http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml

Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer

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 ******* 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 ******* 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


America: Land of the Free (no fags plz)

FUCKING HATE MONGERS!!!

Damn, that's harsh...

Originally posted by machinaddict
Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."

this is the part that surprised me.
i wonder if any of them can elaborate on what this agenda is.

How is "fucking hate mongers" harsh? You support intolerance and homophobia?

Originally posted by machinaddict

"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
This is funny if you take it out of context

it's CRAZY talk... lol :D

Originally posted by thrillhouse


this is the part that surprised me.
i wonder if any of them can elaborate on what this agenda is.
I wonder if it is anything like the "jewish conspiracy"

http://www.hebig.org/blogs/archives/main/burningbooks.jpg

history repeating

Originally posted by Knight0440
How is "fucking hate mongers" harsh? You support intolerance and homophobia? I was talking about the article. If I was talking about you, i would have quoted you. That's what quotes are used for.

Fahrenheit 451.

I was talking about the article. If I was talking about you, i would have quoted you. That's what quotes are used for.

:eek: sorry

The homosexual agenda, lol.

I'd like to meet just one homosexual who is trying to further this supposed agenda. It's like people still think homosexuals are pedophiles that want everyone else to be the way they are.

I hope whoever proposed and or supports that fucking dies. "I guess we'll just have to dig a hole and start buryin' em!!!" Morons.

Gotta love Alabama.

Seriously what would we do without Alabama?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20041128/ts_washpost/a16443_2004nov27

Originally posted by The Light
I hope whoever proposed and or supports that fucking dies.
Thats a stupid thing to say.

So let me get this straight, tolerance and sensibility requires that you wish death on those who disagree with you? That's no better a sentiment than the one held by the asshole in the article, and its the reason why the extremists on both sides are so entrenched. This is an issue of ideology, not life or death.

As sad, pathetic, bigoted, and stupid as that Alabama state representative is, its a lot more moral and just to pity him and hope that he might change his views rather than killing him in the name of tolerance.

Originally posted by Corganist

Thats a stupid thing to say.

So let me get this straight, tolerance and sensibility requires that you wish death on those who disagree with you? That's no better a sentiment than the one held by the asshole in the article, and its the reason why the extremists on both sides are so entrenched. This is an issue of ideology, not life or death.

As sad, pathetic, bigoted, and stupid as that Alabama state representative is, its a lot more moral and just to pity him and hope that he might change his views rather than killing him in the name of tolerance.

on the issue of tolerance:

Off topic maybe but I find there is a difference between how the conservative ideology is exectued and the how liberal ideology is execute (pertaining to social issues anyway) I find that where liberals try to persuade, conservaitves will try to impose. It is poignant though considering it is the norm in this country to call liberals 'arrogant' and 'elite' when conservatives are the ones who want to impose. Gay marriage for example...if liberals succeed in getting gay marriage legalized, it does not mean everyone would have to marry the same sex. your right to marry opposite sex remains. however if conservatives get their way then you are FORCED to marry the opposite sex if you ever do want to get married. now i dont want to turn this into a gay marriage debate...its just an example of the kind of schematic were dealing with when conservatives get their agendas passed.

Originally posted by real politik

Off topic maybe but I find there is a difference between how the conservative ideology is exectued and the how liberal ideology is execute (pertaining to social issues anyway) I find that where liberals try to persuade, conservaitves will try to impose. It is poignant though considering it is the norm in this country to call liberals 'arrogant' and 'elite' when conservatives are the ones who want to impose.
The reason liberals are thought of as 'arrogant' and 'elite' in their social agenda has less to do with what they want to accomplish, and more to do with how they frame their arguments for it. Social conservatives usually frame their beliefs in terms of "We're right on this issue. And here's why..." Granted, the "why" portion can and sometimes does come from dubious sources (the Bible, racism, etc.) But the fact remains that social conservatives want to prevail because they believe in an absolute sense that their vision is correct, and frame their arguments for it in such a way to present that correctness.

On the other hand, oftentimes liberals (who I have no doubt do beleive in the correctness of their vision just as strongly as conservatives) seem to frame their argument in terms of "You're wrong if you disagree with us, and you're a horrible human being too." Sure, its no different than your average right-wing bigot's mindset...but the Right doesn't use that sort of invective as the main selling point of their ideology, as many on the left tend to do. (Some of the responses in this thread, for instance, show this. People criticized a proposal that is EASILY dismissed on its merits by labeling the Representative a hate-monger, and saying that anyone who supported it should die. Hardly an eye-opening argument.) When you resort to using labels as your main argument and act as if the entire discussion is below you...it comes off as arrogant.


