Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors

MONTGOMERY, Ala., April 26, 2005
Alabama Book Ban Bill

Books by Tennessee Williams, Alice Walker, Gore Vidal, Truman Capote and others would be banned under an Alabama bill being considered.

"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for. And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
Gerald Allen,
Alabama State Representative

Ala. State Rep. Gerald Allen, right, tells CBS' Mark Strassmann he's alarmed over the "homosexual agenda."

(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.

And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.

Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.

Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.

"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.

"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.

"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."

But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda,"
and he's alarmed.

"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."

He says he sees this as a line in the sand.

In Alabama's legislature, the reviews of Allen's bill are still out on whether to lower this curtain for good.


Un+Fuckin+Believable!

ya, thats pretty dumb. I cant help but get from your post that you are implying that this goes beyond alabama, and that this is indicative of the feeling of conservatives everywhere. I will remind you that there were plenty of people on the left who wanted the Swfit Boat veterans book banned.

Obviously this dude's a retard, but whether it's the Wisconsin cat shooting bill or this, these extremist bills rarely even make it out of committee.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Obviously this dude's a retard, but whether it's the Wisconsin cat shooting bill or this, these extremist bills rarely even make it out of committee.

but we sure always hear about them. I think it time I start geting some wild off the wall proposals from the CA legislature and posting them, or some wild story's of political correctness gone crazy

Go for it trav, see what dirt you can dig up from the leftist wacko's. They are just as scary as the rightist wacko's and you guys should be watching them. Peta's a good example of leftists gone mad. And the idiots that tramp down the street in leather colors and chains at gay pride parades are very creapy.

President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened." His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.

While I feel that it does not reflect the opinions of all republicans (at least true conservatives), these ideas have found a home in that party and they are also slowly distorting the core values of the party. Apparently, republican goverment now wants to get into your heads, hearts, and bedroom. All republicans should stand up to this guy and run him clear out of the party but I doubt that outcome will happen. There are too many that share in his values. The agenda starts from the top. This is not the America that I believe in. One of hate and censure. Evolution is a slow process.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Obviously this dude's a retard, but whether it's the Wisconsin cat shooting bill or this, these extremist bills rarely even make it out of committee.

Actually the difference between these two issues is that one of them is an attempt to solve a real problem. Feral cats in Wisconsin are affecting the chances of survival of other predators by eating so many of the small rodents that they depend on for food. This is reducing the populations of hawks, owls, weasels, fishers, and many other predators. That is a real problem, as opposed to gay people writing books.
Gay people writing books is free speech, and while some people see free speech as a problem I think it is healthy for our democracy. If the ideas expressed in books are invalid, they will be rejected by the majority of readers.
What the people who want the books banned are really saying is that their ideas can't compete in a free marketplace. That is similair to propping up failing companies by protecting them from more efficient competitors.
Free speech, like free trade, results in the survival of the best products of human endeavour.

Very well put Imagineer.

:)

Originally posted by Imagineer
Actually the difference between these two issues is that one of them is an attempt to solve a real problem. Feral cats in Wisconsin are affecting the chances of survival of other predators by eating so many of the small rodents that they depend on for food. This is reducing the populations of hawks, owls, weasels, fishers, and many other predators. That is a real problem, as opposed to gay people writing books.
Gay people writing books is free speech, and while some people see free speech as a problem I think it is healthy for our democracy. If the ideas expressed in books are invalid, they will be rejected by the majority of readers.
What the people who want the books banned are really saying is that their ideas can't compete in a free marketplace. That is similair to propping up failing companies by protecting them from more efficient competitors.
Free speech, like free trade, results in the survival of the best products of human endeavour.

I have to disagree on one point my friend. The banning is not restricted to ideas...it extends to the people as well. There is nothing "free" about this bill.

Right. It definintely extends to play a discriminatory role against any gay author.

Banning of gay authors is an attempt to ban "their ideas". It is an outgrowth of stereotyping, and is the idea that gay people all think alike. I am interested that Lee Atwater is not mentioned among those to be banned, for example.

Originally posted by Travh20
but we sure always hear about them. I think it time I start geting some wild off the wall proposals from the CA legislature and posting them, or some wild story's of political correctness gone crazy dig up some dirt on anyone travh, dem or republican. id love to hear your spin on it :D

Originally posted by Tapeworm

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened." bush should just STFU (sorry travh, for the copyright infringement) and worry about who's using steriods in football....that's the real problem !!!:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tapeworm
This is not the America that I believe in. One of hate and censure.

With the uber-Conservatives in control, you may as well START believing in it.

