Gay Stunt Servic v. Texas A&M Universy - Infogalactic: the plaary knowledge re

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)

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 Home. Gay Stunt Servic at Texas A&M 1976-1989. Gay Stunt Servic vs.

GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSY

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). 2) To provi to the TAMU muny rmatn ncerng the stctur and reali of gay life.

GAY STUNT SERVIC V. TEXAS A & M UNIVERSY, 77-3395

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

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.

30 YEARS AFTER COURTROOM W FOR GAY STUNT GROUP, FORMER PLATIFF STILL DEMANDS FREE SPEECH FOR HIS OPPONENTS

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.

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.