Gay Stunt Servic v. Texas A&M Universy, 737 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1984) is a urt se which the Fifth U.S. Circu Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment required public universi to regnize stunt anizatns aimed at gay stunts. In 1976, Texas A&M Universy ni
Contents:
- GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSY, 620 F.2D 300 (5TH CIR. 1980)
- GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSY
- GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSY, 77-3395
- VIO ENCYCLOPEDIAFLASHBACKCATEGORIGAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSY
- 30 YEARS AFTER COURTROOM W FOR GAY STUNT GROUP, FORMER PLATIFF STILL DEMANDS FREE SPEECH FOR HIS OPPONENTS
GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSY, 620 F.2D 300 (5TH CIR. 1980)
Gay Stunt Servic v. Texas a & M Universy, 620 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1980) se opn om the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circu * gay student services vs texas a&m *
For Texas A&M stunts, one of the fg moments our LGBTQ+ history is Gay Stunt Servic v. The se began 1976 when Texas A&M Universy nied official regnn to the Gay Stunt Servic Organizatn on the grounds that homosexualy was illegal Texas, and that the anizatn’s intified goals — providg tnal rmatn and referral servic — were the rponsibily of universy staff and not stunts. Stunts the Gay Stunt Servic Organizatn sued the universy for the vlatn of their First Amendment right to eedom of speech Febary of 1977.
In 2020, the A&M Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgenr, and Queer+ Pri Center held an on-mp event lled “Draggieland”, a drag show featurg ne performers, cludg four stunts. LGBTQ+ stunt anizatns and events, such as Draggieland, on Texas A&M’s mp owe their existence to this five urt lg that granted served regnn for the lol chapter of Gays and Lbians Organized for Actn (GLOA).
GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSY
is a project to document onle the history of the stunt group behd Gay Stunt Servic vs. Texas A&M * gay student services vs texas a&m *
Gay Stunt Servic Home. Gay Stunt Servic at Texas A&M 1976-1989. Gay Stunt Servic vs.
On April 1, 1985, the Supreme Court renred a cisn that end an eight year urt battle between a gay stunt anizatn seekg equal rights of ee speech and Texas A&M Universy. Gay Stunt Servic v.
BROWN, Circu Judge:Today we addrs the issue whether a state supported universy vlat the First Amendment rights of this gay stunt anizatn and three of s members by refg to afford official regnn. The District Court found that the Universy's refal to regnize the group was not based on the ntent of the group's ias about homosexualy. John Kold, the Universy's Vice Print for Stunt Affairs, to discs wh him the possibily of g Universy facili to nduct the bs of a group they had formed, Gay Stunt Servic (GSS).
GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSY, 77-3395
Gay Stunt Servic v. Texas A&M Universy * gay student services vs texas a&m *
2) To provi to the TAMU muny rmatn ncerng the stctur and reali of gay life. 3) To provi speakers to class and anizatns who wish to know more about gay liftyl.
4) To provi a fom for the terchange of ias and nstctive solutns to gay people's Kold directed Dr. First, Kold asserted that bee homosexual nduct was illegal Texas at that time, would be appropriate for TAMU officially to support an anizatn likely to "ce, promote and rult" homosexual activy. The evince prented at trial nsisted almost solely of medil ttimony om specialists human sexualy regardg the effect the prence of a homosexual stunt group might have on a universy mp.
The fense particular centered on statistics and opns documentg creased crime rat and severe emotnal problems found wh the homosexual muny. " This led the Court to nclu that GSS was not nied regnn "based upon the ntent of [s] ias about homosexualy, sce the group is not tryg to nvey any msage about homosexualy, " but rather bee GSS was a "aternal" anizatn subject to TAMU's tradnal ban. We thk this factual fdg was clearly erroneo, for several a fdg is utterly at odds wh the asserted purpos of GSS, which sought regnn to provi servic and rmatn regardg gay issu to gay persons and to the general public.
VIO ENCYCLOPEDIAFLASHBACKCATEGORIGAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSY
Gay Stunt Servic v. Texas A&M Universy, 737 F.2d 1317 is a urt se which the Fifth U.S. Circu Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment required public universi to regnize stunt anizatns aimed at gay stunts. In 1976, Texas A&M Universy nied official regnn to the Gay Stunt Servic Organizatn on the grounds that homosexualy was illegal Texas, and the group's stated goals—offerg referral servic and providg tnal rmatn to stunts—were actually the rponsibily of universy staff. The stunts sued the universy for vlatn of their First Amendment right to eedom of speech Febary 1977. For six years, the se wound s way through the urts; although the trial urt led favor of Texas A&M several tim, the Fifth U.S. Circu Court of Appeals repeatedly overturned the verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court cled to take the se, lettg stand the circu urt lg that the stunts' ee speech rights had been promised. * gay student services vs texas a&m *
Kold' asserted reasons for nyg regnn were clearly based on his perceptn that the anizatn would attempt to nvey ias about homosexualy. Nowhere his letter of November 29 do Kold state that the Universy's refal to regnize GSS was based on anythg other than reasons tied to the homosexual nature of the group. Further evince of TAMU's opposn to regnizg a gay stunt group is found a rolutn passed by the TAMU Board of Regents followg the filg of this lawsu 1977.
The mut of the Board's meetg of March 22, 1977 state that the followg "policy posn" was approved:So-lled "gay" activi n diabolilly [sic --diametrilly? ] unter to the tradns and standards of Texas A & M Universy, and the Board of Regents is termed to fend the su filed agast by three stunts seekg "gay" regnn and, if necsary, to proceed every legal way to prohib any group wh such goals om anizg or operatg on this or any other mp for which this Board is rponsible.
Ined, the sole evince alleged to support the theory was advanced by GSS self, s attempt to show that GSS was a "normal" stunt group rather than a hotbed of viant homosexuals anx to fluence the morals of imprsnable TAMU stunts at on-mp meetgs. The sgular exceptn was, of urse, the homosexual later beme clear that GSS eliced such ttimony om Dr. Cameron, who oped that light of statistil evince regardg homosexual behavr, " would be a shock really, if there were not homosexual acts engaged at or immediately after" a meetg of a homosexual stunt anizatn.
30 YEARS AFTER COURTROOM W FOR GAY STUNT GROUP, FORMER PLATIFF STILL DEMANDS FREE SPEECH FOR HIS OPPONENTS
Sherri Skner, the District Court also found that GSS was a aternal group that was "not tryg to nvey any msage about homosexualy" bee was "not anized for polil advocy" and had "no official posn regardg repeal of the Texas nsensual sodomy statute, which mak homosexual nduct a mismeanor. Nyberg, was eliced by GSS for the exprs purpose of showg that GSS was a typil stunt service group servg regnn rather than a substute for a gay sgl bar. Skner actually said, the ntext of emphasizg the service-related purpos of GSS, was that while the dividual members of GSS would probably support repeal of the anti-homosexualy laws, "the anizatn self has been very reful to keep clear of polil actn or activism, per se.
We thk clear om the facts that TAMU refed officially to regnize GSS based upon the homosexual ntent of the group's ias--which sought to nvey through implementg s stated goals and purpos. First, he stated that bee homosexual nduct was illegal Texas, would be appropriate for TAMU to regnize a group likely to "ce, promote, and rult" homosexual acts.