The Brentwood Public Library hasn’t had a book challenged in the seven years that Ellen Walther has been on the board, but a children’s book that touches on the subject of gay marriage is now under consideration to be removed.
Brentwood resident James Vandervoort’s daughter brought home the book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, without his knowledge, and now he wants it removed from the shelves. He met with the library board (though not a quorum) Monday, Oct. 15, to make his case.
"The purpose of the book is to help foster acceptance, and to glorify homosexual marriage," he said. "I think that’s a realistic synopsis of what the book is about."
Using gerbils as characters, a girl (gerbil) is upset because her favorite uncle is getting married, and she thinks she’ll lose him as a friend. Her uncle is marrying another male gerbil.
Vandervoort said the book advocates an illegal activity to children.
He said there could be many groups that advocate illegal activities, such as white supremacists groups, that would like to have books targeted for children to accept.
“If we say this is OK, would it be a jump to think that NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) in Brentwood or the region would say, ‘we think this is such a good idea, we would like to extend the joys of homosexual marriage to younger people.’”
Library Director Vicki Woods said that wasn’t likely, because a book advocating pedophilia doesn’t fit into the Brentwood Library’s mission.
Board member Brian Rothery said he thought the book is designed to give comfort to a child who’s confused about something involving a parent.
“Other than the fact that they’re both dressed in tuxedos, the names are androgynous, I don’t think it hits you over the head (that it’s a gay marriage),” Rothery said.
Vandervoort said the purpose of the book is clear.
“What light is Uncle Bobby portrayed in? That he’s a great guy and he’s getting married, and that’s not a bad thing,” Vandervoort said. “I think it’s hard to say this book is right down the middle neutral.”
Lynne DeVaughan said the purpose of a library is to encourage literacy, and there’s no right or wrong type of material to do that. She said what is legal or acceptable can change, and it’s up to the patron to determine what is acceptable for her household.
She also said the author wrote the book to be published everywhere, “and we have people who are gays and lesbians everywhere in this society, whether it’s legal or not.”
Board member Jackie Radovich said she knows several gays and lesbians, but can see Vandervoort’s point.
“They are beautiful people, but the marriage part – that’s not legal everywhere,” she said. “Just very small areas where it’s legal. That’s what bothers me.”
DeVaughan said she had a problem with removing the book because gay marriage is illegal in Missouri.
“How would we ever have a revolution, and changes in any kind of government system in society if we didn’t allow for other voices?” she said.
Vandervoort said, “We can get a revolution, or chaos, or anarchy by not following the rule of law.”
Woods ended the conversation, and told Vandervoort the board would vote on his request at the next board meeting.
Also in Patch:
Banned Books Week: Brentwood Library Book on Gay Marriage is Contested
This cause is about equality for other people. It's been fought and won in the past. The rights of minorities should not be left to popular vote because of ignorant bigots like yourself. If we left decisions like slavery and interracial marriage to the popular vote we never would have progressed.
Hopefully she has someone in her life who doesn't so freely spout hate equating homosexuality with pedophilia or beastiality. This little girl is going to get to a certain age and realize her father is a homophobe and she will either be ashamed or the ignorance will carry on for another generation. It's sad that people still teach their children to hate.
I am sickened by people who feel they are doing something good by spreading hate about families like mine. My partner and I are raising three incredible children together and it terrifies me that they might go to school or even to our area library and run into people who think like you and Mr. Vandervoort. YOU are the biggest danger to the emotional well-being of children in families like ours. YOU are the ones who can tear down our children by comparing their parents to child molesters and people who have sex with animals. It has nothing to do with me. Our children are all happy, well-rounded kids with two loving parents. We have three talented kids on the honor roll. One is leaving for university next year. They never batted an eye at having same-sex parents. Look at our country's very recent history of doing this very thing to inter-racial families. Please don't teach children to hate.
Also, I find it interesting that you put reason in quotes. It implies a sarcastic tone, as if reason shouldn't be involved in this debate.
