Oh, boy!!

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.

Link

[skyhawk223]

Those books would still be available in bookstores, although the article makes it seem like they would not be allowed anywhere in Alabama. It does seem quite silly, however. Let the locals vote on it. If the majority agrees with Mr. Allen, then so be it. Why should they be forced to use public money to buy things they might not agree with? However, I suspect any such measure would fail a local vote as it seems too extremist.

There are also people who do not agree with the theory of evolution. Should biology books also be baned from public libraries or book stores?

No! This would be cencorship at its worst.

Originally Posted by skyhawk223

Those books would still be available in bookstores, although the article makes it seem like they would not be allowed anywhere in Alabama. It does seem quite silly, however. Let the locals vote on it. If the majority agrees with Mr. Allen, then so be it. Why should they be forced to use public money to buy things they might not agree with? However, I suspect any such measure would fail a local vote as it seems too extremist.

The whole point of a Library is the free exchange of information—all information.

If you tell libraries they can't buy certain books or they have to destroy the ones they have you are doing a public disservice, regardless of whether or not the public agrees. As people have said, this is censorship plain and simple, and because there are gay themes in even the simplest of books they would have to be banned as well.

Figure Lord of the Rings...though it's not blatant, the relationship between Sam and Frodo is quite homoerotic. If the person or people who decide which books to burn decide that Sam and Frodo are getting it on with each other between the scenes, they would have to get rid of LOTR.

And just because a book would be available in stores and not in the library does not mean it's not censorship or an all around horrible thing.

I absolutely despise Rap and Hip hop music. As does most of the people my age. Does that mean that because we outnumber the number that do like and buy that we should have the right to have it banned ? What a rediculous notion.

Being Gay is not a choice. Someone either is or isn't. Trying to pretend it doesn't exsist achieves nothing but make people look moronic. And I've yet to meet anyone who suddenly "turned" gay by reading about or meeting one. It constantly amazes me that so many stories are coming out of the US lately about atempts by your own people to move back to the dark ages. Here in Oz we have our homophobic element of course but to even suggest a thing like that would be howled down by the general populace.

Thinking about it I actually definately think that it might be a good idea to show a more rounded view of gays. Christ currently most of the gays you see on tv are the over the top "camp" ones like on will and grace or that monumentally grating blond one on "queer eye" who must single handedly be setting back the gay movement years by making gays look freakish. Hell he spent some time in Australia a few weeks ago and our gay groups became incredibly quiet while he was here. I don't think they wanted to be associated with him.

[skyhawk223]

What you are saying is all fine and good, but has no relevance to the local community that funds the library. If that community does not want books of a certain subject matter, you cannot cram it down their throats. Why should they have to fund something they do not want? Again, keep in mind that I'm talking very high percentages of people who do not want the material, not slight majorities here.
If a couple of people want books on a certain topic, let them go buy it in the bookstore or Amazon. With the internet, this is becoming less of an issue as someone can order materials on just about anything they want these days.

It's a library...what the people who fund it want is irrelevant because it goes against the purpose of a library. If the people don't want a certain book in a library then they don't deserve a library in the first place.

Sky, I'm afraid you missed my first point. Since when should a majority have the right to decide what a minority should have access to ? The whole point of a library is to have a range of books to cover a range of topics for the "WHOLE" community to use.

And theres another danger here too that noones mentioned. This isn't Gay sex books they're trying to Ban, this is any book with a gay character in it. Does this not strike you as over the top ? There are gay's all around us and these books they are against are only reflecting real life. Would you be so fine with this if they were suggesting banning all books that referenced Indians ? I'd bet you would be vehemently against that... and how would that be any different to this ?

Christ how are you guys tolerating actions like this. It's amazing watching you make shows like Star Trek expressing these lofty ideals about tolerance etc, yet when it comes to showing it yourselves you back away quickly.

Quite frankly folks of late I've begun to despair of this world. I've been shocked of some of attitudes I've seen around here of late. And you want to know what I find more disturbing than the posts crying out "we can do what we like, we're the most powerfull country in world..." ? The fact that the rest of you are so quiet about it. From watching these boards for years I'd have expected you to come wading in if you agreed with these two nazi's in training yet you choose to stay quiet. Is it that you disagree with them but are afraid to say so and be branded "un-american" ... Or do you actually agree with them ?

I ask this because I really do want to know. What do you Americans here think about whats been said here on this board of late. Are you for banning books with gays in them ? Do you really think the vast majority of this planet is jealous of you ? Do you really believe that we have no right to criticise you for doing things that affect our way of life too ?

I really do want to know guys. Cause I'm starting to think that I never really knew you people at all....

