NEWS: "Protecting Alabamians"

CULTURE: "Protecting Alabamians"

It’s not that Gary Allen, a Republican representative to the Alabama state legislature, is an asshole. Or a bigot. Or misinformed. It’s not that he wants to literally bury the works of Tennessee Williams or Alice Walker because they "have homosexuality in them." The Alabama state legislature is full of people just like Representative Allen, as is the United States, sadly.

The thing that scares the hell out of me, beyond Allen's political views about homosexuality, is his blatant cultural illiteracy. His homophobia doesn't startle me; it’s that he has no conception of the culture that he is "trying to protect."

Fuck Shakespeare; it’s all about “protecting Alabamians.”

This reminds me of the argument to ban Macbeth. Unfortunately, this is not the work of a culture jammer or an ontological terrorist.

dude - Alabama is seriously fucked.

i spent 22 years learning that hard fact.

This is exactly what I expect out of republicans. Expect to see more of this across the country over the next four years.

If you vote republican, you support bigotry and therefore are a bigot.

And some wonder why some people shun republican friends and families. The hatred I've seen portrayed on the right towards gay people makes my stomach churn with revulsion.

What nonsense.

stupid.goat-fucking.republicans

'Hammet'? maybe he meant dashiell?

the fucking tit. i thought the constitution was supposed to prevent lunatics like this dictating to the rest of the country. it sounds like the Scopes monkey trial or something.

i might be able to think of a more erudite response given time but by the sounds of it i'd probably be branded a 'subversive' or 'commie'.

go bible belt go

Decades of Reconstruction for this? Can we ask them to secede again?

Every time I see someone misuse this adverb, I could literally explode!

Note that the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law. Individual states, counties, cities, etc. are free to do so.
If the state of Alabama declares itself Christian, the First Amendment has nothing to say about that. If the State of Florida declares itself Satanist, the Constitution has nothing to say to that.

If you vote democrat, you support people with bad hair, and therefore are a person with bad hair.

Have mercy on some portion of the residents in Alabama (like myself). We voted 48% democrat in the election. Hell, I used my write in to vote for Satan in one of the locals. Just take his attempts to 'protect' the culture as a sign that homosexuality is spreading and general acceptance is rising in the 'Heart of the South'.

These clowns are on the rise again. I never thought we would see this sort of backwards-ass-ignorant-fuck attitude take center stage once again in American life, but here it is.

Amendment XIV Section 1. "... 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."

You are mistaken.

Bad hair is not an ideology, policy, program or agenda. If you vote for someone who says "This is what I believe, and this is what I intend to do with the power you've delegated me" then you are fucking well responsible when they go ahead and do that.

And... the person who thinks someone is a bigot because he is a republican is?

I'm alll for leaving everybody else alone, but this is a clear case of some other homosexual guy losing his rights or me losing my rights. I made a self-serving choice. Does that make me a bigot? Not really, just selfish.

A fine point, and relevant to my statement. However, there's a long tradition of this ]not forbidding censorship.

Yes, but it remains an overgeneralization. Casting a vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of all of their policies, only a statement of preference for (the voter's understanding of) their policies over those of the alternative candidates, or even of the subset of alternative candidates that the voter believes have a realistic chance in a strategic voting system. (Such as our simple plurality voting system.)

Damning all republicans as bigots on account of this unfortunate trend in their party is inaccurate and unproductive.

I know Republican apologists like to pretend the civil war amendments never passed, but you may wish to look up the doctrine of "incorporation," which has been well-settled law for many decades. Otherwise, you may look like a moron.

Good ol' Gitlow v. New York. And speaking of First Amendment jurisprudence, isn't this slam-dunk unconstitutional under Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico?


[Edited on Dec 09, 2004 by Lemonnier]

stuzzy_tuscadero = pwned

[Edited on Dec 09, 2004 1:31PM]

more rights repealed by the cult of fear.

Alabama?
You got the rest of the union
to help you along
What's going wrong?

Poems are for fags.

no, cigarettes are fags (damn language barrier).

anyway, the US wants to lead the rest of the world into a new democratic and free era while it's still trying to ban books/literature/plays/poetry that might contain "gasp" homosexual conotations?

ooohh, we're all fucked. constitutional arguements be damned, this shit is the image that the rest of the world sees.

[Edited on Dec 09, 2004 1:53PM]

Not merely relevant, but in fact dispositive. You said the constitution did not include a provision that it clearly does.

What on earth are you talking about? That is not a list of banned books, nor is it a ratification of banned books. It is a list of books people like to try and ban. Generally speaking, they lose. Please read the cases cited by Lemmonier above.

I don't think there was ever any question that it was intended to be bombastic.

All that is true. It bears not at all on responsibility, which is what is at issue, not endorsement. If I lend you my car so that you can pick me up a six pack and some Cheetos and so you can run down a pack of nuns, whether I wanted you to slaughter the nuns or not, I'm still responsible when I knowingly give you the means to do it.

I'm really tired of being precise and productive, actually. I'm more tired of repeatedly being assailed for semantics while the other side is raping the constitution, the economy and the fucking planet.

Did you miss the part where this asshat wants to burn the fucking western cannon?




[Edited on Dec 09, 2004 by reprobate]

[Edited on Dec 09, 2004 by reprobate]

Bah, I guess that's what I get for only reading the SG article summary.. =)