Court-Ordered Proms
[Guest post by DRJ]
MSNBC updates the story about a Alabama high school student who sued because of a ban on same-sex couples attending the prom:
“Constance McMillen, the Mississippi teen suing her high school over a ban on same-sex couples attending the prom, thought the worst might be over when the school agreed to a private dance to be held off school property. But when she and her date arrived at the Fulton Country Club on Friday night, they found only seven other students.
“She didn’t stay very long because of the sparse attendance,” Kristy Bennett, her legal counsel, told msnbc.com.”
The ACLU is concerned it was a sham prom:
“We’ve heard there was another event out in the county,” said Bennett, legal director for the Mississippi branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“We’re still trying to get more information,” she said, citing a newspaper report last week in which one student was quoted as saying other parties were in the works.
The ACLU is representing McMillen in a lawsuit against the Itawamba County School District and Bennett said that at the very least the sparsely attended dance “will be brought to the court’s attention.”
In a statement, the ACLU said it was “looking further into whether it was a decoy or sham prom.
“It would be deeply troubling if that turns out to be the case since the fact that this prom was occurring was one reason the judge did not force the school district to reinstate its original event,” the ACLU added. “All Constance has ever wanted was to be treated with equality and dignity and to be able to be herself, and this latest event, if it is as it appears to be, is a sad and unfortunate insult added to too many previous injuries.”
If there were other parties (and there probably were), I’m not sure what the legal basis would be for a complaint if the parties are private, by invitation only, and weren’t school-sponsored. The court might be able to force the school district to host a prom but how can it force students to attend? A prom mandate?
— DRJ
“You vill attend, and you vill enjoy yourself – we know where you live”
AD - RtR/OS! (0d3e7e) — 4/5/2010 @ 7:15 pm“A prom mandate?”
Why not. Must be some Commerce Clause connection.
RB (bed771) — 4/5/2010 @ 7:22 pmIn related news, Gazzer was looking in to whether the ACLU is a decoy or sham rights organisation. Film at 11:00.
gazzer (87d7c3) — 4/5/2010 @ 7:26 pmThey threw two lesbians a party and nobody came. Boo hoo hoo.
nk (db4a41) — 4/5/2010 @ 7:31 pmYeah, I think it’s in article six paragraph eleventy of the US Constitution…AKA the ‘Don’t hurt the feelings of teenage faux-dykes’ ordinance.
KingShamus (fb8597) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:19 pmThe judge should order the muslim students to attend the gay prom and watch the hilarity that ensues.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:23 pmThey also need to hold a prom that takes into consideration the feelings and rights of bisexuals. That would be where male or female students are allowed to come with a dude on one hand, a chick on the other other.
And a prom that accomodates transvestites.
And a prom that accomodates transsexuals.
Mark (411533) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:32 pmThe tyranny of small minorities, especially of deviates, is growing and continues to astonish me. Tolerance is not enough. Now, we will be forced to attend and applaud as the “homos”, as my mother used to call them, promenade. Fortunately, my children are grown and are free to form their own opinions, although they are handicapped by college educations.
I think of Brave New World as those who choose freedom must run away and hide in the mountains to evade the PC police.
I think of Ben Johnson in “Red Dawn.” One nice thing about that classic movie is that the new DVD has the original ending instead of the gelding version that was included in the theater version the early DVDs.
Do these people ever think about the resentment that they are creating by trying to force people to, not only tolerate them, but to celebrate their deviancy. I have no problem with gays and lesbians living normal lives. I have spent 40 years living too close to Laguna Beach to forget a few things about “normal lives.”
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/5/2010 @ 8:38 pmI would have liked a prom in high school that would have accommodated nerdy uber-geeks like myself. Instead, I stayed home played some Dungeons and Dragons (from SSI…The Gold Box, baby!), drank some Mountain Dew and went down to the local arcade to blow $5 in quarters.
Which, to me, sounds like I had more fun than the lesbian prom goers.
