Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Although details are sketchy, it seems that the good officers of Texas have decided to raid a gay bar and arrest some patrons for public intoxication while said patrons were seated at the bar drinking, and on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/on_40th_a...
I don't usually frequent bars, but had always imagined that the primary purpose of going to a bar was to drink intoxicating beverages, and that tea is rarely served, but I reckon I must have been wrong, at least in Texas.
Puddin'
Comments
Counterpoint
As a native Texan I feel I must point out a couple of things:
1) The gay bar wasn't the only bar raided that night. The others aren't mentioned because it defeats the purpose and outrage that column is trying to show.
2) TABC officers... Ha! When I was in the restaurant business not so very long ago there were a total of 10 count'em TEN "officers" for the entire state. They would only go to where the most flagrant offenses were conducted.
A while back the Texas State government pushed by MADD enacted a law that pretty much put an end to heavy drinking at bars. Basically if you had more than 2 drink (alcohol) or four beers then you were considered over the allowable limit (blood alcohol)and could be considered Publicly Intoxicated. This is normally overlooked unless there is an accident that could be attributed to being drunk.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that the raid was conducted for the sole purpose of rousting gays, not really. But there seems to be more to this story than what this columnist is trying to stir up.
I grew up in Houston, Texas and traveled the whole state. I was openly bisexual since I was 15 and had a number of open relationships with men in full view of the law enforcement officers. I have never, not one time, ever been treated with anything but courtesy from them.
My guess? TABC had complaints about several bars in the area, rousted them, and didn't bother checking out the gay calendar. Of course the cops are going to take the heat, fire someone, and Texas and Texans will yet again be labeled as intolerant and bigoted as they always are, much like everyone in Kentucky intermarries and everyone in Alabama sleeps with their siblings, the entire state of California is gay, and everyone in Canada has an affinity for backbacon and saying 'eh'.
I'm sure there are a number of homophobic cops out relative to the number in the general population, but I cannot see State and Local Law Enforcement conspiring together to raid a gay bar for that purpose alone. While it was popular in the 80's, they know it is a major civil lawsuit in the 00's
Nope, I'm calling bullsh*t on this one.
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
But the entire state of California *is* gay!
...isn't it? Even our governator used to pose for the gay heart-throb magazines.
Of course, to be perfectly fair, that was back in his gang-bang hash-smoking days.
it's been simply ages since he posed for the boys and, if he still smokes dope, he's been very discreet.
Party on,
Puddin'
-----------
P.S. I don't vouch for the story, and I did mention that there were few details.
Here's both sides of the story, as far as is known just now, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1458523.html
The last time I was in Texas, Ronald Reagan was still president so, for all I know, it may be the gay and lesbian mecca for the entire southwest and gulf coast by now. It could happen. Isn't Wyoming somewhere near Texas?
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
A better link
That sounds a little more realistic. One cop was tossing someone around. That I can believe with no problem. The last quote of the article was just stupid and inflammatory as well.
"Officers just don't come in armed with zip ties and a paddy wagon for a routine check of a bar," Norman said."
Um, it wasn't a routine check, idiot; it was a raid, and zip ties and paddy wagon are part and parcel to that. Actually I see a number of beat officers with zip ties these days raid or no raid. I would consider the official report from the police to be "the other side" of this story. This was a better account, but still biased. Sorry, I just can't muster up sympathy for people who cry racism, elitism, gay bashing, and protest at the drop of a hat. It smells too much of opportunism to me.
Now, after the police have their say or if there is any evidence to see, *that* would be the time to protest. If there was a film showing the drunk guy not resisting and getting his head bashed in, *that* would be the time to protest.
Thanks for the link!
I'd have to say that Houston wouldn't be the mecca, but I would say confidently that it was the San Fransisco of the Gulf Coast in terms of the Gay community. Very very large. That's keeping in mind the major cities along the coast: Corpus Christi, Houston, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile... We're not talking about a whole lot of diversity here. It's hard not to be the leader with this type of competition.
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
But the food and music
But the food and music are much better in New Orleans, and it smells better than (at least south) Houston, and the humidity is about equal. Austin has the best people (IMVHO) and live music to equal N.O. San Antonio has less humidity than all of them (OK, that's off the coast, but this is Texas, 300 miles is nothing.) Corpus and Brownsville have the best beaches on the gulf.
Ummm. What were we talking about??
Gays in none of those place (yes, I know some, or have known some, in many of them) probably feel they must cower in their rooms, but they also probably don't think they can go openly, with PDAs, in all parts of town. The same is true of Washington and Philadelphia and NY and LA and even San Francisco. Cops always make me nervous. 90% are very good, honest people, 99%+ keep it within the rules and above board whatever their own feelings. But cops always make me nervous everywhere.
Bad Law
A law like that, always unevenly enforced, is just bad legislation and an excuse when needed for any sort of harassment of any sort of liquor serving establishment, gay, straight or New Martian Congregationalist.
It's a good thing that someone is protesting this bad law, even if their assumption that they were specially targeted is wrong, making a law that cannot be followed under reasonable circumstances is a much worse piece of bullshit.
And if you're a member of an underclass and are arrested under a law DESIGNED to be used to harass people, then the assumption of deliberate harassment is one the authorities need to answer. I know if I were on a jury there I would vote not guilty for anyone arrested under that law faster than a judge can spell nullification.
This isn't a Texas thing, it's an irresponsible use of authority thing, it just happened to have happened in Texas. And I'm not talking about the cops, I'm talking about the people who write legislation and give orders to the police.