[skyhawk223]

Deserve has nothing to do with it since it is the community that funds it.
What is your definition of the purpose of a library?
The community can define library any way they want.
If a small town funded a garden and I came to that town and said "What? you have no roses? You must plant some. After all gardens are supposed to have flowers" would they then be forced to plant roses?
Things would be different if the library received state or even federal funding. Then the state or federal government could say "If you don't stock your library with books on X topic, we will remove funding"
Personally, I think the whole issue is silly. If the library carries books I find objectionable, i avoid that section. No big deal.
I doubt that this guy's bill will pass.

[skyhawk223]

jmartin, see my post above, the last sentence, to see how I feel about the specific issue. It's just silly.
America, as is any other country, is made up of people with a variety of different opinions. It would be foolish to base your opinion of Americans on what you read on this board.
To take a centrist position (just to be a pain), I think everyone has valid points. I can understand all points of view.
What does concern me is the freedoms that are being taken away in the name of security.

SKy, sorry but your Roses analagy doesn't fit whats happening. A closer version would be a town that declares "Roses don't belong in this town and we forbid our nurserys from stocking them..." . Not the same as yours is it ?

Im sorry mate but I don't think you can state that you think it's silly then in the same breath say that it's okay for them to do it.

As to the definition of a library, thats easy. A community funded organisation providing books for the entire community. Note I said entire community. I'd wager a fair proportion of that community would either like those books to be there or couldn't care less if they were there or not. To allow a vocal and biggoted part of the community to dictate that what is there only fits their tastes is rediculous. Christ any other time that any form of censorship is suggested on these forums the whole community is up in arms. Whats different in this case ? Either your against censorship or your not. You can't say censorship is wrong except for when I don't like that topic particularly. Because you'll always find someone who objects to any particular topic.

and regarding:

"What does concern me is the freedoms that are being taken away in the name of security." ...

WTF .. you say this right after fighting for a towns right to take away freedom of choice from a fair percentage of it's population. And not just gays either, I'm happily hetrosexual yet I'd be royally insulted to be told that I can't read a particular book because it has a gay character in it. Particularly if I was a tax paying member of that town.

Reading through this thread brought a "non gay" book to mind. George Orwell's animal farm. I was thinking that America really is the land of the free, except that some are more free than others.... god help you if you are gay, don't believe in god and don't believe everyone should have a gun .... yeah ... we envy you all right...

As they said at my Highschool when during our Racial tension and they wanted to get rid of some books..
It's a Library, a Free Exchange of Information, you either have it as that or we will remove the whole thing..

It would be like saying your City/State cops should only enforce the laws the Community supports because they come from the Taxs ..

Ryoken

[p.s. Cargile]

Who goes to the Library anyway? I mean the days of the Library are just about over given the growth of bookstores and the internet.

And what about all those millions of people who can't afford a computer or buy books from the bookstore ?

[skyhawk223]

jmartin, please read both my and your analogies carefully. A nursery is a business. A library is not.
I do think the whole idea is silly, but since I do not live in that community, I have no right to butt in and force my views on them. Now if this lawmaker represented me, and tihs idea came up for a vote, I would probably vote against it.
I also gave some percentages in my example. If a fair minority wanted those books, then the proposal is wrong. If you read back a few posts, you will see taht I said a "high percentage". I am talked at or very close to 100%.
I think we both agree that this issue is quite absurd. What I am trying to say is that if the community (the whole community) does not want a certain type of book in the storehouse of books that they solely fund, they should not have to carry those books. Why would anyone want to force a coomunity to carry and pay for something they don't want?
How about another anecdote...Say you loath guns of any type. So do 98 out of the 100 people that live in your village. However, the 2 that want to force you to sell guns somehow get a law passed that says all stores must carry guns. An extreme example, I know, but it falls along the same line.

Unfortunately this isn´t only about cencorship although this is bad enough.
It is also about those fundies "fighting" against the gay "lifestyle" (if there is such a thing).
It is just one more example of how backward thinking an bigotted parts of the American population is.
The USofA once were a role model for many countries in this world. But now?
While the rest of the world arrives in the 21st century, the USA are well on their way back to the 17th century.

[skyhawk223]

Just read an interesting article in the paper this morning about the Van Gogh (spelling?) incident and how fractured and segregated the Netherlands are. Talk about moving backward in time...
A paraphrase from the article was that events like this are holding the mirror up to Europe's face and not liking what it sees.
There are parts of all populations in all countries that are bigotted. That's the price you pay for having a varied culture.

Sure, bigotry is part of all populations.
The bad thing is, that in some cases (i.e. gay marriage) it is supported by the government.

[skyhawk223]

But now you are getting into opinion. Right now, the opinion of the majority of the country is to not allow gay couples to marry. That's just how this society is at this point. Maybe it will change down the road, maybe it won't. Our government is made up of elected officials. If the populace does not agree with their elected official's position, they can vote him/her out of office.