Because that is exactly what America IS under their **Fuck the common People, Corporate Profits are the True God!** ideology.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Because that is exactly what America IS under their **Fuck the common People, Corporate Profits are the True God!** ideology.

You'd think they'd be against banning books then - cuts into profits.

"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for. And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
Gerald Allen, Alabama State Representative

What a dumb fuck. I think I'll decide what is and or isn't healthy, I don't need you, Mr. Allen deciding that for me. Stupid dumb shit. This really makes me pissed off. He cannot decide what all Americans find or don't find healty. And he sure as hell does not stand for all Americans.

Sounds like the Nazis. Ideas about Democracy and other ideas that were against Hitler were burned or banned.

Wow. That is shocking that he is such a fucking moron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tapeworm
This is not the America that I believe in. One of hate and censure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Freethinker
With the uber-Conservatives in control, you may as well START believing in it.

Because that is exactly what America IS under their **Fuck the common People, Corporate Profits are the True God!** ideology.

LOL.... so we'll combat the hate that Tapeworm speaks of with hate towards something else.... good thinking FT....

and i agree that corporations are greedy and run this country..... but i strongly disagree with your constant struggle to try to connect souly the republican party to them....

I would say both sides of politics are equally corrupt, and a change is needed.... but geeeeeez stupid me!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tapeworm
This is not the America that I believe in. One of hate and censure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Freethinker
With the uber-Conservatives in control, you may as well START believing in it.

Because that is exactly what America IS under their **Fuck the common People, Corporate Profits are the True God!** ideology.

LOL.... so we'll combat the hate that Tapeworm speaks of with hate towards something else.... good thinking FT....

and i agree that corporations are greedy and run this country..... but i strongly disagree with your constant struggle to try to connect souly the republican party to them....

I would say both sides of politics are equally corrupt, and a change is needed.... but geeeeeez stupid me!

this is ineresting. the libs dont like what this guy says and they criticize him for it. when we criticize a lib we are trying to take away their first ammendment rights. could it be said freethinker and OD want to take away this guys first amendment rights? I think it could. no one ever actually says they want to, bu tit is always implied. whenever a conservative dissagress with the actions or words of a lib they are said to be trying to "silence" them. I think going laong those same lines OD and freethinker want to silence this guy.

Originally posted by Decka
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tapeworm
This is not the America that I believe in. One of hate and censure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




LOL.... so we'll combat the hate that Tapeworm speaks of with hate towards something else.... good thinking FT....

But bad thinking --or at least poor reading comprehension-- on your part, Decka.

The hatred Tapeworm was refering to is being perpetrated by the extreme conservative faction who are in complete control of the political system.

MY loathing for them is purely in reaction to that faction's hateful, murderous, anti-human policies.............but then, it should aslo be noted that I have zero political voice in this country.



Originally posted by Decka
and i agree that corporations are greedy and run this country.....

Wow. A glimpse of rational thought.

Originally posted by Decka
but i strongly disagree with your constant struggle to try to connect souly the republican party to them....

You could not be more wrong. I have stated on at least one hundred occasions that BOTH of the political parties ---the Republicans, who are in fact Fascists, and the Democrats, who are but Fascist-Lite-- are nothing but lapdogs of the Corporatists.

The Democrats are 95% supportive of and subservient to the wealthy elites; the status quo; the powerful monied interests who run the country, while the Republicans are 100% supportive of and subservient to the status quo and to the powerful monied interests who run the country

IOriginally posted by Decka
i would say both sides of politics are equally corrupt, and a change is needed....

I'd agree 100%.

Originally posted by Travh20
I think going laong those same lines OD and freethinker want to silence this guy.
Are you stupid? Maybe? I think so.

He has every right to say we should ban books. He has every right to say this, and no one can take this away from him. I've never said that he can't say this.

I said he was a stupid dumb fuck for trying to ban books and act just like the nazis.

Telling someone their "opinion" is stupid as fuck, is not the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to say it at all.

You say my opinions are wrong, does that mean you are for not allowing my opinion? No. Just because you deem someones opinions wrong, does not mean you are for banning what they have to say.

