It’s Gay Legal Day here at The Tin Man.
I’ve come across a New Jersey Supreme Court case from 1967 that basically legalized gay bars in the state. Technically, the court said that the state could not suspend a bar’s liquor license merely because “apparent homosexuals were permitted to congregate” there. (The case is One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 235 A.2d 12, for all you legal types.)
I’ve always loved the phrase “apparent homosexuals.”
What’s most entertaining, though, is the opinion of the concurring justice (there were no dissents). Here it is, in its entirety:
“PROCTOR, J. (concurring).
“Since the charges against the three taverns did not specify any particular offensive acts by the patrons, I concur with the majority opinion. However, I wish to emphasize that, although well-behaved homosexuals cannot be forbidden to patronize taverns, they may not engage in any conduct which would be offensive to public decency. In the record before us it appears that there was evidence of conduct (men kissing each other on the lips, etc.) which would form the basis for disciplinary action at least against One Eleven and Murphy’s had they properly been charged. A tavern should not provide an arena for the behavior disclosed by this record. I appreciate that the majority opinion does not say that such conduct will be tolerated, but nonetheless I am expressing my positive view that it should not be.”
Well-behaved homosexuals. Tee-hee.
I don’t know what is more funny:
1. The concept of “well behaved homosexuals”.
2. The consept of “apparent homosexuals”.
or
3. The fact that Tinman using legal citation is sort of hot.
Ok…maybe not hot. But very tinmanic.