By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) July 18 | I read an article at the Advocate online today that quite frankly arsed me. Quoting from this published article by the San Francisco Chronicle the Advocate reported:
"Last summer, Palm Springs police used undercover officers to arrest 24 men in a gay neighborhood for allegedly trying to engage the officers in sex. While few in the gay community defend anyone having public sex - whether gay or straight - the anger is over the unusual charges in the case: The men are charged under Section 290(c) of the California Penal Code, making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life, their names added to a police database.That charge is essentially a life sentence, defense lawyers say, and has never been used against straight couples arrested for similar activity in Palm Springs."
The Advocate also reported that local Palm Springs Gay activists are calling for the removal/resignation of the local police Chief:
"One member of the city's policy advisory board, Thomas Van Etten, has called for the firing of police chief David G. Dominguez. "I've called for his resignation because the police chief is using tactics that we have not seen since Stonewall. For the Palm Springs police to pull something like this is incomprehensible," Van Etten said."
Then, adding fuel to the fire, former Harvey Milk Aide, Aids Activist and LGBT Equality Rights pioneer, Cleve Jones, who relocated to Palm Springs from San Francisco 10 years ago, stated in the Chronicle article that:
"They're really shooting themselves in the foot," Jones says. "Gay dollars are keeping this city afloat. Let's get real. The gay events are the largest events in the valley. The gay tourist dollar is crucial to the economic survival of Palm Springs. And this story has spread far and wide across the world, and it will have an impact because people are angry. It's ridiculous."
Then both media outlets relate the fact that there's apparently not a single Gay or Lesbian, or Transgendered police officer currently serving on the Palm Springs Police Department.
Okay, so what? What does that have to do with the fact that those arrested were either engaging in or attempting to engage in sexual acts in public? The presence of a LGBT police officer would change the reality of the arrests?
Give me a break, please.
There is absolutely NO freaking excuse for that behaviour, period. Especially in a public place. I am not even going to argue about the fact that it defies logic and just plain flies in the face of acceptable adult behaviour by the rest of society Gay OR straight.
Too bad that blatant stupidity leads to a sex offender charge....
Gay Activists need to be MORE concerned about stopping the spread of HIV-AIDS, which by the way, the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta have established that oft times is spread by high risky behaviours such as, yup, you guessed it, cruising and promiscuous anonymous sex as those in the articles were charged with allegedly attempting.
I have ZERO sympathy and am arsed that LGBT activists are even fretting over this crap. THIS IS NOT about LGBT Equality Rights.
If these 'gentlemen' were targeted for being in public and creating circumstances that led to these type of charges, then so be it! Let justice run its course.
2 comments:
It could be maintained that there is no such thing as sexual liberty until public sex is regarded as a human right.
On the other-hand, sex being the visual stimulant that it is for onlookers and bystanders it might be wiser for cities and communities to provide sex booths along the sidewalk for people to engage in spontaneous infatuation exercises with a stranger. (The booth should be pre-stocked with condoms and lube etc., and instruction sheets.)
"...making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life," is just another way to witch-hunt the gay community.
Like most forms of entrapment, the evidence can be fabricated to suit the law enforcement officers.
"There is absolutely NO freaking excuse for that behaviour, period."
So does this mean you disapprove of sex in drive-in cinemas, the back row of indoor cinemas, out the back of the dance-hall, on the beach at 2am, in the forest at dusk?
If it hadn't been for promiscuous anonymous sex in the days of criminalisation of homosexual acts, then many of us would not have had sex with anyone.
It's going to happen, and the LGBT community does need to educate people about the dangers, but prohibition and condemnation will not work.
The issue isn;t the one of public sex. I don;t approve of that either.
The issue is one of equality. And it's one of entrapment.
If the same charges and techniques are used against all people 'offering' sex in public places, so be it. But the idea of this being a 'sex offence' is a bit harsh.
Those lists are designed to stop real sex offenders, not to stop folk getting their rocks off.
I think you've got distaste for public sex right in this article, but that you also missed the second point - equality of treatment.
Post a Comment