Learn to read. And don't say I "implied" something, when I clearly didn't. I said he was a dumbass, and that his idea of banning books was 100% un-American. But, I never said he didn't have the right to say his opinion, for we ARE in America.

tell me this, why do people on the right get accused of trying to take away peoples first ammendment rights? no one has ever actually said that, it is interpreted by people like you (before you get your panties in a bunch, when I say people like you I mean people of your political persuasion) to mean that. remember when people stopped buying Dixie Chicks albums after their attack on bush at that concert in england?? all the leftists were up in arms that the right was attacking their first ammendment rights. if a conservative disagree with a liberal they are trying to silence them, when you do it its just an opinion. double standard, again

tell me this, why do people on the right get accused of trying to take away peoples first ammendment rights? no one has ever actually said that, it is interpreted by people like you (before you get your panties in a bunch, when I say people like you I mean people of your political persuasion) to mean that. remember when people stopped buying Dixie Chicks albums after their attack on bush at that concert in england?? all the leftists were up in arms that the right was attacking their first ammendment rights. if a conservative disagree with a liberal they are trying to silence them, when you do it its just an opinion. double standard, again
Wrong. I thought it was dumb that people stopped buying the Dixie Chicks albums, but if they disagree with what they say politically then they should stop buying their CDs if they want. There is no double standard. I've never said that the right-wing has tried to stop free speech. And I don't think most Democrats have either. But I'm glad you use a "dixie chicks" example to prove your point.

:rolleyes:

of course not, you never say anything

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20
tell me this, why do people on the right get accused of trying to take away peoples first ammendment rights?

This guy is attempting to censor individuals who he doesn't agree with. That in essence is taking away their first amendment rights. Both sides of the political spectrum have wackjobs that aproach differences in oppinion this way, but that does not mean that all people of any political persuasion do this. IMHO it does seem to be a widely used tactic of the christian right, but I know that not all republicans feel this way.

remember when people stopped buying Dixie Chicks albums after their attack on bush at that concert in england?? all the leftists were up in arms that the right was attacking their first ammendment rights.

I remember that the righties thought that the Dixie Chicks shouldn't use their celebraty to expouse their political beliefs. What the left was "up in arms" (your words) about was that they were essentially saying that the DC's shouldn't be allowed to say the things they did because of their celebraty. They have just as much right to say what they want as you or I. I think not buying their albums was a great response. I'm all for boycotting things/people that I disagree with. But silencing them is un-American.

should people be able to say the first ammendment shouldnt exist? is that the only thing the first ammendment shouldnt cover?

Originally posted by Travh20
should people be able to say the first ammendment shouldnt exist? is that the only thing the first ammendment shouldnt cover?

I'm not sure I understand the question. People can say it shouldn't exist. But that isn't going to make it disapear.

I remember a case many years ago where a nazi group applied for and got turned down for a permit to have a parade. They took it to court and were given their permit. Free speach means free speach. Even for those who we don't agree with and know in our hearts are wrong.

It can be seen as the downside of freedom of speach by some people, but if we start determining who has the right to say what then free speach no longer exists.

Trav, think about this for a sec. (And this is an extreme example...) What if the proposed bill was being pushed thru by a gay politician and the politician wanted NO biblical stories available, no references of God, Jesus, Mary, etc. in ANY work whatsoever. Not even the work of self-proclaimed ministry (Joyce Meyer, Billy Graham... hell even Jimmy Carter - for he is a very religious man) ...even if it were an autobiography or work of fiction for a children's book. Would you think his "free speech" rights should be stifled? Or, would you think his proposed bill was highly discriminatory, etc. and in need of immediate rejection?

of course I think it will get rejected, as will this one, as do all insane bills. of course that doesnt stop us from having to hear the doom and gloom of impending taliban rule by the "fundies" every time one gets proposed.

I heard that yesterday this bill did die. Not enough showed to vote on it so it died a quiet death. I think that this was the cowardly way out but...at least it's gone (for now). Maybe one day politicians will actually have the guts to actually voice their opposition to something like this.

Originally posted by Travh20
of course not, you never say anything
:@@: Except I didn't say anything. I never said he had no right to speak his mind about his opinion. I just said his opinion was wrong. Sorry Trav, you don't have a point.

you dont either, because you say everything and nothing all at once

Originally posted by Travh20
you dont either, because you say everything and nothing all at once
How did I imply that I wanted to limit his free speech?

I said his opinion was WRONG. You've said my opinion was wrong in the past, are you for limiting my free speech? No, you are just saying my opinion is wrong.

Stop being so annoying, Trav. Everyone on this forum tells eachother their opinions are incorrect. But I doubt ANYONE is for stopping each of us from sharing our opinions. I didn't imply he shouldn't be allowed to give his free speech. Get that in your thick skull.

OD you should rephrase your statement.....

i'm sure he would say your opinion is WRONG

just say you don't agree with it.....

Originally posted by Decka
just say you don't agree with it.....
I already fucking said I didn't agree with it on the other page.

I never said I wanted to ban his right to free speech. Learn to read.