Banning public homosexuality in Tennessee

[rambot]

A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality—and We All Missed It

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.

Code included:

"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast

To put it simply, two gay men holding hands in public would be as aggregious as masturnating in a public park.

I think I would have had my young daughter see two men hugging then heterosexual oral sex on a bus.


Frankly I'm not convinced I'd put these offences in the same category....but am I alone?

 

[Vambram]

From what you quoted, it does not appear that the law would also apply to hand-holding.

 

[Bradskii]

A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality—and We All Missed It

Code included:

"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast."

It doesn't define what they mean by 'homosexuality'. I'll be generous here and assume that sexual intercourse was meant to mean heterosexual intercourse and homosexuality means homosexual intercourse.

But...from the linked article:

'City Manager Craig Tindall stated that he would refuse permits to BoroPride after claiming that the Pride festival “intentionally exposed children” to sexual conduct.'

But again...

'BoroPride...was allowed to go forward after organizers reached an agreement with the city government.'

That agreement was via the District Court: https://www.aclu-tn.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/boropride_agreed_order.pdf

'On October 28 and 29, 2023, Defendant City of Murfreesboro, acting through Defendant City Manager Craig Tindall; Defendant City Mayor Shane McFarland; the City’s police department; or any other City official or entity, shall not enforce or take any action pursuant to the provision of Murfreesboro City Code § 21-71 that includes “homosexuality” within the definition of “sexual conduct.”

 

[Ana the Ist]

A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality—and We All Missed It

Code included:


To put it simply, two gay men holding hands in public would be as aggregious as masturnating in a public park.

I think I would have had my young daughter see two men hugging then heterosexual oral sex on a bus.


Frankly I'm not convinced I'd put these offences in the same category....but am I alone?

That doesn't seem likely to hold up in court.

 

[JustOneWay]

From what you quoted, it does not appear that the law would also apply to hand-holding.

The law does not say that hand-holding is OK. What it does say is

"Any person who knowingly engages in conduct prohibited by this
section in the presence of minors and that thereby subjects minors to
indecent behavior,"

and that makes 'indecent behavior' an illegal offense.

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.

There we go....two men holding hands can be a strong indicator of homosexuality, which can be a viewed as an illegal offense.

When the law gives an inch, people will take a mile.

 

[WolfGate]

Poorly written law at best. Perhaps intent was what the OP says, perhaps not.

But what is clear is that the way the law is written, authorities could justify charging someone for a mild physical indication of homosexuality such as holding hands or kissing. It is also almost certain a court would strike that down.

 

[Bradskii]

Poorly written law at best. Perhaps intent was what the OP says, perhaps not.

But what is clear is that the way the law is written, authorities could justify charging someone for a mild physical indication of homosexuality such as holding hands or kissing. It is also almost certain a court would strike that down.

They did . See post 3.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

A code that poorly written won’t hold up. What does “no sexual conduct including homosexuality” even mean? No holding hands? No kissing? No rainbow flags or clothes that have pride slogans? Two gay people with a child? People portraying themselves as gay?

It’s a code written by pearl clutchers for pearl clutchers that is deliberately vague so as to be subjectively enforced. It’s a vanity code for the moral police, not an actual enforceable law that will be allowed to stand. To me it’s indicative of the real problem of intolerance towards social minorities, not evidence that social minorities are causing any real problems.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality—and We All Missed It

Code included:


To put it simply, two gay men holding hands in public would be as aggregious as masturnating in a public park.

I think I would have had my young daughter see two men hugging then heterosexual oral sex on a bus.


Frankly I'm not convinced I'd put these offences in the same category....but am I alone?

It appears that the gay pride kink parties and child drag shows are now off the table.

 

[Hank77]

physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals

Congresswoman Loren Boebert (R, CO) would have been arrested in the Beetle Juice incident.

 

[rambot]

It appears that the gay pride kink parties and child drag shows are now off the table.

And two men holding hands.

 

[JustOneWay]

Congresswoman Loren Boebert (R, CO) would have been arrested in the Beetle Juice incident.

Indeed. The both of them were putting on their own show in front of the children!

 

[keith99]

Drilling down I saw this in a section of the city code that seems to be about literature. (The article seems to be more about writing than actual conduct).

"Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.

So, if I am reading this correctly to be sado-masochistic abuse something needs to happen to someone dressed in underwear or costume or be inflicted by someone in that state. But fully and normally clothed or stark naked the same thing is just fine.

 

[WolfGate]

They did . See post 3

I don't see where they charged anyone for anything in post 3. But I do see where they could and where they were going to refuse to permit an event due to the homosexual nature. What I don't know is what happened in prior years at that event, but I doubt it was the other more specific things listed in the ordinance.

 

[eleos1954]

A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality—and We All Missed It

Code included:


To put it simply, two gay men holding hands in public would be as aggregious as masturnating in a public park.

I think I would have had my young daughter see two men hugging then heterosexual oral sex on a bus.


Frankly I'm not convinced I'd put these offences in the same category....but am I alone?

Holding hands and hugging are not sexual behavior ... they are not in the same "category"

 

[Desk trauma]

Holding hands and hugging are not sexual behavior ... they are not in the same "category"

When it’s straight people doing it sure pure white bread normality but if a same sex couple is doing it then it’s clearly them shoving their sexuality in peoples faces.

 

[JustOneWay]

When it’s straight people doing it sure prune white bread normality but if a same sex couple is doing it then it’s clearly them shoving their sexuality in peoples faces.

Exactly.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Holding hands and hugging are not sexual behavior ... they are not in the same "category"

Are there any sexual behaviors associated with homosexuality that would not be covered by "acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast"?

 

[durangodawood]

Holding hands and hugging are not sexual behavior ... they are not in the same "category"

That is true. But the law still bans them if its among same gay people..

 

[JustOneWay]

These types of laws are designed to put gay relationships back in the closet. That is the goal. Many people in America don't want others to have the freedom they seek.