Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too
Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too
For five months this year, homosexuality was prohibited in a Tennessee college town.
In June, the city council of Murfreesboro enacted an ordinance outlawing “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct”. The rule did not explicitly mention homosexuality, but LGBTQ+ people in the town quickly realized that the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct.
The ordinance was essentially a covert ban on LGBTQ+ existence.
Erin Reed, one of the first and only national journalists to cover the ordinance earlier this year, noted that Murfreesboro isn’t “the only community that has these old archaic bits of code that target homosexuality”.
Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list of acts defined as “public indecency” by the city code. The small victory came after officials repeatedly refused to issue permits for the BoroPride Festival, citing the new ordinance.
“After prayerful thought and talking with my family, I have decided not to run for re-election..."
WTF, why do these people always blame God when they get caught? God wasn't responsible for your own shady shit, and he's not responsible for you cuttin'-and-runnin'.
THEY WILL SIT IN A PILE ON THE FLOOR AND I WILL SMELL THEM BEFORE PUTTING THEM ON, BUT ONLY IF THEY AREN'T TOO WRINKLED IN WHICH CASE I WILL USE THEM AS PAJAMAS OR WASH THEM AGAIN.
Obscenity law needs to be eliminated entirely at this point. It's archaic entirely. Luckily, convicting under the Miller test is rare since pretty much everything has "serious artistic or political value", but these laws shouldn't be on the books at all. Needless violation of the first amendment to punish victimless crimes.
In June, the city council of Murfreesboro enacted an ordinance outlawing “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct”. The rule did not explicitly mention homosexuality, but LGBTQ+ people in the town quickly realized that the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct.
...
Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list of acts defined as “public indecency” by the city code. The small victory came after officials repeatedly refused to issue permits for the BoroPride Festival, citing the new ordinance.
So the city was using the ordinance to shut down a pride festival based on the new ordinance's reference to 21-72 of the city code until the ACLU got involved and they backed down rather than pay for lawyers to fight a battle they knew they couldn't win in the courts.
Murfreesboro made public homosexuality illegal and was enforcing it until the ACLU slapped them around. How is that "debunked"? You don't think it's newsworthy that a city government outlawed public homosexuality just because they rescinded it when challenged?
https://www.facebook.com/boropridetn this is the pride organisers page. On the 2019 event listing they state it is the 4th annual event. They've been running pride events in the town every year for nearly a decade. The event occurred again this year, making it the 9th consecutive year.
I don't see gays being oppressed, I see dumb small town officials thinking they can make weird laws that would never hold up in court and getting immediately corrected.
It's more shocking to me that there was apparently no law that referenced that definition of "sexual conduct" until now that would have highlighted this bigoted part of the city code thats been there for years.
Was fucking in the street legal? Why is it only on the 9th year of the event that they are getting push back? How many officials were involved in this law passing? Questions the guardian isn't looking at because they don't give a fuck, or the answers aren't ragebait enough.
It's the fact that it had to be removed.... And that there are plenty of people in government, including the speaker of the house, who actually want it to be illegal to be gay.
I lived scarily close to Murfreesboro to be reading this. Luckily I moved out of Tennessee back in August, and I hope my friends can get outta there soon.
Uncertain if it'll be a small ticket from a police officer. I'm more confident it'll be a burning cross and a noose from a group of white hooded individuals. There's a history.
I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion, but how is this surprising? Gay marriage was voted down at the state level many times all across the country. Those voters are still out there and 5 supreme court justices didn't change their opinions on homosexuality.
Your entire comment history is antagonism or insults. I rarely even think this much less say it, but: please go back to Reddit. You’re the reason we all left there.
Based on documented state voting the majority of the population would agree with my statement. You are in the small minority. Bitch all you like, that will not change.
True, but also some of those voters have changed their minds. I wouldn’t be surprised if my red state would overturn our constitutional ban on gay marriage if Obergefell were struck down, and Obergefell was against our state.
I assumed push back as you don't agree with the actual facts I posted, but didn't expect you to put blinders on. How do you factually measure how people feel? The answer is clearly you don't. I said gay marriage was voted down many many MANY times in different states all across the United States. It was, that actually happened. The people that voted against still actually exist, and it's likely their opinion has not changed just because you don't like it. How fucking obtuse can one person be?
If someone voted against a topic like this so many feel so strongly about I think it would be hard to change their minds. What could I say to convince you otherwise on this topic?