Naked protesters storm final vote banning "nudity" in public
areas, but public events, topless women OK?
If you're caught on city streets, sidewalks, plazas or a number
of other public areas without your clothes on in the streets of San
Francisco, you can expect a $100 fine, starting February 1, 2013.
Pro-family advocates consider this a step in the right direction,
but they acknowledge that there is still a long way to go to
restore decency to a city that has been infamous for decades as a
modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.
Numerous exceptions to the prohibition continue to exist, such
as street fairs, parades and other permitted public events --
all of which are still open game to exhibitionists. Children under
the age of five are also not affected by the ban. In addition, the
so-called ban does not apply to topless women.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a ban on nudity
one final time by passing a city ordinance by a vote of 6-5
Tuesday -- the same margin of victory as the original vote
cast two weeks ago on November 20. Once San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee
signs it into law on the first of February, a substantial decrease
in the amount of public spectacles roaming the streets of San
Francisco is anticipated.
However, the passage was met with resistance, as several men and
women disrobed and bared it all Tuesday afternoon, yelling at the
supervisors who approved the ban after the first vote. With City
Hall still being considered a safe haven from indecent exposure,
sheriff's deputies removed the naked protesters from the board
chambers after covering them with blankets. Only one of the
violators was taken into custody -- for resisting arrest.
The ordinance was also met with legal resistance, as it is
reported that a group of nudists has already sued the city,
alleging that the ban violates their constitutional right to free
Board members voting against the ban insist that the ordinance
is not only unnecessary, but that it flies in the face of San
Francisco "values" and will create a potential safety hazard by
taking police officers away from dealing with crime.
Once again, the main political force behind the push to tolerate
the lewd conduct is the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)
community. Its constant push to sexualize society by forwarding the
homosexual agenda has been more forcefully pushed in recent years
within schools, the entertainment industry, mainstream media and
the Obama administration.
Public pornographic displays okay?
Known for its racy and downright perverse public displays, the
City by the Bay is still holding on to events that have celebrated
behaviors and lifestyles that are condemned in the Bible as immoral
SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson is
by no means content with an ordinance that still permits public
nudity, grotesque demonstrations of sadomasochism and other
degrading behavior during various city events, including the LGBT
Pride Parade and the notorious Folsom Street Fair, both of which
welcome children to join the "celebration of diversity" and "sexual
"Female public nudity is dangerous to women and girls because it
portrays them as sex objects and stimulates potential rapists,"
Men who expose themselves are viewed as behaving "like animals,
dehumanizing themselves," contends the pro-family activist. "They
see themselves only as flesh, not spirit."
And just what brought about the need for the latest public
The ordinance was introduced by Scott Wiener, the city
supervisor representing San Francisco's Castro district -- the
city's homosexual hotbed known for its militant and flamboyant
displays of LGBT activism. It is reported that there has been an
escalation of complaints of public nudity in the area by residents
and business owners alike, as the burgeoning number of nudists on
the streets is responsible for the disturbing trend.
Once the new ordinance kicks in after a couple months, nude
violators will face an initial fine of up to $100, followed by a
fine not to exceed $200 for a repeated offense. A third-time
offender will be faced with up to a year imprisonment and a
misdemeanor or a fine that can reach $500.
Even though Wiener acknowledges that his district is for the
most part a rules-free zone, he notes that its inhabitants have
gone too far and encroached on others' freedom
"The Castro district and San Francisco in general is a place of
freedom, expression, and acceptance," Wiener contends. "But
freedom, expression, and acceptance does not mean anything goes
under any circumstances."
The city supervisor contends that unlimited expression does not
trump the need for human decency.
"Our public spaces are for everyone, and as a result, it's
appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior," argues
Wiener. "I don't agree that having yellow hair is the same as
exposing your ----- at a busy street corner for hours and
hours for everybody to watch as they go by."
But sexual libertines on the board, such as City Supervisor John
Avalos, attempted to turn the indecency issue into one of civil
liberties, using a biblical analogy in an attempt to appear as if
he and the nudists were taking a moral stand.
"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about
changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Avalos
expressed. "I cannot and will not bite this apple and I refuse to
put on this fig leaf."
Thomasson sees this ongoing fight as one where not many are
standing up to fight for the protection of San Francisco's
"Our culture is losing the war on indecency because there isn't
a battle against it," Thomasson declares. "There needs to be tough
and broad prohibitions of public nudity in state laws, and where
the state won't do it, local laws [will]."
The homosexual agenda's battle for kids rages
Just a hundred miles to the northeast in Sacramento, where
Thomasson's pro-family group is headquartered, another piece of
pro-homosexual legislation could prove detrimental to the proper
moral and spiritual development of children.
According to Thomasson, SB 1172 "bans parents from seeking
counseling for their child who thinks they are 'homosexual.' It
also penalizes licensed counselors who care enough to help
gender-confused children, who have often been molested or
The pro-family leader insists that Californians should do
everything in their power to make sure that this law, which was
signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, is struck down.
"This unconstitutional statute violates the speech and religious
freedom of all parents of gender-confused children and the
professional counselors who want to help them," Thomasson
In the state capital of California on Monday, an initial ruling
by U.S. District Judge William Shubb, who as nominated by President
George Bush in 1990, somewhat blocked the passage of SB 1172.
However, on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller, who
was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010, refused to block the bill.
Thomasson insists that this latest attempt to remove protections
from children is not only a moral issue; it's a matter of upholding
the U.S. Constitution.
"It should be struck down for the protection of these precious
constitutional freedoms for the benefit of all who seek
professional counseling to overcome gender confusion," Thomasson
argues. "Judge Shubb and judges who hear this case on appeal should
decisively and thoroughly rule on the merits to strike down this
intolerant statute of the Democrats and the 'LGBT' groups, which
severely infringes upon the First Amendment in the Bill of