You all remember Gerald Allen, I hope. He's the sub-moronic Alabama state legislator who is advocating a bill to ban from any public library or school in Alabama any book written by a gay author or that even mentions homosexuality. He was the one that our old pal Robert O'Brien jumped in to defend, which led to renaming of the Idiot of the Month award to the Robert O'Brien Trophy. Well now Matthew Dessem has done a detailed analysis of the text of his bill and found out that it actually bans much more than even Allen himself knows:
So Mr. Allen's bill would ban any purchase or performances of works that directly or indirectly sanction, recognize, foster, or promote oral or anal sex between unmarried heterosexuals. Furthermore, any work in which a man convinces a woman to sleep with him through any fraud or artifice is off-limits; that means pretty much no romantic comedy could be shown on a college campus. Because God knows the homosexual agenda includes screenings of You've Got Mail.
Excellent stuff, Mr. Dessem.
- Log in to post comments
This brings up the question, "Were Adam and Eve married?" If they weren't, guess the Bible would be banned as well ;)
CBS Evening News reported on April 28 that this bill, HB30, had died in committee because of a lack of a quorum. However, as of about two minutes ago, it was still listed as pending before the Rules Committee.
Hmmmm. Mr. Allen's bill would ban romantic comedies from campuses? Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to condemn here.....
"This brings up the question, "Were Adam and Eve married?" If they weren't, guess the Bible would be banned as well ;)"
Also: (I think I may have said this the first time you discussed this bill) since the bible "mentions" homosexuality (and how it is a no-no) I guess it would have to be banned.
So that is TWO strikes against the bible! So an Alabama law could have the effect of a ban on the bible. I say let the bill pass!
(Although I am sure no one would enforce the law in THIS regard, but would in all others!)
The fact that Alabama has these sorts of laws already on their books:
Sexual misconduct.
(a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:
(1) Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; or with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; or
(2) Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; or
(3) He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.
(b) Sexual misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 13A-60 defines "deviate sexual intercourse":
(2) DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
Is it time to ask Scalia about his sexual behavior yet?? Would this law then nullify the acquisition by schools of even the misleading materials spewed out under the abstinence education? Suggesting oral sex would be proposing a violation of these statutes and thus, according to the text of the bill, would be material that could not be purchased or acquired? yikes...
You've gotta wonder how long that statute has been on the books if it contains the line "Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision". I get the feeling that there's a racist subtext from the Jim Crow era buried in there somewhere (this is Alabama, after all), but that's not particularly obvious on first reading.