Ahhhh, I see Sky... so oppressing a minority is okay as long as 50%+ of the population is okay with it ?

nothing has a right to be banned.

HOWEVER, the state DOES have the right to keep their funds from buying such books.

having the state censor the library goes against the purpose of a library. If that were to happen then the libraries should just be closed because they cannot run effectively with the state standing over their shoulder telling them what books they can and cannot buy.

The state does NOT have the right to keep libraries from buying certain books. Were that the case we would not be in a free society and we would be no better than places like China.

[General Phoenix]

I'm not particularly interested in the legal aspect of this, but on the moral side of it, I think that this is just another example of self-centered people who assume that if they don't like something, nobody else should. Don't like what the public library has to offer? Then go somewhere else - don't force your agenda down someone else's throats.

Speaking of agenda, I love the term "homosexual agenda." It makes it seem as though there are recruiting stations in every city trying to sway people from one "team" to the other...

Originally Posted by A2597

nothing has a right to be banned.

HOWEVER, the state DOES have the right to keep their funds from buying such books.

Christ ... talk about a contradictory statement..

However we should not be surprised that you have no problem with this. I recall a thread at Beyond Babylon a few years ago where you made your views against Gays very clear.

Why are you so threatened by the possibility that a book might have a gay character ?

Do you really think it's healthy for any society to just pretend that a portion of their society doesn't exsist ?

Hell, not so very long ago the majority of people in your southern states though Blacks were an inferior race. So you think that just because the majority of the people there thought this that it was okay to do so. Were the civil rights movement wrong in trying to get them to see it was wrong?

Man I can't believe I'm having this conversation in this century... Yup Bush has certainly been good for the US of A ....

[skyhawk223]

To put A2597's statement another way, the library would not be able to buy the book. However, someone could donate the book to the library which could then stock the shelves with it.

And no one said anything about suppressing the minority They are still entitled to buy the book. The bill woudl not ban it from being owned, just being purchased and stocked at the library.

And to put it another way using my very high percentage example. Why should a tiny minority be able to dictate something a vast majority of people do not want?
If 2 out of the 100 people in our fictitious village wanted the library to The Bible, why should the rest of the citizens be forced to pay for it?

Again, please keep in mind my percentages here. I am using it to make a point. We do not actually know how many people in the community are for and against the actual bill. We are all dealing in hypotheticals here. I doubt that the community would be nearly 100% behind the bill, but if it were, then they should not have to stock the library, which is paid for by their dollars, with books they do not want. Why would you want to force someone to buy something they do not want?

Originally Posted by skyhawk223

If 2 out of the 100 people in our fictitious village wanted the library to The Bible, why should the rest of the citizens be forced to pay for it?

Because thats the whole point of a community library for crying out loud. To provide books to those of the community that would not otherwise have the means to buy them themselves.

I really think you guys are deliberatly missing the real issue here. It is NOT about whether a community has the right to spend it's tax funds as it sees fit. This is about the right of a vocal majority to supress the rights of a minority.

Quite frankly I think that if this was about anything other than gays you guys would be screaming "down with censhorship". Which is exactly what this is. And never mind the crap that people can still buy these books elsewhere. There is simply no way that this community could stop people buying books like that this way otherwise they would try to ban that also. The point is that they are trying to force their oppresive views onto others and this is something any decent person should be fighting tooth and nail.

For the live of me I can't work out why you guys are so threatened by gays. I use to work in a large department store which was chock full of them and I loved it. It meant that there was bugger all competition for all the lovely ladies that also worked there. And contrary to what you obviously believe they were no threat to me. Never tried to grope me or make improper suggestions to me. And funnily enough talking to one never made me want to try a little "man love". So maybe they're not as infectious as you think.

Man, what century do we have to be in before you outgrow these childish fears. You all chat incessantly about these scifi shows about an utopian future but you don't seem to get the message in them do you ?

Originally Posted by skyhawk223

To put A2597's statement another way, the library would not be able to buy the book. However, someone could donate the book to the library which could then stock the shelves with it.

And no one said anything about suppressing the minority They are still entitled to buy the book. The bill woudl not ban it from being owned, just being purchased and stocked at the library.

And to put it another way using my very high percentage example. Why should a tiny minority be able to dictate something a vast majority of people do not want?
If 2 out of the 100 people in our fictitious village wanted the library to The Bible, why should the rest of the citizens be forced to pay for it?

Again, please keep in mind my percentages here. I am using it to make a point. We do not actually know how many people in the community are for and against the actual bill. We are all dealing in hypotheticals here. I doubt that the community would be nearly 100% behind the bill, but if it were, then they should not have to stock the library, which is paid for by their dollars, with books they do not want. Why would you want to force someone to buy something they do not want?

