Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too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.
So you’re implying that an opinion may be subject to change unless one had already voted on some matter based off of that opinion thus committing to following that opinion for the rest of one’s life?
Not at all, I said that people are on one side of this topic, and it showed in the actual votes they placed. Then with a 5/4 vote in the supreme Court the government told them their opinion didn’t matter. That alone will make someone loath the decision and keep their opinions. I’ve made myself very clear, and I think everyone here understands my point perfectly, some don’t agree with it, to them I say, whatever.
Well, you can count me out, I did not understand your point perfectly, not sure about the rest.