Dateline: DALLAS, TEXAS 11/11/00 Our headline: "Baptists prove our point: It's either their way or the highway." Story follows:
Saturday | November 11, 2000
Wichita Falls residents riled about books case
City stuck with legal bill in dispute started by church
11/11/2000
By Bernadette Pruitt / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
WICHITA FALLS – The story of a clash over two gay-themed children's books in the public library here is in its final chapter, but the ending is not a completely happy one.
Some residents are irked that the city's 1999 objectionable book ordinance, struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in September, has left taxpayers with a $26,500 legal bill. The City Council voted Tuesday to pay it, but some residents are suggesting that First Baptist Church, which spearheaded the move to take two books out of the children's section, should reimburse the city for starting the controversy that created the legal bill.
"It was a fiasco," said Wichita Falls resident John Kortbawi, a retired CPA and IRS agent. "I think it would be a nice Christian gesture if ... [supporters] would take up a special collection to reimburse the taxpayers for this useless expenditure."
"They should have left the darned thing alone," said James L. Maloney, also a retired CPA and former law enforcement officer.
Mr. Kortbawi and Mr. Maloney are among residents who have made such suggestions, some in letters to the editor of the Wichita Falls Times Record News.
But supporters of the ordinance feel the City Council, which has changed in composition since the conflict began, is ultimately responsible.
"It's a shame the City Council was not willing to appeal," said the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church. Dr. Jeffress and members of his congregation led the campaign against the picture books.
The pastor said the city's having to pay the legal bill as the loser in the case "is the result of the council's lack of courage to stand behind its own ordinance."
Dr. Jeffress, senior pastor at the 8,400-member church, told The News last year that, "We are not saying that these books should not be available at Barnes & Noble. What we are saying is that public money should not be used to purchase books that support a lifestyle that is objectionable to a large number of citizens."
The books – Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate – were written to help children of gay and lesbian parents cope with being raised in nontraditional circumstances. One is about a lesbian couple seeking artificial insemination to have a child, and the other is about a boy who moves into a home with his father and his father's boyfriend.
"The books encourage and promote sodomy," Dr. Jeffress said recently.
The controversy began in May 1998, when members of First Baptist complained to Dr. Jeffress about the books. He checked them out, then paid for them to take them out of circulation. Afterward, City Council member William Altman, an attorney and member of the church, introduced what became known as the Altman resolution. It allowed 300 library cardholders to sign a petition to move "objectionable books" to the adult section of the library.
Armed with the City Council's 4-3 passage of the ordinance, petitioners succeeded in getting copies of the two books moved to the adult section. But in July 1999, 19 plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the city, contending that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Last September, U.S. District Chief Judge Jerry Buchmeyer ruled in their favor.
The council recently accepted a deal with the ACLU, agreeing not to appeal in exchange for a 30 percent reduction in attorney fees. This left a $26,558 legal bill.
Mr. Maloney said he believed that Mr. Altman should pay the legal bill. Critics of the council action have come down particularly hard on Mr. Altman.
But he emphasized that he didn't pass the ordinance alone. "I was one of four," he said. Mr. Altman said he wished the case could have gone further.
"Judge Buchmeyer is a good judge, but there's not the least bit of doubt in my mind that the decision would have been overturned," he said.
He said he spent six months researching the issue, even making a trip to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington.
No regrets
Dr. Jeffress has also received his share of criticism, but when asked whether he would initiate such a campaign again, he replied, "Absolutely."
"I feel very good about what happened. We took a stand that needed to be taken in this issue. We did all we could do. Ultimately, God will be the final judge in the matter."
Jick Fisher, a petroleum engineer and father of four, said he is disappointed that children will have "very easy access" to the materials.
"This is not an issue about my children," said Mr. Fisher, who helped get the books off the children's shelf. "It's an issue about all children. It's the responsibility of grown-ups to do what's best for children – everyone's children, not just our own."
Jennifer Downing, the mother of a 2-year-old, sees the matter differently.
"Parents should be the ones responsible for determining what their children read," she said. "The two books are children's books and belong in the children's section."
Mrs. Downing said she believed such books could be useful to her in explaining to her son things that he might eventually question.
"This shouldn't have been an issue," she said. "I think it was a very expensive mistake."
Council critic Maloney, a grandfather, said he disapproved of the books' content. But, he added, "They shouldn't be denied a child if their parents want them to see them."
Supporters of the overturned ordinance said book banning wasn't what they had in mind. Many have been critical of the ACLU.
"It was never an issue of censorship – just one of recognizing that children are to be sheltered from adult themes," said J.I. Ginnings, an independent oil operator and rancher. "The city imposes restrictions on so-called adult theaters by not allowing those under 18 to attend. There exists an adults-only world from which children should be sheltered. The ACLU and the rules of the American Library Association do not recognize any such obligation."
Although the controversy lasted two years, the books were only in the adult section for two months. Linda Hughes, the city's library administrator, said they were put back in the children's area in 1999 after Judge Buchmeyer granted a temporary injunction.
"During the trial, they were checked out constantly," she said. "Normally, they don't circulate much."
Patrons have always been able to ask to have material re-evaluated, she said, but the form is "seldom ever requested."
City was warned
Ms. Hughes said she and three library colleagues from across the state warned the council that the ordinance could spark a lawsuit.