I would say Mr Vandervoort has courage if he admits his mistake and withdraws this request, and goes back to helping raise his own family instead of imposing his "morals" on others.
Did it matter? Nope. They are a good example of what true "liberals" are: Ones who are open to others of opposing views.
“Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” was one of a number of selections in a stack of books that my 5 year old daughter collected at a summer visit to the Brentwood Public Library. My wife and I objected to the book, and after my written “Request for Reconsideration of Materials” was denied by Library Director Vicki Woods, I requested a hearing with the library trustees. I’m pleased to report that at least until the closing moments of the hearing, Ms. Woods, the trustees, and me enjoyed a healthy and respectful discussion of this and several related but tangential issues, despite the fact that there were obvious differences of opinion represented in the room. I repeatedly stressed that the foundation of my objection to this book rested on this fact: this book promotes, to the target audience of juveniles, an activity that is prohibited in the Constitution of Missouri, namely, homosexual marriage. It is a matter of debate if materials advocating illegal activities should be offered to adult readers, but it should be beyond question that such material ought not to be included in the library’s juvenile collection.
The question thus arises of precisely whose standards shall be used in evaluating what material shall be included in a public library. Understandably, in a society as diverse as ours, a great many of these debatable topics arise, and a wide range of opinions on each of these topics will be represented and often held with passionate conviction. I therefore argued that the only practical and reasonable limits upon which the library can base its collection are those that respect the established law of the land. If the Rule of Law is not followed, the library’s collection is apt to follow the personal, political, and moral tastes of the library director and trustees. These tastes may often conflict with those of the public whose taxes fund the purchase of the collection in the first place, and whose votes have elected the legislators who have established the law of that land. If one has a desire to change society, a well-run democracy demands that it be done through the ballot box, not the bookshelf.
Unfortunately, it became clear in the meeting that Ms. Woods sees no problem with books that seek to circumvent the established law - nor in circumventing her library’s own appeal process. My suspicions that this appeals process was no more than a kangaroo court appeared validated when Ms. Woods, unusually free from the inhibitions of professional better judgement, informed me towards the close of the discussion that she was adamantly NOT removing this book from the collection. (hey, who needs to wait for a quorum?) I don’t think I need to wait for my official letter of response in the mailbox to know what the outcome of the “voting” will be on this one. Finally, I find it notable that people who have never met me, and most of whom know very little about the facts of this situation, feel compelled to vigorously decry my actions, my assumed beliefs, and most of all, my presumed hatred of homosexuals in their posts. Ironically, it is this very bigotry they decry that they themselves may be practicing. We’re all better off if those who inhabit the extremes at both ends of the spectrum put away their pointed sticks and pitchforks and join those of us who wish to engage in reasoned political discourse.
Homosexuality is not illegal. A same sex marriage is not recognized as a marriage legally in MO. However, a ceremony for same sex couples, even if they call it a wedding, is fully legal. Thus, the basis for removing this book is flimsy at best. I am praying that the library board does the right thing and rejects your request.
Nobody's "conflating". The demand for previously non-existant "rights" is a slippery slope. Once you create a "right to marry" out of thin air, and in the process redefinie marriage to be anyone's chosen union, the state will have NO legal grounds to oppose polygamy, marriage to animals, marriage of siblings, or marriage to inanimate objects. etc. This is 100% irrefutable. And you can already see liberals in the entertainment industry attempting to move the ball. How many polygamy "reality" shows have been but on the air in the last few years? That's no coincidence.
Tolerance (that all powerful god of the pc left) is a pretty nasty double-edged sword. Try as you might, you can't bend it to face just against your enemies. Ultimately, you are cut by the same weapon you wield.
In regards to moral values, a library's job is not to give morality. That is the job of parents. I teach my child that all people are created equal and adults have the right to enter into loving relationships. Sadly, not everyone beleives that. I'm glad that the Brentwood library is willing to make materials available that encourage tolerance. However, I will continue to be an active participant in my child's life so I can help her pick reading material that I think is appropriate. That's my job, not the library's. No one is forcing me to show my child any book I deem inappropriate.