Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.

A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules.

Murfreesboro passed an ordinance in June banning “indecent behavior,” including “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct.” As journalist Erin Reed first reported, this ordinance specifically mentions Section 21-72 of the city code. The city code states that sexual conduct includes homosexuality.

Anyone who violates the new ordinance is barred from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events for two years. Anyone who violates the ordinance “in the presence of minors” is barred for five years.

An ACLU-backed challenge to the ordinance has already been launched, but that hasn’t stopped city officials from implementing the measure. Last Monday, the Rutherford County steering committee met to discuss removing all books that might potentially violate the ordinance from the public library. The resolution was met with widespread outcry from city residents.

“When have the people who ban books ever been the good guys?” local activist Keri Lambert demanded during the Monday county meeting.

Murfreesboro city officials have already used the ordinance to ban four books that discuss LGBTQ themes. In August, the county library board pulled the books Flamer, Let’s Talk About It, Queerfully and Wonderfully Made, and This Book Is Gay.

The board also implemented a new library card system that categorizes books into certain age groups. When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.

Library director Rita Shacklett worried in August that the new rules would prevent students from accessing books they need for a class. She explained that many classic high school books, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, are now classified as “adult.”

It’s unclear if the county steering committee plans to pull books such as the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which includes multiple depictions of heterosexual sexual conduct.

Murfreesboro’s new ordinance is part of a much larger wave of attacks on LGBTQ rights in Tennessee and the rest of the country. In the past year, the so-called Volunteer State became the first state to try to ban drag performances. That law was overturned in court.

In March, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow people to refuse to perform a marriage if they disagree with it, essentially gutting marriage equality. The bill was introduced in the Senate but deferred until next year.

link: https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality

archive link: https://archive.ph/LFMMK

  • PepeLivesMatter
    1·
    1 year ago

    Okay, so by your definition they’re no different from fascists, because both claim what they’re doing is in the interest of children.

    You don’t happen do have any data to prove that what LGBT educators are doing leads to better outcomes and improved mental health in the long run, do you?

    Also, I have never advocated for using violence against children and I definitely do not support beating them for any reason. You’re just making shit up again and projecting your own issues on me.

    • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      Also, what I am claiming is that Rush was projecting. He and the Republican party are in fact the fascists. There’s a HUGE difference between actively oppressing “for the children” and actively advocating for the children. Rush- and you- are OPRESSORS.

      • PepeLivesMatter
        1·
        1 year ago

        Well, then how do you propose to tell the difference between people who claim to work for the benefit of children and those who actually DO?

        What evidence is there that children are better off knowing how to have same sex romantic relationships vs. knowing about the dangers of sex, especially to a developing brain, and possibly abstaining from sexual activity altogether until they’re fully grown?

        • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA One thing that we know from all available data from all available sources is to never ever ever take sex ed advice from conservatives. You people have been an absolute abject miserable failure in this arena in every metric associated.

          This is why those books are needed: to teach sexual responsibility. Abstainance is not a responsible philosophy at all; it teaches ignorance of consequences and leads to high teen pregnancy rates (and more abortions!!) because abstainance assumes that sexual druve does not exist and can be easily suppressed if it appears.

          Are you old enough to remember who Jocylyn Elders was and why the conservatards objected to her tenure?

    • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      What sort of “data” do you want? Are you asking if their mental health is better when they are accepted, or if it’s better if they have to live in fear of bullies and evangelical fuckwits who constantly tell them that they’re evil? Which do YOU think is going to have a better outcome?

      • PepeLivesMatter
        1·
        1 year ago

        Hard data. Peer reviewed, long term studies would be best. Got any of those? Otherwise we’re just arguing opinions. Clearly you already know what I think would work best: not seducing or enticing them to engage in any premarital sex, gay or or otherwise. Also, again, I do not and have not advocated for using violence or letting them live in fear, although a certain amount of fear is likely unavoidable because like you said there ARE dangerous people out there who seek to corrupt them, although we probably disagree on who exactly those people are.