John Horany, a Dallas ACLU attorney and Wichita Falls native who represented the plaintiffs, said the council was given an opportunity early in the case to bow out without having to pay attorney fees. Supporters chose not to, remaining confident they could win on appeal.
Ms. Hughes said the tactic of moving objectionable books to another section had been tried before and failed.
"It's the same as if the book was hidden. When you limit natural access to an item from the audience for which it is written, that's censorship."
A defendant in the suit because of her association with the city, she said the ordeal was "frustrating."
"It wasted a lot of staff time. It highlighted negative feelings about the library instead of all the positive things we do for the community."
She said she would rather have seen the $26,558 spent on library materials. According to its September newsletter, Wichita Falls' Kemp Public Library ranks at the bottom of Texas cities of similar size when it comes to staff size and books per capita.
James Esther, a City Council member who was elected after the ordinance passed, said he also wished the controversy hadn't occurred.
"I don't know if the issue was about books or homosexuals," he said. "As an African-American, I have experienced bias. It doesn't enhance progress."
Mr. Esther said it was time to pay the legal bill and move on.
"Sometimes we have to pay for experience."
DATELINE: COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO. 10/31/2000. Over 500 members of the Dr. James Dobson Ministry "Focus on the Family" based in Colorado Springs held hands as they formed a human circle around the ministry's headquarters today. One of their chief announcers who had been with the program for over ten years was caught in an affair, while another prominent member was found to be lying about his reasons for being at a gay bar. Dr. Dobson told the gathering that "Satan is throwing it all at us at once...we must pray." No word yet on whether either of the employees will be terminated or suspended.
Note to Dr. Dobson: What kind of doctor are you? Do you honestly believe that some invisible creature is causing your ministry these problems?
One of your workers was probably having a difficult time in his marriage due to circumstances we will never understand, found himself in a compromising situation and had sex with a woman. At the time it did not only seem like the "thing" to do, it seemed like the "right" thing to do in that the man was probably tired of satisfying himself. He was probably not receiving the affection he deserved from his wife, this he went to the next level, that level being the affair. An affair is a much leas meaningful experience than that same man would have with his wife whom he has loved and still no doubt does love, however his wife may, for reasons known only to her, have been refusing to have sex with him. It happens. Live with it. Try to grasp the fact that it's been happening since the beginning of time and will continue happening into eternity which is a lot longer than you will be here on earth to attempt to make men feel ashamed of themselves for being the humans God created them to be and for the needs and desires that are born into them. The circumstances he found himself in were no more attributable to Satan than the positioning of a trailor park in the path of a tornado. And, despite the fact that your "mission" seems to be to "stop the stread of this evil called homosexuality," the fact is: some people are born gay! Or perhaps you have a better way of explaining why the doctors often must make the decision of whether it it is going to be a little boy or a little girl because it has the sexual organs of both. Then there is the thing called "homosexual to a degree not noticed by the doctor's exam" but which is born within them while God is in the womb with them. Finally, there is a thing called learned behavior. If they were beaten as children, may they not have special needs as young adults? Why can't you learn to apply the same rule to other learned behaviors such as homosexuality? The behavior becomes, to the person so affected, the NORM. And by the way, the "molestation" of the young boy which leads him into a preponderance for homeosexuality is often the result of another Christian belief. The Catholics! Don't they have just as much right to step outside the boudaries of reality in their belief that the Pope is "infallible" as you have to believe that a ghost impregnated a young womam. Your many beliefs and theirs give you both one thing in common. You have both stepped off the end of that line we call reality. Catholics have convinced otherwise normal men to repress their sexual desires and that by refusing one of the greatest gifts the true God gave is...that being intercourse with another human being....that this denial of God's plan is somehow "pleasing" to the very God who created men with penises and the desires that come with them in the first place? Are you saying that you could have done a better job than God in creating these beings? Well, no thanks. Please stay away from my penis and any thoughts which may govern it. Are you extremely knowledgable as to the very latest developments in genetics? DNA? I would suggest that you begin your inquiry here rather in the ancient textbook of some Hebrew poets. Let me ask you this. If you were ill and needed to be treated for your heart condition, would you rather seek the services of a man who was completely aware of the latest in medical technology and experienced in the same to operate on you? Or would you choose a man who still used for his operating manual, the facts he had learned from ancient manuscripts? In the latter case, we are dealing with your heart. In the former case, you are dealing with men's very souls. If you do not feel yourself capable of truly understanding the problem it would be only civil to inform you that it's none of your business in the first place.
Dateline: Sri Lanka. November 8, 2000. The national zoo of Sri Lanka was crowded Sunday when a man noticed the lions were hungry and he decided to be lunch. The man was a practicing Busddhist and who believed that offering himself to the lions would earn him merit in future incarnations. He took off his clothes, jumped into the den with three bug cats and was puonced on moments later. The man was rescued by zoo officials who banged garbage cans to scare the lions off, but not before the cats took bites out of the man's arms, legs, chest, and groin. He's now in intensive care.
Becoming a martyr does not prove that what the person believes is true; it only proves that the person believed it.
Dateline: New Jersey. November, 2000. "A devoutly religious woman in New Jersey is welcoming hundreds of believers into her home because they see the image of the Virgin Mary Shining from the window. "It's a miracle," says Ramona Coloado, 64."
To Romana Coloado and those who are "flocking" to her home to see this "apparition.:" Mary is dead. Get over it.
Back to main page.
