December 13, 2004

Thanks for Protecting Us

I don't think there's anything I could possibly add to this article from the Guardian:

President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned.

Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen

Gary Taylor
Thursday December 9, 2004

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities. Remember, it was an urban myth (an invented court case about a sex education teacher gang-raped by her own students who, when she protested, laughed and said: "But we're just doing what you taught us!") that all but killed sex education in America.

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

It would not be the first time Cat on a Hot Tin Roof ran into censorship. As Nicholas de Jongh documents in his amusingly appalling history of government regulation of the British theatre, the British establishment was no more enthusiastic, half a century ago, than Alabama's Allen. "Once again Mr Williams vomits up the recurring theme of his not too subconscious," the Lord Chamberlain's Chief Examiner wrote in 1955. In the end, it was first performed in London at the New Watergate Club, for "members only", thereby slipping through a loophole in the censorship laws.

But more than one gay playwright is at a stake here. Allen claims he is acting to "encourage and protect our culture". Does "our culture" include Shakespeare? I ask Allen if he would insist that copies of Shakespeare's sonnets be removed from all public libraries. I point out to him that Romeo and Juliet was originally performed by an all-male cast, and that in Shakespeare's lifetime actors and audiences at the public theatres were all accused of being "sodomites". When Romeo wished he "was a glove upon that hand", the cheek that he fantasised about kissing was a male cheek. Next March the Alabama Shakespeare festival will be performing a new production of As You Like It, and its famous scene of a man wooing another man. The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is also the State Theatre of Alabama. Would Allen's bill cut off state funding for Shakespeare?

"Well," he begins, after a pause, "the current draft of the bill does not address how that is going to be handled. I expect details like that to be worked out at the committee stage. Literature like Shakespeare and Hammet [sic] could be left alone." Could be. Not "would be". In any case, he says, "you could tone it down". That way, if you're not paying real close attention, even a college graduate like Allen himself "could easily miss" what was going on, the "subtle" innuendoes and all.

So he regards his gay book ban as a work in progress. His legislation is "a single spoke in the wheel, it doesn't resolve all the issues". This is just the beginning. "To turn a big ship around it takes a lot of time."

But make no mistake, the ship is turning. You can see that on the face of Cornelius Carter, a professor of dance at Alabama and a prize-winning choreographer who, not long ago, was named university teacher of the year for the entire US. Carter is black. He is also gay, and tired of fighting these battles. "I don't know," he says, "if I belong here any more."

Forty years ago, the American defenders of "our culture" and "traditional values" were opposing racial integration. Now, no politician would dare attack Cornelius Carter for being black. But it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for what they do in bed.

"Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it."

Of course, Allen was talking about books. He was just talking about books. He never said anything about pink triangles.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Posted by Maria at December 13, 2004 09:11 PM
Comments

But if the play was about evagelical (sp?) Christianity, you would be hating it from the word 'GO'.

Why is it the government - and the elected leaders in it - cannot strive to present/represent 'typical' American values - and consequently opposed that are not typical - yet you get very red-faced if there is the slightest mention of religion?

Quite a paradox you live in Maria....

Posted by: Mad Mikey at December 13, 2004 11:47 PM

Well, because there's no seperation of homosexuality and state, dummy.

Posted by: Geoffrey at December 14, 2004 01:09 AM

sheesh.sheesh

Posted by: Geoffrey at December 14, 2004 01:12 AM

I had a teacher once who was anything but trendy..he wore suits with a bow tie and he was an "old Southern gentleman" BUT he wanted us to read literature, great literature. It saddens me to think we could even engage in a conversation of removing great works of art from library shelves or stopping productions of wonderful musicals and why..because a character is gay! Well than I guess we shouldn't ever watch a movie depicting divorce, promoting single mothers as strong women, alcholics, gambling, drug use...holy shit what are we gonna be left to read about or watch on the boob tube?

