Gerald Allen, an Alabama lawmaker, is pushing legislation (at the state level) that would ban books with gay characters from public libraries (including libraries at publicly-funded universities) throughout the state. But wait, there's more:
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. . . . 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.
It's hard to imagine such a law passing, even in Alabama -- and if it did pass, it's highly unlikely that it would survive legal challenges. The knowledgable attorneys and librarians over at the LibraryLaw Blog say what should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights: "The government cannot prohibit speech on the basis of viewpoint, even in a nonpublic forum."
What gets me about this is the breathtaking unsubtletly of this lawmaker's actions. He must understand that what he proposes is absolutely contrary to core American beliefs and values, and he doesn't even pretend to care. There are, of course, plenty of threats to personal liberties and basic freedoms from various quarters in the U.S. Congress (not to mention the White House and the Justice Department), but at least there's lip service paid to maintaining balance with the rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. That someone like Gerald Allen, who proudly demonstrates blatant disregard for fundamental American ideals, can be elected to public office does not speak well for the political health of our country.
Several years ago in a hermeneutics class, I read a philosopher (I'll have to look up the name when I have access to my bookshelf at home) whose basic premise was that even severe disagreements or differences in interpretation within a cultural group are healthy and not really threatening, because they occur against a vast background of agreement, common values, and shared understandings. For me, this has been a helpful way to approach American politics: I generally assume, unless there is proof otherwise, that those with whom I don't agree are acting in good faith, because at a basic level, we hold the same truths to be self-evident -- we just disagree about the best way to go about putting those truths into action. But faced with someone like Gerald Allen of Alabama, I can't maintain my belief in the good faith of my opponents. His is a way of thinking that is totally alien to mine, and I'm terrified by the possibility of many like him reaching positions of power.
Posted by Stacie at December 4, 2004 10:48 AM