MunDane (54a83b) — 4/5/2010 @ 9:22 pmACLU statement – (translated):
Californio (2f38bb) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:03 pm“We wanted to make sure it was not a ‘sham’ prom – so we insisted that several of the attendees drank beer until they vomited. In addition we compelled several long-time couples to break up and facilitated several “casual dates” to engage in awkward unplanned sex that both later regreted (the beer helped). To ensure a true prom experience no condoms were used as that would indicate intentional action and make you a slut, or at least that what our friend Debbie told us..”
Personally, as a non-prom-goer when I was in HS (no money and no car equalled no status and therefore no girlfriend) I could care less.
Technomad (e2c0f2) — 4/5/2010 @ 11:24 pmConfused lesbians discover tolerance and equality does indeed mean they have equal rights… to be considered idiots by their peers for demanding special consideration to intolerantly force a deviant lifestyle upon others.
Terrence The Tolerant (7a22cd) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:14 am> The court might be able to force the school district to host a prom but how can it force students to attend? A prom mandate?
If they can force you to buy health insurance, how can you find issue with far more innocuous mandates?
Yu Vill Danz Und Yu Vill LIKE IT!
Seig Heil!
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:14 am> AKA the ‘Don’t hurt the feelings of teenage faux-dykes’ ordinance.
I’m sure, if they want, I’ve got some ordinance right here with their name on it.
Does that count?
.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:15 am> They also need to hold a prom that takes into consideration the feelings and rights of bisexuals. That would be where male or female students are allowed to come with a dude on one hand, a chick on the other other. And a prom that accommodates transvestites. And a prom that accommodates transsexuals.
Wait, wait. What about the one for people who abstain from social relations completely?
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:17 amHere is how the announcement should have read:
“We are having a boy-girl prom.
Icy Texan (a892b1) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:38 amWe are NOT having a boy-boy prom, or a girl-girl prom,
or a multiple partners prom, or a bestiality prom,
or a partner swapping prom, or an incest prom,
or a . . . etc”
“If there were other parties (and there probably were), I’m not sure what the legal basis would be for a complaint if the parties are private, by invitation only, and weren’t school-sponsored.”
It’s like if after brown v board, a district decided to close the public school system and everyone when to private schools. Oh well.
Lesson learned. She’s gotten a scholarship and quite an education. I wonder if she’s moving out of town after high school. Should be a great reunion in 15 or 20 years.
imdw (abf08a) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:59 am> A prom mandate?
Hey, if the woman brought a mandate, we wouldn’t me talking about all of this.
[Get it? MAN date? I kill me.]
seriously, this is what we have come to. we are in ala-fricking-bama, and we are pretending that there is a right not merely to live your own life and be left alone, but to be admitted to school events with a same sex partner. I mean its one thing to say the police can’t arrest you. Except for the fact that the legal reasoning was BS, i don’t have a problem with Lawrence v. Texas. I mean I think a police department with enough time on its hands to arrest two people for “merely” being gay, is a police department due for a budget cut. But the SC invented a bogus constitutional right to prevent the action, and that is my problem.
But where is this right to bring people of the same sex to the prom coming from? the Equal Protection Clause? Don’t make me laugh. that clause was written by people who had no tolerance for gays, like it or not. And of course the Alabama constitution ain’t gonna help, because its Ala-frickin-bama. And if Alabama state law protects gays i will fall down in shock.
Mind you, feel free to disagree with the policy, but following the law and correct procedure matters. you don’t get a constitutional right because you really, really want it, and you shouldn’t get it from people paying no attention to what the constitution plainly means.
But hey, who knows? you have a right to be invited to the cool parties. its madness from start to finish.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:51 amDRJ wrote:
Obviously, they will use forced busing to promote sexual orientation balance here. After all, it worked so well before.
The historical Dana (3e4784) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:05 amThey will make it a requirement for graduation. Just like they have with “public service”.
Next stop: Work camps. Welcome to Obamaland.
PatriotRider (15b4b6) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:24 amIt would be quite a confluence of wingnut paranoia and shallow teen flicks if it turns out that a gay teenager wanting to go to the prom is what leads to work camps for reactionary alabamians. Thanks for bringing a smile to my day patriot.
imdw (77214c) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:46 amimdw seems to be throwing around the wingnut crap more and more these days.