I was trying to make an analogy here about undeclared wars and my being forced to fund them with my own tax dollars even though I'm opposed to them, however, it's not really coming out so I'll just go with the main point:

Libraries are repositories for free speech, and in the current socio-political environment are quite possibly the last true bastions of free speech we have in this country. To censor a library is to remove that one last link we have to our first amendment and is to invite a government run by the moral majority into our homes. When we let someone's or some group's dogma about what is right and what is best for us come in and take over we become no better than those countries which currently contain several hundred thousand of our troops.

Throughout the years there have been many attempts at banning books, yet the libraries have always prevailed. Where would we be without such books as Catcher in the Rye, or Leaves of Grass, or even Harry Potter, which since it's first publishing has been under fire from fundamentalist groups. JK Rowling is number 4 in the top ten list of challenged authors since 1990, believe it or not.

If you do not like the fact that your library has in it's possession a certain book, you do not have to read it, simple as that. But there are other people who want and/or need to read that book. Who are you, who is anyone, to tell those people that they cannot read those books?

If a bill banning books in a library is successful, we are one step closer to the bill that calls for the investigation of persons checking out certain books at libraries (of those that are left after the banning bill) that are deemed to be subversive or corrupt.

Would you like armed guards coming into your house in the middle of the night because you checked out a copy of George Orwell's 1984?

[skyhawk223]

I agree with both of you on this censorship issue. If I don't want to read a book or don't want my family to read it, I will forbid it. I would be very shocked if this bill passed. The reason that I am not up in arms about it is because these types of extremist bills come up all the time, but never see the light of day. And even if it were passed, the law would immediately be challenged in the court system and most likely overturned for the exact same reasons you guys are putting forth. That's what the ACLU does so well.

This story continues

Link

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities. Remember, it was an urban myth (an invented court case about a sex education teacher gang-raped by her own students who, when she protested, laughed and said: "But we're just doing what you taught us!") that all but killed sex education in America.

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

It would not be the first time Cat on a Hot Tin Roof ran into censorship. As Nicholas de Jongh documents in his amusingly appalling history of government regulation of the British theatre, the British establishment was no more enthusiastic, half a century ago, than Alabama's Allen. "Once again Mr Williams vomits up the recurring theme of his not too subconscious," the Lord Chamberlain's Chief Examiner wrote in 1955. In the end, it was first performed in London at the New Watergate Club, for "members only", thereby slipping through a loophole in the censorship laws.

But more than one gay playwright is at a stake here. Allen claims he is acting to "encourage and protect our culture". Does "our culture" include Shakespeare? I ask Allen if he would insist that copies of Shakespeare's sonnets be removed from all public libraries. I point out to him that Romeo and Juliet was originally performed by an all-male cast, and that in Shakespeare's lifetime actors and audiences at the public theatres were all accused of being "sodomites". When Romeo wished he "was a glove upon that hand", the cheek that he fantasised about kissing was a male cheek. Next March the Alabama Shakespeare festival will be performing a new production of As You Like It, and its famous scene of a man wooing another man. The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is also the State Theatre of Alabama. Would Allen's bill cut off state funding for Shakespeare?

"Well," he begins, after a pause, "the current draft of the bill does not address how that is going to be handled. I expect details like that to be worked out at the committee stage. Literature like Shakespeare and Hammet [sic] could be left alone." Could be. Not "would be". In any case, he says, "you could tone it down". That way, if you're not paying real close attention, even a college graduate like Allen himself "could easily miss" what was going on, the "subtle" innuendoes and all.

So he regards his gay book ban as a work in progress. His legislation is "a single spoke in the wheel, it doesn't resolve all the issues". This is just the beginning. "To turn a big ship around it takes a lot of time."

But make no mistake, the ship is turning. You can see that on the face of Cornelius Carter, a professor of dance at Alabama and a prize-winning choreographer who, not long ago, was named university teacher of the year for the entire US. Carter is black. He is also gay, and tired of fighting these battles. "I don't know," he says, "if I belong here any more."

Forty years ago, the American defenders of "our culture" and "traditional values" were opposing racial integration. Now, no politician would dare attack Cornelius Carter for being black. But it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for what they do in bed.

"Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it."

Of course, Allen was talking about books. He was just talking about books. He never said anything about pink triangles.

You've got to be kidding me .... what date is it ? It's not April is it ?

I'm all for strengthening family values but what the frig does banning books that show gay characters as normal people have to do it. Acknowledging that gays exist does not threaten my family. My kids are 9, 11 and 14 and all know about gays and that hasn't changed them a damn bit. They asked what "gay" meant a few years ago and I sat them down and explained it to them a matter of factly to them. And that was it... they understand and accept them for what they are ... people...