|
Richard Nelson
Richard Nelson is a policy analyst for The Family Foundation, a nonprofit public policy organization. He currently resides in Trigg County with his family.
Public Decency Shouldn't be Taken for Granted
Click
here to listen to the commentary.
Senate Bill 63 would put Kentucky onto the path of modesty.
Social skills are important. One social skill that most people over the age of four have mastered is keeping their clothes on in public. Unfortunately, state lawmakers seem to be struggling with this idea. It’s not that legislators have been convening in Frankfort in the buff recently, but they’ve got nothing to hide behind for their failure to pass a statewide public decency law.
Sen. Julie Denton (R-Louisville), a perennial voice against the exploitation of women, sponsored SB 63, the Public Decency Act, which would have prohibited total nudity in strip clubs and ban table and lap dancing by creating a buffer zone between strippers and patrons. It also marshalled state support behind local decency standards, which may be the most crucial point since 114 of 120 Kentucky counties already strictly regulate strip clubs.
Advocates argued the bill was necessary to thwart aggressive strip club owners intent on doing business regardless of local laws. Kenton and McCracken County decency ordinances were targeted by high-paid, out-of-town strip club attorneys who attempted to overturn the laws on technicalities. While both counties successfully defended their laws, facing a challenge is more daunting for smaller counties that don’t have similar resources and funds.
SB 63 passed the Senate on Feb. 13 by a vote of 34-3, but it eventually died in the House because leadership was infatuated with the idea of introducing another business known to rip people off. As a result, Kentucky remains vulnerable to the social fallout associated with strip clubs. And municipalities in need of extra protection against strip clubs notorious for challenging constitutionally-sound restrictions will be left to fend for themselves for at least another year.
On Feb. 21, the Kentucky County Judge Executive Association endorsed SB 63. Larue County Judge-executive Tommy Turner, chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee, strongly supported the measure. "Senate Bill 63 helps every county and in effect, every citizen of Kentucky," Turner said. "Many communities feel as if they are isolated or are left to fend for themselves when dealing with issues related to sexually oriented businesses. This legislation can and will become a strong ally for Kentucky counties."
All decency advocates requested was a fair hearing. Instead, House leadership turned a deaf ear to local officials and for the better part of the session listened to the siren song of the casino lobby. Of course, the lyrics were hollow, not unlike the refrain from attorneys who defend the exploitation of women for profit.
Strip club defenders often wrap themselves in First Amendment free speech rhetoric, but their arguments are increasingly being exposed by the courts. Just eight weeks ago, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court upheld Kenton County’s ban on total nudity. The ruling joined a chorus of recent legal opinions stating that total nudity and stripping is not an absolute free speech right.
The court of public opinion is also beginning to realize that too many young women get trapped by an industry that objectifies them for profit. And too many men addicted to porn and strip clubs end up with a warped view of women. Decency laws were hardly necessary decades ago, but that was before the strip club and porn industry began mainstreaming sexual exploitation. Now we live in the age of Paris, Brittney and "wardrobe malfunctions."
For many parents, including me, this issue hits home. There’s a strip club 20 minutes from my house. There are issues of health and safety. There’s blight and increased crime, including assault, drug dealing and prostitution. Strip clubs make bad neighbors and they give any community a black eye.
The "free-speech" arguments are getting old. The "consenting adult" thing can go only so far. And "entertainment" does have limits. For the sake of our families, it’s time we insist that state legislators raise the bar for decency and join states like Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee which have solid public decency laws on the books.
It’s a modest proposal.
Murray State Opens Door to Radical Sexual Politics
Click
here to listen to the commentary.
When Murray State’s Board of Regents voted last week to elevate sexual orientation to protected status, we learned something about the difference between making an informed decision and caving into political correctness. We also learned what passes for higher education these days.
Terry Strieter, interim chair of the History Department, spent quite a bit of time testifying before the Regents about the death of Matthew Shepherd. It’s unclear what that had to do with the policy change to include sexual orientation in MSU’s non-discrimination code. Last time I checked, assault and murder is still illegal in all 50 states. Strieter also talked about tolerance and the Western tradition, as if we are to believe that affirmation of sexual deviancy is the logical extension of that tradition.
It’s funny how a history professor could miss something he’s supposed to specialize in. The history of gay politics is anything but tolerant, from the Stonewall Riot in 1969 to the commandeering of American Psychological Association conventions in the early 1970’s–tolerance works only if you agree with their politics.
University President Randy Dunn supported the change because he believed it would attract faculty and staff. Just what kind of faculty and staff would be attracted by such a policy is anyone’s guess. What MSU is likely to get in the near future is a tax-funded gay resource center and a domestic partnership policy controversy like UK and U of L’s. For years, both schools had elevated sexual orientation to protected status, which eventually served as a springboard for other radical policies. Dunn also pointed to the other state universities that had enacted the policy. This reasoning amounts to "everybody else is doing it, so should we." That kind of sloppy thinking may work for some people, but it shouldn’t for a university president.
When one Regent proposed an amendment to nix sexual-orientation protection, Regent Jeff Taylor whipped out the U.S. Constitution from his jacket and declared that it "stands for democracy, for fairness and for individuals having the right to choose." Mr. Taylor can say the Constitution stands for anything he says it stands for, but it doesn’t change what the Constitution actually says. One thing is clear: it certainly doesn’t guarantee the right to practice homosexuality.
Consider that "sexual orientation" is typically used to refer to homosexual, bisexual or lesbian sexual inclinations. But the term is actually much broader. In fact, one can even have a sexual orientation toward children, animals or objects according to Robert Knight, a nationally recognized cultural researcher. The therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association lists at least 20 distinctive sexual variations of sexual orientation including paraphilias, which are sexual disorders. It’s now on record that Murray State protects all kinds of sexual lunacy.
It’s appalling that educated people look past the facts to embrace a policy that is dangerous. Of course, they’ll say it furthers their mission of "diversity," but diversity without common sense is foolishness. And terms such as fairness and tolerance become hollow when co-opted by forces of political correctness to further an agenda.
|