JD (e190da) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:52 amWork camps dude. Work camps. If that ain’t wingnut, i don’t know what is.
imdw (b75942) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:11 amIt’s like if after brown v board, a district decided to close the public school system and everyone when to private schools. Oh well.
Work camps dude. Work camps. If that ain’t wingnut, i don’t know what is.
The moonbat has just equated not holding a prom to closing the public schools.
Tell us again how Dixiecrats were Von Mises fans.
Gerald A (138c50) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:28 amI think that imdw has some painful memories of the prom.
And yeah, the “wingut” thing says it all about dear old imdw.
All troll, all the time.
Eric Blair (ea0564) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:36 amAnd how is that apology for being a horse’s ass to DRJ coming?
Oh, that’s right, imdw: you never say anything impolite. Especially to people who have always been polite to you.
Which is a waste of DRJ’s time.
Eric Blair (ea0564) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:37 am“The moonbat has just equated not holding a prom to closing the public schools.”
Uppity folks have been ruining alabama’s good time for a while now. Work camps are clearly where we’re headed. But not for the fabulous that get scholarships and might be able to get the hell out of dodge.
imdw (3bf1a8) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:48 amI feel sorry for the girl, but she is being misused terribly by the ACLU. Are they going to regulate socializing now too, appointing mandatory friends for the girl?!
Run for your life, Constance! Take your lumps like everybody else and that life will be fulfilling.
Patricia (fa8e06) — 4/6/2010 @ 7:50 amYeah, this makes sense–no nukes and now court-mandated proms. We’re in hell.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:31 amPatricia, I feel sorry for any person who likes women. 😉
nk the straight misogynist (db4a41) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:33 amStyx played at our junior prom. I got drunk on Boone’s Farm Apple Wine and threw up outside the car window. I’m not exactly sure what I did when I took that strychnine-laced LSD. The flashbacks were great, though.
nk who thinks high school was a waste of time (db4a41) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:38 amCode language! Racialist!
Such a little troll. And a very angry and resentful one, it appears. Gosh, I wonder why?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:43 amI wonder if Constance will run to the ACLU if she never gets notice of any High School reunions? If I were on the committee for the class, I’d lose her address and never look for her.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/6/2010 @ 8:47 amMaybe she can get a court to issue an injunction compelling the reunion committee to send her an invitation.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:47 amBeing the sort of low life sumbitch who broke up with my girl at my Sr. Prom, (but then took the same girl to her Sr. Prom a year later!), I can see some real judicial possibilities here.
Since it’s well known that even ugly girls need love too, henceforth no one who wants to go to a Senior Prom without a date. Limos will be provided at state expense, stocked with suitable low alcohol drinks. There will be a choice of condoms, along with instructions about how to use them etc.
I mean this is nonsense on stilts all around. The parents of the lesbian girls who brought the law suit, the district that refused to accomodate them, and the judge who ordered the prom all ought to take a cold shower and wise up.
Let’s just put it down to a lot of people acting badly.
Mike Myers (3c9845) — 4/6/2010 @ 9:49 amThe ACLU cannot possibly be claiming that the students of this school have no right to attend a private function instead of the sanctioned prom? Do they not acknowledge that the other families who do not want their children’s prom turned into a platform for a political agenda have the same rights as this girl does? This outcome should have made everyone happy. She got her prom, got her date, got to wear a tux and everyone else who disapproved did not have to attend.
I think she’s annoyed that so few chose her prom over the private one. It’s was a clear sign that she does not have the support of most of her fellow schoolmates. This was never about fairness, this was always about making those who objected to the lesbian dating pay, and pay big.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 4/6/2010 @ 10:24 amWing nut, eh? I’ll give you wing nut. You just keep up your troll nonsense with your Obama worshiping self.
It may be a jump to go from mandatory proms to work camps but with this guy in the head office there is a straight line from one to the other. You just keep your head buried in your back side and sooner or later, when you come up for air you’ll realize you elected a commie.
