constitution, but it was not approved by the Legislature.
Ken Baker, a board member of Equality Alabama, a gay rights organization, said Allen was "attempting to become the George Wallace of homosexuality."
Aside from the moral debates, the bill could be problematic for library collections, said Jaunita Owes, director of the Montgomery City-County Library, which is a few blocks from the Alabama Capitol.
"Half the books in the library could end up being banned. It's all based on how one interprets the material," Owes said.
E-mail: kchandler@bhamnews.com
Allen said that meant books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too.
That would be a BLESSING, as far as I am concerned....Bill Clinton is an embarrassment......
"The Feds need to keep out of it."
I guess I missed that part of the article. How are the feds involved again?
Someone was suggesting Supreme Court, etc.
I hope not...
Nope. The Constitution sets states' rights. And the 1st Amendment is guaranteed to all citizens (see the 14th Amendment).
You have to understand, you can't just scream out "states' rights" any time you feel like trashing civil liberties. You actually have to check with the Constitution to see what rights states have.
Screw him. This is nothing but censorship.
Lurking Libertarian wrote:
If Hillary Clinton is elected president and proposes a law saying that no public school or public library may have any books that portray Republicans in a positive light, you will agree that that would be constitutional?
................................................
Except the law does not state that a library cannot have such a book on it's shelves, it only states that public funds cannot be used to purchase the book. Therefore, I don't think it would be unconstitutional for a law that prohibits the funding of books that promote conservatism. It would be somewhat stupid, such as this law would be.
You see, the law does not ban anything, it only makes the use of public funds to acquire the literature unlawful. Big difference.
The Bible fails the test of not including any sodomy.
And if California and Massachusetts ban the Bible as hate speech, that's fine with you?
pete anderson wrote:
How about the Bible, I have seen it on the shelf of a public university library. Are you willing to toss the Bible in a hole as well?
I hope not...
...................................................
I am going to find every idiotic "ban" post on this thread and reiterate that the law ban's nothing but the use of funds to purchase said literature. Personally I don't agree with the law, but it does neither censor nor ban any literary work.
pete anderson wrote:
Does this mean that Lynn Cheney's book will be burned in Alabama?
......................................................
I am going to find every idiotic "ban" post on this thread and reiterate that the law ban's nothing but the use of funds to purchase said literature. Personally I don't agree with the law, but it does neither censor nor ban any literary work.
They want to Pull Books off the Shelf that have already been purchased and bury them.
I have no use for the gay agenda, but I have a bigger problem with a FREEDOM GRABBING agenda. What's next? Ban books with guns in them? For the children...of course.
Bill like this also create sympathy for the gay agenda. They made their big mistake by overstepping their bounds on marriage. This is the other way.
From the article:
"Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed."
Lurking Libertarian wrote:
From the article:
"Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed."
................................................
Well, the author of the article obviously failed to quote the entirety of the bill. The part that she did quote says nothing about banning anything. So either the lawmaker is being misquoted, which is highly possible; or the lawmaker is a complete idiot, which is also highly possible.
I never said I like the bill or am for it, I only stated that the working of the bill does not ban anything but the use of funds to purchase such literature.
Talk about a One Way Ticket to the Dark Ages.
I'll take door #2.
I don't remember any homosexuality in Catcher. Was there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.