Posted by: Sandy at December 14, 2004 06:12 AM

Mikey, did I ever say we should start banning religious books? What paradox? Once again you've proven what a confused individual you are.

But if the play was about evagelical (sp?) Christianity, you would be hating it from the word 'GO'.

No I wouldn't.

Why is it the government - and the elected leaders in it - cannot strive to present/represent 'typical' American values - and consequently opposed that are not typical - yet you get very red-faced if there is the slightest mention of religion?

Are you saying that in order to represent "typical" (whatever the fuck that means) American values, we must ban books and eliminate that which contradicts those assumed values?

Finally, I do not get "red faced" at the slightest mention of religion. I do not have a problem with religion. I was raised in a religious household. I have a problem with legislating based on religious beliefs that don't belong to everyone and I object to merging church and state. I have a problem with elected officials deciding what is morally right and wrong based on their personal or religious beliefs and demanding that others conform to those standards. What is it about my views about this subject that confuse you so?

Posted by: Maria at December 14, 2004 09:44 AM

I'm just shaking my head at the ever increasing prurience of American politics and special interests. (This is the free country, after all, where once Lucy n Ricky had an immaculate conception, as far as the audience was allowed to discern.) Moreover, by anyone who constantly talks about the sanctity of market driven economics and then legislates to curb that same market, or at least tries to The reason anything is in any media at all is because people want to watch/read/hear it. Otherwise Will & Grace would already have gone the way of Joanie Loves Chachi.

Did homo-, hetero-, or for that matter any sexuality grow out of some book? Are the American people SO stupid as to not only believe but also become everything they read, or see? (Granted a few dodos read/watched Harry Potter and took a broom flight off Mom and Dad’s roof but, hey, thin the herd already.) Maybe Barnum was right, at least in Mobile, but even if you do want to change that you’d better do more than oversee library purchases. Better start making all the open minded seditionists drink our hemlock.

Posted by: mikey at December 14, 2004 10:52 AM

An excellent point.

Posted by: Maria at December 14, 2004 08:29 PM

Once again you've proven what a confused individual you are.

It's a Republican thing - you wouldn't understand.

Posted by: Mad Mikey at December 15, 2004 11:33 AM

sounds to me like Allen must be one of the 99.9% if you haven't seen it yet, go read this article on how the PTC is dominating all of the FCC complaints received over the past few years:

http://mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

facinating and scary at the same time.

Posted by: P at December 15, 2004 12:06 PM

Thanks for that article Pete. Wow. That's just disturbing. Throw that on the pile with all the other similarly disturbing things that we've heard recently about the rise and increasing success of the finger shaking morality police.

Posted by: Maria at December 15, 2004 12:16 PM

I wanted to ask a question about the article: How does Bush make the leap from marriage-defining to book-banning? I live in OH, so I kept a close eye on the election results. There were two proposals on the docket that I found curious. One concerned the marriage definition. This passed with flying colors (no surprise there). However, the other bill concerned the right to discriminate against an employee based on sexual orientation. This bill fell far short of passing.
So, based on this information, it seems to me that Americans don't mind living and working with homosexuals as long as the "sacred-M word" is not taken away from them. So, back to my question: If the people find it agreeable to have homosexuals among them, how does Bush make the leap of faith from marriage to an overall despising of gays and lesbians? It seems like the marriage idea is only a red herring for his moral overhaul. I would appreciate any comments anyone has about this.

Posted by: jtw24 at December 16, 2004 11:34 AM

Interesting article Maria. Thanks.

You'll note that Gerald's last name is "Allen". You don't suppose it's genetic do you?

Watch the segment Peter Jennings does on "World News Tonight" ABC at 6:30 tonight. It's a profile of this same sort of phenomeon.

And Mad Mike? The Christians are doin' just fine. Nobody's telling 'em they can't practice their Christianity that I know of.

R.

Posted by: Richard at December 16, 2004 05:52 PM