TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Judge Delays Ruling On Legality Of Anti-Gay Signs

ADVERTISEMENT

By STEPHEN THOMPSON | The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 26, 2008

CLEARWATER - A county judge on Thursday said he would hold off on deciding whether five men wielding anti-gay signs at St. Petersburg's gay pride parade last year broke the law.

Pinellas County Judge Henry Andringa said if the only issue was whether the signs were bigger than allowed under a city ordinance, the five would be guilty. One of the men, a pastor, admitted on the stand during a trial today that his sign was too big.

But their attorney, Kris Anne Hall, argued that by telling the five their signs were too large, police were interfering with the quintet's First Amendment right to express themselves.

Until the constitutional issue is settled, Andringa is not going to rule on the men's guilt or innocence, he said. That could take up to 20 days, depending on when Hall and Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Proano file their respective arguments.

At last year's St. Pete Pride parade and street festival, which is a celebration of gay culture, the five men gathered at a designed location with anti-gay signs. One said, "Real Men Marry Women."

As spelled out in a St. Petersburg city ordinance, one condition for protesting in the designated area was that each man's sign could be no larger than his torso – no wider than his chest, and no longer than the distance from his shoulders to his hips. But all the signs, when held horizontally, were bigger than that.

Despite repeated pleas to stop violating the ordinance, the five continued protesting with their signs held in such a way that they were bigger than their torsos. Each was charged with violating a permitted street closure, which is punishable by a fine.

The five defendants are William Ball, the pastor, and four other men he described as brothers in Christ: Francis Primavera, Douglas Pitts, Joshua Pettigrew, and William Holt.

Andringa said if the issue was merely whether the men violated the city ordinance governing the size of the signs, he would find them "guilty so far." But because he has to decide on the constitutional issue, he reserved judgment on whether the five violated the city ordinance.

But Hall, the five men's attorney, said, "They do not have to obey an order from an officer that is unconstitutional."

Proano, the assistant city attorney, elicited testimony from officers illustrating that the ordinance would have been enforced regardless of what the signs said. To the city, the issue is apparently not a constitutional one – just one hinging on whether the signs were too big.

Reporter Stephen Thompson can be reached at (727) 451-2336 or spthompson@tampatrib.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT