he website New Republic comes a crazy story from the town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Strap yourselves in, because this one is a doozy.
Is this serious?
Under the guise of banning ‘indecent behaviour’, officials in the city of Murfreesboro have banned anything deemed to carry sexual content from public spaces, and this includes homosexuality, under the reasoning of ‘sexual content’. Now, this meerkat should not have to explain the obvious – that homosexuality in itself carries no sexual content – but that’s the reasoning city officials are running with. It’s also an excuse to ban certain books that city officials deem inappropriate. Book banning appears to be a recurring theme among Republicans in the USA, and in this instance, it’s all about books that speak openly and plainly about the experiences of the LGBT community. The targeted books are not pornographic, they are educational and helpful, but homophobes do not care for supporting anyone outside of their ignorant bubble.
When officials talk of banning homosexuality from public spaces, what do they think they are banning? Will they have cops arrest same-sex couples who hold hands? Will they haul away same-sex couples who have the audacity to sit down in a coffee shop together and cuddle up?
This mandate is not only appalling, there is evidence it is unconstitutional. I refer to the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It seems to me that a law passed that abridges the freedoms of the LGBT community most definitely violates the terms of the 14th Amendment. One can only hope that this shameful approach, and disregard to peoples’ civil rights, is struck down at the earliest opportunity.
2
0
20
Well, you got my expression right, but I am altogether quite human and much more handsome.
Here are some observations about your post.
1. “The New Republic” is not reliable. Erin Reed, their source, appears to have an axe to grind, but “The New Republic” couldn’t even copy her story correctly. So, if you must read “The New Republic,” read it skeptically.
2. Based upon the information provided, is Murfreesboro trying to ban homosexuality? No. The city is trying to keep behavior and materials the people of Murfreesboro regard as indecent out of public (city owned and controlled) spaces.
3. Section 21-71, not Section 21-72, defines the terms used in the ordinance. Here is the relevant portion.
“”Sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.”
In this context the term “homosexuality” refers to the type of sexual intercourse that defines one as a homosexual. Do you really want people engaging in sex of any kind in public places?
4. Is Murfreesboro trying to ban literature? No. Stopping government agencies from purchasing indecent literature does not equate to book banning.
The publishers can still print their trash. Frankly, the government should get out of the businesses of education and libraries.
When liberal activists pressure publishers to refuse to publish a book, is that book banning?
5. Because history did not begin yesterday, your reference to the 14th Amendment is silly. The 14th Amendment was ratified just after the American Civil War. At that time, it never would have occurred to Americans to protect something as nonsensical as homosexual rights. Therefore, to use the 14th Amendment to overturn Murfreesboro’s ordinance requires a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, that is, legislating new laws from the bench of the judiciary.
Note that Murfreesboro’s ordinance no longer includes the term “homosexuality.” Thanks to public education, there are too many people who feel when they should be thinking.
https://news.yahoo.com/homosexuality-now-legal-murfreesboro-city-230843794.html
Thank you for your comment Tom,
I will have to go over it over the next few days, as my calendar looks rather busy (work can be summed up via one word: chaos). I will do what I can to address what you’ve had to say before too much time has elapsed.
Have fun!
Oh work is always… uh… sometimes… um… occasionally fun.
Out of interest, are you still able to view my site?
I commented on your post. You trying to stop me?
Not at all, I’m rather glad you could. I’ve been tinkering with some backend stuff, it did some funky stuff to the layout of draft posts mind. Really weird displays.
WordPress is not the best written software, I suppose. I am supposedly a sophisticated user of computers, but the things we expect computers to do are getting very complicated. When people talk about AI , I roll my eyes. The expression is just a sales gimmick. At best all it means is that someone figured out how to write some very complex code that has decision paths based upon statistical algorithms. Hopefully, WordPress doesn’t require such yet, but it would be be nice if it was more reliable.