I am sorry, but this goes too far. Book bannings of any kind is very bad and against the whole idea of freedom of speech

"If you're a fan of Alice Walker, now might be a good time to check out one her books from the library. One Alabama lawmaker has proposed a bill that may yank "The Color Purple," and many other classic works, from public bookshelves.

District 62 Representative, Gerald Allen, says he wants to ban books that, "...sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state." Allen says it falls right in line with the proposed ban on gay marriage. "A society cannot sustain itself through activities such as this," says Allen, "and for us to promote it with public dollars just doesn't make sense." For many, the proposed law itself doesn't make sense..."
SOURCE

"If his bill became law, public school textbooks could not present views on homosexuality, college theater groups would not be able to perform plays like the Tennessee Williams classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" or The Laramie Project, and public school libraries could not display books that include lesbianism like Alice Walker's "The Color Purple..."
SOURCE[/b]

I'm with you on this Doody. I seriously doubt this one's going to go anywhere though.

Yes this is going too far.
It must be allowed.

Only Nazis,communists and Muslim dictatorships are renound for banning literature and U.S. citizens from Alabama have paid in blood fighting all three so to allow this to happen is an insult to thier sacrifice.

Originally Posted by sven hassell

Only Nazis,communists and Muslim dictatorships are renound for banning literature and U.S. citizens from Alabama have paid in blood fighting all three so to allow this to happen is an insult to thier sacrifice.

I agree, Funny how things like this are so easily forgotten, eh?

I agree with Doody on this.

Is this real (or current)?

Because "prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state" - those laws where correctly ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 2002; they don't exist anymore.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Is this real (or current)?

Because "prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state" - those laws where correctly ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 2002; they don't exist anymore.

I could be wrong, but wasn't that specific to Texas?

Alabama still has their sodomy laws on the books, and their court ruling (I believe back in '9 didn't find it unconstitutional.

All that said, this guy is creepy. I wonder if they'll have a book burnin'/pig pickin' if the bill passes? He's worse than Nagin.

Originally Posted by PJ24

I could be wrong, but wasn't that specific to Texas?

Alabama still has their sodomy laws on the books, and their court ruling (I believe back in '9 didn't find it unconstitutional.

All that said, this guy is creepy. I wonder if they'll have a book burnin'/pig pickin' if the bill passes? He's worse than Nagin.

I'm pretty sure it struck down all such laws... or maybe alabama still has the law on the books because no one has appealed it yet? I don't know enough about gay topics, I just remember the supreme court striking down those stupid laws.

Now they want a book ban in support of an illiegal law? And they wonder why the gay suicide rate is 5x higher than straights.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I'm pretty sure it struck down all such laws... or maybe alabama still has the law on the books because no one has appealed it yet? I don't know enough about gay topics, I just remember the supreme court striking down those stupid laws.

Now they want a book ban in support of an illiegal law? And they wonder why the gay suicide rate is 5x higher than straights.

I'll have to Google that one. I remember that the case was brought up specifically over the Texas law.

Okay, Google complete. As I understand it it was a specific ruling against "Homosexual sodomy," but general sodom laws that do not define sexuality are still allowed. Basically, I take it to mean, State A can't have a law that says "Homosexuals may not engage in sexual acts," but they can have a law that states "sodomy is illegal." So, a sodomy law that is neutral to both homosexuals and heterosexuals is still legal, Constitutional and enforcable for the states that have them on the books.

Now, here's the really confusing part:

Albama’s sodomy law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2003, as a result of the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. June 26, 2003). Previously, Alabama's sodomy law applied to both heterosexual and same-sex partners. Ala. Code § 13A-6-63 (2001); § 13A-6-64 (2001). Although the sodomy law did not apply to acts by consenting adults in private, homosexual conduct was criminalized under the sexual misconduct law.

Ow. My head hurts.