Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 15, 1994 TAG: 9411150059
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: STEPHEN FOSTER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But perhaps the Montgomery County commonwealth's attorney might consider moonlighting as one.
A week ago Keith, appearing in his career role, placed himself in front of an audience and, flanked by two antagonists, employed a lighter side of the law man's talents, bringing a divided audience together in shared laughter during the sometimes tense debate .
Issues of homosexuality and censorship are not ones to toy with, especially in a forum filled with parents and children, local politicians, lawyers and groups with political agendas whose leaders came prepared to speak their minds.
This was the scene earlier this month when Nita McNerlin and Karen Dillon sat upon a stage in the cafeteria of Falling Branch Elementary School and prepared for the public scrutiny - and pointed questions - that they have garnered for their stands on "Daddy's Roommate."
Keith physically held the middle ground, sitting between McNerlin, a Blacksburg mother who has led a crusade against the book that depicts a child with a gay father, and Dillon, the director of the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library, whose board has decided that the book will stay in its place in the library's children's section.
A small man who walks with a cane and continues to recover from recent brain surgery, Keith listened to the two sides' opening statements and then summarily described his feelings to the crowd of about 70 people:
"I feel like I dropped into a bad movie here," he said.
Result: plenty of laughs.
Keith had been asked by the Montgomery Council on Human Relations, which hosted the forum, to provide a legal perspective. Though the library board voted in April to keep the book in its place, McNerlin has not let the issue die, and she argued on a television show last month that parents should be concerned because homosexuality implies sexual acts - namely, sodomy - that are still considered illegal in Virginia.
While many may have expected Keith to give an interpretation of the First Amendment on freedom of speech, - "free speech" - law, he sidestepped that thorn, saying, "All I can tell you is that it's [the First Amendment] the first one in the Bill of RIghts." He would not allow himself to be pulled into taking a legal stand.
That's not to say he wasn't pressed to do so, nor was he unable to make some hard statements on the issue.
On the issue of homosexual acts being illegal, Keith lightened the weight of McNerlin's argument, saying the acts would be illegal whether committed between a man and man, or a man and a woman. Later, after being admonished for not reading the book himself, an audience member yelled for him to look at the book, which is less than 30 pages of illustrations and simple sentences. He did.
"I don't see a sexual act involved here," he said. "This book could be about married couples and you could say the same thing."
On the flip side, Keith refused to side with Dillon and her contention that McNerlin's wishes constitute a form of censorship. "What Ms. McNerlin is proposing would not be censorship," he said. That would be refusing to publish the book in the first place, he contended.
Keith said he didn't think the debate is a censorship issue, but rather a political one. Then:
"But I'm often wrong. Take what I say with a grain of salt."
Probably because of that kid gloves approach, Keith found himself at least once on as hot a seat as McNerlin and Dillon. One man began arguing aggressively that the Bill of Rights' purpose is to defend the rights of people against the government, and was Keith going to keep his personal feelings muted, and so forth.
Keith refused to bite. His response:
"That's a fine political speech, and you should run for office," he said. "I'm a criminal lawyer. You bring up a warrant against somebody and we'll prosecute."
Such demeanor, interspersed with witticisms and quips that several times drew hearty laughs from the opinionated, bipolar crowd, helped to keep a potential shouting match on a more or less even keel.
And whether he tried to or not, Keith served as a lightning rod - for diffusion, not dissension - in an electrified debate.
by CNB