Gay marriage for example...if liberals succeed in getting gay marriage legalized, it does not mean everyone would have to marry the same sex. your right to marry opposite sex remains. however if conservatives get their way then you are FORCED to marry the opposite sex if you ever do want to get married.
Its not THAT imposing. No one has to marry anyone. If you take that same sentence and move the capitalization, you get: if conservatives get their way then you are forced to marry the opposite sex if you ever do WANT to get married
Besides. If you're going to define every law that keeps some person or group of persons from doing what they want as imposing some unwanted and immoral burden on them, then you might as well throw out every law on the book. Because every law imposes something on someone.

Originally posted by real politik


on the issue of tolerance:

Off topic maybe but I find there is a difference between how the conservative ideology is exectued and the how liberal ideology is execute (pertaining to social issues anyway) I find that where liberals try to persuade, conservaitves will try to impose. It is poignant though considering it is the norm in this country to call liberals 'arrogant' and 'elite' when conservatives are the ones who want to impose. Gay marriage for example...if liberals succeed in getting gay marriage legalized, it does not mean everyone would have to marry the same sex. your right to marry opposite sex remains. however if conservatives get their way then you are FORCED to marry the opposite sex if you ever do want to get married. now i dont want to turn this into a gay marriage debate...its just an example of the kind of schematic were dealing with when conservatives get their agendas passed.

well the fact of the matter is it works. your name defines their approach perfectly. the main problem, if you want to call it that, with the liberals is that they still have some vestige of idealism or integrity when it comes to the politcal process. that is a burden in the american political system, i think. conservatives will keep on winning because theyre more willing. thats not to say that generally the democrats arent willing, theyre just not as willing and also not as experienced when it comes to manhandling the political system. its ironic and sad that this is actually a bad thing, but it is.

Hi, this is one state representative. I think it's unfair to categorize the state or his party as being of the same mindset.

But Alabama is a red state! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Hi, this is one state representative. I think it's unfair to categorize the state or his party as being of the same mindset. I've lived there. It's not much different from Mississippi. That is indeed the mindset.

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
I've lived there. It's not much different from Mississippi. That is indeed the mindset. You're a big fan of over generalizations.

everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mmandments_robe


A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold. Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.

Attorney Riley Powell, defending a client charged with DUI, filed a motion objecting to the robe and asking that the case be continued. He said McKathan denied both motions. "I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client," Powell said.

McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong." He said he doesn't believe the commandments on his robe would have an adverse effect on jurors. "I had a choice of several sizes of letters. I purposely chose a size that would not be in anybody's face," he said.

The case raised comparisons to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. Moore said Tuesday he supports McKathan's decision to wear the Ten Commandments robe. "I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law," Moore said. Powell said if he loses his case, he expects the judge's wearing of the Ten Commandments robe to be part of an appeal.

:mad: fuck that...

Originally posted by Corganist

Thats a stupid thing to say.

So let me get this straight, tolerance and sensibility requires that you wish death on those who disagree with you? That's no better a sentiment than the one held by the asshole in the article, and its the reason why the extremists on both sides are so entrenched. This is an issue of ideology, not life or death.

As sad, pathetic, bigoted, and stupid as that Alabama state representative is, its a lot more moral and just to pity him and hope that he might change his views rather than killing him in the name of tolerance. I don't fucking care about the fate of some prick that wants to inhibit the lives of others, nor do I care if my post on a message board goes against your ideas about ideology. Whatever.

Originally posted by The Light
I don't fucking care about the fate of some prick that wants to inhibit the lives of others, nor do I care if my post on a message board goes against your ideas about ideology. Whatever.
It wasn't my ideology that it was going against. It was yours. I'd say that wanting a guy to die is a pretty big inhibition on life. You want the guy to die, thus you want to inhibit his life...which you say is bad and makes your fate inconsequential (by your logic). Surely you don't place a higher punishment for advocacy of censorship than you do for advocacy of murder. That'd be silly.

i should move to alabama.
they have the gays moving in my neighborhood now.

Originally posted by Corganist

It wasn't my ideology that it was going against. It was yours. I'd say that wanting a guy to die is a pretty big inhibition on life. You want the guy to die, thus you want to inhibit his life...which you say is bad and makes your fate inconsequential (by your logic). Surely you don't place a higher punishment for advocacy of censorship than you do for advocacy of murder. That'd be silly. Yeah, it's a huge part of my life. I think about that senator in Alabama being hung from a tree and it distracts me from my daily routine.... OMG.

Seriously tho, have you guys heard the music in gay clubs?

Fuck homosexuality.

Originally posted by GlasgowKiss
Seriously tho, have you guys heard the music in gay clubs?

Fuck homosexuality.
Don't worry, they'll ban those niggers too I'm sure.

Originally posted by Orchestra

Don't worry, they'll ban those niggers too I'm sure.

If the only ban the niggers with shit music taste, yeah, im all for this.

Originally posted by GlasgowKiss


If the only ban the niggers with shit music taste, yeah, im all for this. In Alabama, shit musical taste knows no color