-- Donna Lamb, Flack
-- Donna Lamb, ex-Flack
Some of my books and stories are sold through DopplerPress to help support BigCloset. -- Donna
Originally it was pushed by
Originally it was pushed by MADD as an anti-drinking and driving law. It was annoying, but understandable. Then it got twisted much like every other law out there. There will always be people taking advantage of situations and the powers given to them. I just remember how many times I had to cut people off when it first got passed. I lost a lot of customers and tips because I didn't want to be put on a lawsuit as contributing to them being stupid behind the wheel.
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
Yeah, bad situation to be in
Innkeeper laws are ancient but modern situations with powerful motorcars and machinery need adjustment to those old statutes and we haven't got it right yet.
-- Donna Lamb, Flack
-- Donna Lamb, ex-Flack
Some of my books and stories are sold through DopplerPress to help support BigCloset. -- Donna
Wrong-headed
The problem with drink-driving in so many jurisdictions is that the penalties are often slight, or can be easily-avoided, and there are so many avenues available to escape consequences.
The problem is drink-driving, not people in bars, but the "public intoxication" law essentially says, "Well, we can't control drunks on the roads, so let's catch them in the bars where we know they've been drinking." Unfortunately, there's no public harm done by being drunk, unless someone can claim that they were so disgusted by seeing people enjoying themselves (in however ill-advised a manner) that their lives were blighted and they had to spend thousands of dollars in therapy. This makes for a vague law with a vague purpose, something like "loitering," and such laws are invitations for police abuse and selective enforcement, because they're targeted at "future-crime." "So and so is drunk, so and so might climb into a car and drive, so let's punish him now, before he hurts anyone."
In most states of the USA, there is a .08 per se intoxication level, but people can't be forced to take the test, so the sensible thing to do is to refuse to take the test, serve out the month's driving licence suspension (or whatever), and get on with your life. The likelihood of being caught driving with a suspended licence is very small, so it amounts to no penalty at all for most people.
It's only people stupid enough to agree to take the test who are punished through the test results, however draconian the supposed penalties for drink-driving may be, so all the laws do is punish the stupid whilst allowing the clever to flit off as free as little birds.
It's the laws against drink-driving that need to be changed, something along the lines of the UK and Scandinavian models, rather than flailing away at the edges of the real problem, our societal tolerance of drunks on the road, and ready forgiveness of drink-drivers as long as they claim that they "need" to drive their cars to maintain their employment.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I see...
...what you did there, with the >Stranger< in a >Strange Land< reference. X-D
Also, Lilith, you missed the one that everyone in Utah is a polygamist. (You know, 'cause everyone here is Mormon, and all of them are polygamists, right? When you cross the state border, they assign men at least one extra wife (two, if single), and they assign single women to one of the Mormon leaders' harems.) Yeah, locational stereotypes suck. (≧ãƒâ‰¦)
-Liz
-Liz
Successor to the LToC
Formerly known as "momonoimoto"
I don't know if they still
I don't know if they still do it, but when I was stationed at Amarillo AFB, TX in the very early 1960's, you could actually go to a drive-in restaurant and get a beer and drink it in your car as long as you had also ordered a meal with it. The theory then was if you were in your car, less drinking in the long run. I also remember a gay bar in Dallas (1973) that was called the "Mark Twain", that everything I noticed from the outside made it look rather nice and upscale. As far as I know, the police never raided that place in the entire time I was stationed in Dallas. They did however, raid a "biker bar" that was located on a Street/Ave named Lemon. The reason according to the local papers was because some of the "bikers" had gone out and assaulted some gays at a local Denny's not too far from there.
J-Lynn
Open container laws.
I think it was the early to mid 80's when the "open container" laws went into effect in Texas. Before then, as long as you were not drunk, you could drink and drive. A lot of teed off people the day that happened. Houston traffic sucked, so people would often grab a single beer for the ride home seeing as they'd be in traffic for no less than an hour, maybe two.
This was when MADD was at their strongest.
Now stores provide a little brown paper sack to mask the beer can. Like that actually helps, LOL. Everyone knows what's in there.
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
This is what happens
when you have unreasonable laws. People behave reasonably and the authorities get to pick and choose who to harass over the violations.
A lot of drivers who get stopped for a ticket probably don't even get questioned about the paper bag on the front seat but for a member of an underclass, having a paper bag on the seat is probable cause because everyone knows this gimmick. If a cop is feeling mean or has been told to up his quota, someone is going to get pulled over and go to jail instead of just get a ticket.
Here in CA, the use of concealed drinking containers is much less prevalent and such an open container law can be more fairly enforced. Probably isn't but that's not the point. In Texas, with a history of allowing drinks in the vehicle, an open container law as described can be a license for legal harassment of almost anyone.
-- Donna Lamb, Flack
-- Donna Lamb, ex-Flack
Some of my books and stories are sold through DopplerPress to help support BigCloset. -- Donna
That long ago, the explanation for no raids was likely bribery
Back in the days when being queer was illegal, the gay bars were cash cows for the local police, and often had Mafia ties, since their "innocent" access to policemen with their hands out offered improved opportunities for "business relationships" with policemen on the general take.
Vice cops had a long history of similar corruption, a situation only partially improved by the creation of internal investigation units in most modern police departments. The problem is, as with any prohibition, that the criminals have all the money, while the police are squeezed by the budgetary powers of the general government, who don't want to pay the police enough to compete with the criminals.
It wasn't until 2003 that the Supreme Court of the USA got around to deciding that homosexuality (and by extension several other sexual "deviances") was protected behaviour, and struck down most laws prohibiting homosexuality everywhere in the nation.
They still haven't tidied up around the margins, which is why transgender people are still fair targets (unless protected by local law), homosexuals still can't marry in most places, and being accused of being a homosexual will get one tossed out of the Armed Services unless one is very lucky.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Gays are protected
Here's proof:
Gays Are Precious
:-)
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi