Westchester county pools open for the season: Where, when you can go, what's new----includes Croton Point Beach
Michael P. McKinney----Rockland/Westchester Journal News.jpg)
%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
Welcome to The New Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools--in short, EVERYTHING CROTON.
PAUL STEINBERG LETTER TO THE EDITOR, CROTON'S ADULT ENTERTAINMENT PUBLIC HEARING (6/26) AND MORE
To the editor:
You might say that the current uproar over Croton’s cross-dressing law began with local Republican men wearing makeup and calico dresses.
Back in 1839, tenants of the Hudson Valley patroons rose up against rent demands. Disguised in calico dresses and claiming to be “Indian” women, their protests turned violent and four sheriffs were killed. Demonstrating the importance of the issue, the rioters were prosecuted by the NYS Attorney General himself. Tensions at trial were so high that the Attorney General and defense counsel got into a fistfight in the courtroom and each served 24 hours in solitary confinement.
The legislature responded to the Anti-Rent riots in 1845 by prohibiting men from disguising themselves as women. Nothing in the debate record indicates that the law was passed to prevent transvestitism. Many of the “Calico Indians” moved to the mid-West and were involved in founding the Republican Party in 1854.
The 1845 law ultimately became the infamous NY Code of Criminal Procedure section 887 which prohibited: “A person, who, having his face painted, discolored, covered or concealed, or being otherwise disguised, in a manner calculated to prevent his being identified, appears in a road, or public highway, or in a field, lot, wood or enclosure.” Even though the statutory language did not mention cross-dressing, in the twentieth century this law was used primarily to arrest gay men in drag, although there were a scattering of lesbian cases.
The law was abolished in 1967.
Twenty seven years later, Croton residents were demanding action to shut down a business known as Club Graffiti which drew a sketchy clientele primarily from outside Croton. Today there are still residents who recall Club Graffiti as a “bad place,” a “drug den” “porn palace” which was reputed to be controlled by the son of a prominent Croton landlord and tied to the mob. On at least one occasion, Croton police responding to a call at the club called for backup from the state troopers. Although the Board of Trustees at the time said it was purely coincidental (wink, wink) and had nothing to do with Club Graffiti, on July 11, 1994 the Board of Trustees passed Local Law 5 of 1994. That is the section of Croton Village Code at issue today. Much like the upcoming revision to the law, the 1994 passage was for symbolic effect.
Given recent portrayals of Croton’s cabaret law as homophobic or transphobic, it is worth pointing out that the vote to pass the law was unanimous. Among the trustees in favor of the 1994 law was the woman for whom the Georgianna Grant meeting room is named, as well as Ann Gallelli (who remains a trustee to this day) and Sam Watkins (an attorney who is now Village Justice). Nor did any residents oppose any of the language of the law. In fact, during the public hearing Village Attorney Waldman was asked if the law was “as constricting as possible.”
In recent weeks, people opposing repeal of the cross-dressing language in the law are mocked for their concern about the propriety of having children see drag queens. Yet at the time that law was passed, Croton trustees including Mr. Watkins and Ms. Gallelli made legislative findings that the law was necessary because of concerns about: “the economic, social, and moral character of the existing community and adversely affect[ing] existing businesses and community and family life. Of particular concern is the location of these uses in areas where our youth may regularly assemble.”
Croton residents who get on the moral high horse in 2023 to slam opponents of the cabaret law revision might consider a bit of humility in light of the law’s legislative history.
In trying to avoid the uncomfortable truth, current Village Attorney Whitehead acts as though such statutory language was common back in the pre-woke era of the 1990s. That is false. Even if it were common, such language was unconstitutional decades before Croton passed its law. Even by the late 1960s, courts in New York and across the nation were refusing to convict under cross-dressing laws, and cross-dressing in New York has been legal since September 1, 1967.
Ignoring the votes of Ms. Gallelli, Justice Watkins, and their colleagues back in 1994, the Ms. Whitehead tells us: “Today we believe it is likely unconstitutional, and not likely to be enforceable in court. Gender identification is [now] a protected class.”
As to the first part of Ms. Whitehead’s legal argument, I agree: Croton’s law is unconstitutional in 2023. It was also unconstitutional in 1994. It was unconstitutional at least as far back as the 1970s.
As to the second point: Ms. Whitehead’s assertion as to gender identification now being a protected class is a red herring. The fundamental flaw in Croton’s law is one that any fan of Ziggy Stardust (1972) would instantly realize.
In creating Ziggy’s androgynous persona, David Bowie was drawing on a cultural spirit that had been impacting cross-dressing jurisprudence for several years prior. It was a generational change: in the musical Hair (1967) a psychiatrist asks a boy if his long hair is because he is gay, to which the response is no, but he wouldn’t throw Mick Jagger out of his bed. The cast then sings the titular song, where the men proclaim they wear their “hair like Jesus wore it.”
A 1968 NY case (involving a pre-887 repeal arrest) drew a sharp dissent noting that men were wearing their hair long, putting on makeup, and that it was often difficult to differentiate between “male” and “female” attire. This logic was a primary reason why cross-dressing prosecutions started fading fast in the late 1960s, particularly after the Stonewall riots. A decade later, such laws were rarely enforced.
Cross-dressing laws were often framed as anti-vagrancy laws. Police enforcement was arbitrary and targeted at disfavored minorities such as blacks and gays.
In 1972, the US Supreme Court ruled that a Jacksonville FL law targeting “wanton and lascivious persons” was unconstitutional because it did not clearly define the proscribed conduct. Three years later the Ohio Supreme Court relied on that case to strike down a Columbus law banning any person who “shall appear upon any public street or other public place…in a dress not belonging to his or her sex,” and after that judges across the country dismissed cross-dressing cases.
Croton’s law was decades out of date even when it was enacted in 1994. It is unconstitutionally vague for the same reason set out by the judge in the 1968 dissent. It is vague for the same reason that the NYS law was repealed in 1967.
Croton’s Code Enforcement Officer is not Anna Wintour: to expect him to determine what constitutes “male” or “female” attire for purposes of prosecution in court was problematic even by the community standards of 1967. At her confirmation hearing in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define “woman,” saying: “I’m not a biologist.” If a Supreme Court nominee cannot define what a woman is, that alone is grounds for changing Croton’s cabaret law.
The other reason the law was always unconstitutional is because it restricts free speech. What you wear is an expression of your viewpoint. Your sartorial choices are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Note that both the “void for vagueness” and the free speech arguments have nothing to do with gender identity (although a handful of Eighth Amendment claims in the 1960s and ’70s did rely on gender identity in making claims for defendants seeking transgender surgery).
The Croton law did not suddenly become unconstitutional in 2023 due to gender identity becoming a protected class: these type of laws were unconstitutional fifty years ago. The cabaret law must be amended because it was always unconstitutional—it has nothing to do with drag queens.
So why is the Croton Board of Trustees not simply admitting that the law was unconstitutional when it was passed in 1994? Because in relying on the “gender identity” they can fan the flames of fear and divisiveness in a way that boring half-century old jurisprudence cannot. There is no sudden solicitude for the free speech rights of Croton residents.
Has the Croton Code Enforcement Officer ever chased a guy in double-D falsies and Louboutin knockoffs down Grand Street to initiate a code violation proceeding? No, and he never will.
Has the Croton Code Enforcement Officer ever chased a guy flying a Trump flag on Grand Street to initiate a code violation proceeding? Yes. He can do it again any day of the week because Croton’s Board of Trustees and Village Attorney have chosen to keep the unconstitutional village sign laws.
Within hours of a guy putting on a dress and reading to some kids in a bookstore, the full resources of the municipality were put into action to change the village code. But when it comes to supporting a candidate for office who is not approved by the Democratic Party, the full resources of the municipality are put into action to squelch free speech.
The performative wokeness of Ms. Whitehead and the trustees is not simply a poor legal reason for changing the village code, it is homophobic. Traditional reasons for not enforcing cross-dressing laws were vagueness and/or First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The new “gender identity” basis relied upon by the current Board of Trustees as grounds for code amendment has some serious flaws.
The first flaw is the conflation of drag with gender identity. A second flaw is ignoring that a drag performance (which is what the cabaret law covers) is by definition… a performance. Dressing in drag is not necessarily a statement regarding gender identity of the drag performer.
The longest running (1955-2019) drag queen was Dame Edna, stage persona of Barry Humphries. Not only was the performer straight, he was opposed to much of the transgender movement. Prior to his death the Melbourne International Comedy Festival (of which he was a founder) stripped Humphries’ name from the festival award because he gave a 2018 interview saying that transgender was a “fashion” which is “pretty evil when it is preached to children by crazy teachers.”
Regardless of how you feel about Humphries’ view, it is beyond doubt that he did not conflate gender identity with his drag performance.
Similarly, when Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag and got motorboated by Donald Trump (Inner Circle Press Club Roast, 2000), it did not mean that either Giuliani or Trump had changed their gender identity.
Robin Williams and Nathan Lane played characters who ran a drag club in The Birdcage (1996) and dressed as drag queens for the movie finale with Gene Hackman. It did not mean that any of the performers had changed their gender identity, and the Williams and Lane characters were gay—not transgender.
Croton’s law was foolish when it was passed in 1994 because it exclusively governed what an actor could wear during a performance. Even the NYS law repealed in 1967 only covered public cross-dressing—it never regulated what an actor could wear during a performance. Being a Croton trustee means never having to admit you were wrong, but Ms. Gallelli and the board might consider making an exception in this case.
The idea that being a drag queen necessarily implicates gender identity is very recent. It is true that gender identity was the basis for Eighth Amendment defenses fifty years ago, those were a small subset and most of the defenses rested on vagueness or First Amendment grounds.
To understand why Croton’s proposed reliance on gender identity as the basis for changing the law is offensive, it is necessary to consider history. Traditionally if a boy dressed or acted in a manner deemed effeminate, parents might take steps to prevent their son from “becoming” gay. There were a range of options, one of which was intensive religious counseling. This is the origin of the phrase “Pray the gay away.”
Today such actions would be frowned upon, and “conversion therapy” has been banned in New York since 2019. Today if a boy dresses or acts in a manner deemed effeminate, the parents can find a doctor to administer puberty blockers and go to Target for “tuck-friendly” swimwear for their son (or chest binders for their daughter).
Today’s progressives have bought into the same stereotypes they sneer at when expressed by conservatives. The only difference is that where once such children were expected to “pray the gay away” now they are expected to “trans the gay away.”
It is similar to the position of the Iranian government, which will put a gay man to death but will gladly pay to give him transgender medication and surgery to become a trans woman. At least when it comes to drag queens, our village attorney and the ayatollah can find common ground.
Gender stereotypes remain rooted in our culture, as seen in the gender identity argument put forward by our Board of Trustees. In assuming that drag queens necessarily are expressing a female gender identity, Ms. Whitehead and our trustees are wrong as a matter of historical fact. Drag is a performance. The fact that a person is in drag tells you absolutely nothing about whether the drag queen is a member of a particular class—protected or otherwise. In finally deleting the village code prohibition on cross-dressing after 29 years, the Board of Trustees is doing the right thing for the wrong reason: the basis for statutory revision should not be one which is homophobic.
The issue of drag queen performances for young children is a legitimate discussion to have, but it is entirely separate from Croton’s unconstitutional cabaret law. In any event, whether a child attends a drag queen story hour is a decision for parents and not the government.
My position is solidly in favor of free speech. Croton residents should feel free to dress in drag, fly Trump flags, and see a guy in a dress read a children’s book. I personally don’t want to do any of those things, but I support your right to do so. None of those choices should be the concern of the Croton Board of Trustees nor of the Croton Code Enforcement officer.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
YOU MAY ALSO HAVE AN INTEREST IN
Welcome to The New Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools--in short, EVERYTHING CROTON.
HOLY NAME OF MARY CHURCH ORGAN REFURBISHMENT PROJECT
CLICK ON THE PHOTO.
When you are in the main church look up behind you and you will see that the old organ pipes have been spruced up! They are once again bright & shiny due to the hard work of our volunteer craftsman Frank Burrows. We applaud you Frank and offer our sincere gratitude for all you continue to do for Holy Name of Mary Parish!
YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY THE NEW EVERYTHING CROTON: A BEAUTIFUL JOB--WELL DONE: THE FRONT DOOR FACELIFT AT HOLY NAME OF MARY
Welcome to The New Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools--in short, EVERYTHING CROTON.
1905 DEATHS FROM TYPHOID AND THE CROTON--CLICK ON THE IMAGE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES.
AND FROM 1883, MALARIA EverythingCroton: CROTON LANDING 1883: DETERMINED TO SHAKE OFF MALARIA, AVOID QUININE PILLS
%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
You are encouraged to read a letter to the editor on page 4 of the JUNE 22 THOUGH JUNE 28 2023 edition of The Gazette from EDWARD ROSENSTEEL, CORTLANDT---REGARDING Croton's AMENDING ADULT ANTERTAINMENT LAW, DRAG QUEEN STORY HOUR, MONDAY'S 6/26 PUBLIC HEARING.
The Gazette does not have an online presence but is available just about everywhere. The letter encourages you to attend the hearing or send comments to the board.
Board of Trustees | Croton-on-Hudson NY (crotononhudson-ny.gov)
and
THE GAZETTE ARTICLE FROM LAST WEEK IS AT THE NEW EVERYTHING CROTON: ABOUT THOSE DRAG QUEENS---VILLAGE SET TO MODIFY ADULT ENTERTAINMENT LAW
AND
SEE THE FULL MEETING AGENDA 6/26 AT Board of Trustees Meeting (champds.com)
AND
PAUL STEINBERG'S LETTER IS AT THE NEW EVERYTHING CROTON: PAUL STEINBERG LETTER TO THE EDITOR, CROTON'S ADULT ENTERTAINMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MORE
Welcome to The New Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools--in short, EVERYTHING CROTON.
Our popular series continues with a Croton twist----
Click on the 1960 image for....your own NIGHT LIGHT ASH TRAY.
See more GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN at
THE NEW EVERYTHING CROTON: REMEMBERING PALISADES AMUSEMENT PARK AND MORE--GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
Welcome to the New Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools, our houses of worship--in short, EVERYTHING CROTON.
A reader stumbled across this July 1966 ad for Gino's Post Inn. Click on the image.
You can read more about Gino's at EverythingCroton: MORE CROTON MEMORIES--GINO'S POST INN, 1939 RE-OPENING & MORE
You may also have an interest in EverythingCroton: THE VINTAGE CROTON HISTORIAN: GRAND STREET, BUSTLING BOULEVARD OF YESTERYEAR
