Gay Books Stay In Texas Library

Mary Musgrave was the first one to send in The Story from TRNOnline. A federal judge struck down Wichita Falls, TX \”gay books\” library resolution saying the controversial rule was unconstitutional. The case stems from a two-year controversy over \”Heather Has Two Mommies\” and \”Daddy\’s Roommate\”. They has set up a petition system to allow library patrons to ask the library to move children\’s books to other sections of the library.
It required the signatures of 300 card holders who were 18 or older and had lived in Wichita Falls for at least six months. No word on how many children turned gay from the books.

Mary Musgrave was the first one to send in The Story from TRNOnline. A federal judge struck down Wichita Falls, TX \”gay books\” library resolution saying the controversial rule was unconstitutional. The case stems from a two-year controversy over \”Heather Has Two Mommies\” and \”Daddy\’s Roommate\”. They has set up a petition system to allow library patrons to ask the library to move children\’s books to other sections of the library.
It required the signatures of 300 card holders who were 18 or older and had lived in Wichita Falls for at least six months. No word on how many children turned gay from the books. More from TRNOnline


The lawsuit, filed by 16 adults and three children living in Wichita Falls, targeted the so-called \”Altman Resolution\” passed by the City Council on Feb. 16, 1999.

The resolution, named after its author, council member Bill Altman, set up a petition system to allow library patrons to ask the library to move children\’s books to other sections of the library.

It required the signatures of 300 card holders who were 18 or older and had lived in Wichita Falls for at least six months. Under the resolution, which was approved by a 4-3 vote, the city librarian had 24 hours to move the books targeted by a petition once it was submitted to city officials.

In his ruling, Buchmeyer said the city\’s petition system allows any 300 library-card holders to remove a book from the children\’s area if they don\’t like the contents – a clear violation of the First Amendment.

\”Not only does this language allow any special interest group to suppress library materials on the basis of their content, it actually facilitates an infinite number of content- and viewpoint-based speech restrictions,\” Buchmeyer wrote in the opinion.