BTW, if the two homosexual chicks would have just went to the prom on their own without making such a big deal out of it we wouldn’t be talking about it. But if you make yourself a target, you’ll surely draw fire. The ACLU used these misguided youth for sure, but that’s the price you pay for immorality.
PatriotRider (910542) — 4/6/2010 @ 11:51 am“You just keep your head buried in your back side and sooner or later, when you come up for air you’ll realize you elected a commie.”
If Victoria Jackson on Fox News telling me he was a commie wasn’t enough to wake me up, some patriot on a blog won’t be enough. Sorry.
imdw (017d51) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:02 pmHow are work camps ‘wing nut’?
And what does wing nut even mean? I think it means Republican moderate. Really, it has to, since it’s used more often to describe Mccain and W than Buchanan or Perot.
How is work camp not associated with progressives? It’s something Bill Ayers advocates to this day, it’s something progressives throughout time have advocated. The last US President to put people in camps was FDR, Obama’s inspiration.
How are work camps something the left associates with Palin, Giuliani, or Reagan? Just because? Is this like how imdw thinks raping kids is funny (his words)? Just being ugly for ugliness’s sake?
There’s a valuable point with the tension between government involvement in a little dance, individual freedom to have a private party, and the interest of freedom to have sexual preference. But so many on the left think this is an opportunity to be ugly. Why is that? I rarely see a gay rights advocate argue from the left without scowling and wanting to demonize the other side of the debate.
imdw is more like Perez Hilton than MLK.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:09 pm“How is work camp not associated with progressives? It’s something Bill Ayers advocates to this day, it’s something progressives throughout time have advocated. The last US President to put people in camps was FDR, Obama’s inspiration.”
And Cool Hand Luke was sent to the chain gang run by a bunch of Dixiecrats. Ergo this lesbian going to the prom is … leading us to work camps.
imdw (c5488f) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:15 pmHow are work camps ‘wing nut’?
I think the idea was that claiming that work camps are on the horizon is an indication of wingnut thinking, and that the notion that this prom story indicates that work camps are coming is … crazy.
I don’t know enough about the details of the story to make any intelligent comments about it. I have prejudices about it, of course, but they’re not informed ones. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:26 pmOh, imdw didn’t answer my question? What a shock. Can you define wingnut, if you insist on using that term so much?
Yeah, prison sometimes entails work. I don’t think that’s a ‘wingnut’ prescription. Hell, democrats were the slave owners, and Republicans the slave freers if you want to stretch the definition of work camp as far as possible.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:26 pmAnd of course, the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the people imdw thinks are wingnuts agrees with you, Aphrael.
As I said, there’s a tension between points of view on this. If it were just about a high school letting you choose your date, it wouldn’t be on this blog, but the ACLU has a problem with an invitation only private event, too.
Some religions forbid things. Alcohol, gay dating, bibles, etc. Who cares?
Instead of the discussion about how freedom and equality conflict in many ways, and how to negotiate through that, we’re defining the wingnut party as being the party of slave labor.
And the reason for that is that some gay advocates simply cannot lose an argument on any point, so will completely destroy the topic with insults as soon as it’s clear that they can’t win. In this case, because of the freedom to have a private party.
I support gay rights. Because it’s none of the government’s business. I realize that imdw does not support rights he doesn’t agree with because it’s none of the government’s business (such as my right to not buy health insurance, or my right to have a party without gay people, or my right to criticize Obama without imdw calling me a child molestor).
Don’t interpret what I’m saying as support for the ridiculous idea of work camps coming (though the intrusion already tolerated makes such a notion somewhat realistic… FDR had concentration camps based on race).
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:37 pm#35–I see all sorts of possibilities for unemployed lawyers. And from court-mandated proms we’ll just go on to other things in school–can’t sing? Get a court order to allow you to sing the solo in the school musical. Can’t play an instrument? Maybe the court can order that you be allowed to conduct the band. Absurd? You bet? Possible in Obamaland? Absolutely.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:40 pmDustin
You’re asking, I’M Dumb Weight what a wing nut is. He’s a lefty wing nut. to him a rightie wing nut is anyone to the right of stalin. its kind of useless.
Anyway, as far as the work camps are concerned, the fact is that liberals have a creepy tendency to try to make people do their bidding. like if you are a lawyer, liberals want you to spend time representing people for free. if you are a doctor, liberals want to force you to carry out abortions. if you are a pharmacist, liberals want to force you to sell the abortion pill. they want to force you to work before graduation, and on and on. hell, they even want to force you to buy health insurance including policy elements you don’t need. like forcing gay men to buy maternity insurance.
I don’t believe anyone but a fringe on the left wants work camps. But i don’t fault anyone for believing it, because of all that other creepy fascist behavior they already do. i continually find it amazing that the same democratic party that is so libertine in the bedroom, is so totalitarian in every other aspect of life.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:40 pmimdw, you are so far out in left field, you are wayyyyyyyyyyyy beyond the fence!
jw (067e77) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:55 pm“Yeah, prison sometimes entails work. I don’t think that’s a ‘wingnut’ prescription”
Aphrael explained it for you. If you try hard enough, you can keep on not getting it.
“I realize that imdw does not support rights he doesn’t agree with because it’s none of the government’s business (such as my right to not buy health insurance, or my right to have a party without gay people, or my right to criticize Obama without imdw calling me a child molestor).”
And here I thought i had a broad view of “rights.”
imdw (2dbe25) — 4/6/2010 @ 12:59 pmimdw still didn’t answer my question? What a shock.
Coward!
I already had my exchange with Aphrael, and you’re deluding yourself if you think that somehow vindicates your paranoid hatred. Liberals probably are more disgusted with you than conservatives. I’m just trying to figure out if you’re a joke or just crazy. You have my unpatronizing sympathy.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:02 pmThe American Civil Liberties Union need go no further than the nearest mirror to understand just how you can screw up a prom.
Neo (7830e6) — 4/6/2010 @ 1:47 pm> But where is this right to bring people of the same sex to the prom coming from? the Equal Protection Clause? Don’t make me laugh. that clause was written by people who had no tolerance for gays, like it or not.
Not to suggest I support this idiots prom position in any way, I believe that you would have a hard time justifying such an claim if you actually attempted to.
While I’m sure the FF’s varied all over the place on gender matters, at least two prominent figures were well received in French social circles — Franklin and Jefferson — and as a result almost certainly didn’t have any major problems with associating with gays and so forth, as the various behaviors were hardly unusual in pre-Revolutionary France.
And as far as the overall attitude of the people in the “colonies” prior to the Revolution I’d call your attention to a former Governor of New York before the revolution: Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon.
Q.E.D. — They didn’t support his rather absurd behavior, but they hardly lynched him on the spot, either, which calls your phrase “no tolerance” into serious doubt.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:15 pm> Work camps dude. Work camps. If that ain’t wingnut, i don’t know what is.
Actually, in my experience, the ones calling for work camps are usually those fascists on The Left.
The real “Fascist Right” types usually just send them off to be exterminated.
Call that “an improvement”, if you like, I quite inarguably think it’s better to flat-out reject BOTH ideas right from the start…. But that’s just me.
You apparently are of a different opinion.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:22 pm> Gosh, I wonder why?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:25 pmThree words: “No Prom Date”
> If Victoria Jackson on Fox News telling me he was a commie wasn’t enough to wake me up, some patriot on a blog won’t be enough. Sorry.
LOL — Obama himself coming in, along with a moving crew, carrying an Executive Order taking everything you own, wouldn’t be enough to wake you up, Sleeping Beauty.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:29 pm“Actually, in my experience, the ones calling for work camps are usually those fascists on The Left.”
I suppose there are people who have written books titled “in defense of internment.” But I think Obama’s camps would be a bit more… white.
imdw (19cd35) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:38 pm> How are work camps something the left associates with Palin, Giuliani, or Reagan? Just because?
Dustin, Dude, of course! This is one of the primary tools of the lefty toolkit.
Hence the ones with a true history of racism call the GOP racists.
East Germany styles itself the “German Democratic Republic”, when it is neither a republic nor democratic in any realistic way.
There’s a reason Orwell had The State reprocessing language constantly. It’s one of their primary activities, the constant distraction of language modification.
It’s one of the reasons why PC keeps changing the acceptable terms for “races” — from “colored” to “black” to “negro” to “African American” (no matter what nation you’re in or from), and from “Oriental” to “Asian” (apparently tossing out the other 2-3 billion people in Asia who don’t live in the region called “The Orient”).
The express goal is to keep the opposition off-balance and to give their proponents an easy route towards a high dudgeon.
A high dudgeon is easy to keep up, and, being an entirely emotional position, is like a Terminator: It can’t be argued or reasoned with.
So, yeah, “just because“
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:39 pmthere’s a tension between points of view on this
of course there is; that’s why it’s an interesting issue. 🙂
If it were just about a high school letting you choose your date
there have been several of these prom cases handled by district courts, which I find astonishing: i really don’t see why a public high school cares about the gender of its students’ prom dates. in my high school experience, two decades ago, in a conservative part of southern california, it wouldn’t have mattered; i find it astonishing that there are places where it does today.
Some religions forbid things. Alcohol, gay dating, bibles, etc. Who cares?
adherents of the religion can, I think, be forgiven for their efforts to change things from within. but such efforts are, at the end of the day, none of my business. 🙂
the question becomes much murkier when the forbidding is being done by an arm of the government, or (murkier still) by somebody receiving money from the government. the supreme court will be hearing oral arguments in such a case in about two weeks; i have a post coming about it, if i can find the time to write it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:57 pm>>>> “You just keep your head buried in your back side…”
> If Victoria Jackson on Fox News…
BTW, anyone notice that he not only made no effort to deny he and those around him were victims of Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome, he responded with confirmation….
> Aphrael explained it for you. If you try hard enough, you can keep on not getting it.
I believe this is, for you, no work of any kind. Not Getting It is something you’re clearly a seasoned professional at. It’s actually a sub-talent which goes along hand-in-hand with CRIS.
Your error, of course, is assuming that the reasoning mirrors your own as the rather simplistic “A leads to B”. This is called projection. The real fact is that the actual reasoning, which isn’t fully fleshed out due to time constraints, is that “A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to… AA leads to AB leads to AC…. leads to ZY leads to ZZ”.
This is, of course, far too complex for you to grasp on your own. It’s actually far too complex for you to grasp, period. But c’est la guerre.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 2:58 pmCool. I suspect I already agree with you on this to some extent and am not the real conservative opposition to you on this issue, but I’m glad I can pick and choose when I deal with imdw because there are some great liberals commenting here.
Of course, I might wind up throwing you in a work camp if you can’t spare the time to write the post. Patterico Uber Ailes.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:06 pm> i really don’t see why a public high school cares about the gender of its students’ prom dates.
There’s this concept called “submission to order” and “surrender to the official norm” which is the primary purpose behind ALL public schools. Why do you think high school is so cliquish? It attempts to beat as many as possible into the norm-pattern. Gays are and will always remain outside the norm pattern (it’s societal suicide otherwise), and aren’t happy about that.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:10 pm“The express goal is to keep the opposition off-balance and to give their proponents an easy route towards a high dudgeon. ”
It’s also amusing when a happy conservative exclaims that they are “gay.”
imdw (8d27e3) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:10 pmGays are and will always remain outside the norm pattern (it’s societal suicide otherwise), and aren’t happy about that.
You realize i’m gay, and that addressing this comment to me means you’re telling me how I feel, right? 🙂
I lived twenty years ago in a world in which nobody cared whether people went to the prom with dates, with friends, or as singletons. It just didn’t matter, even among the kids at the school.
I find it bizarre that it’s an issue at all.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:29 pmUsing a bastardization of a word’s meaning in a vulgar way for the purpose of mockery is about as lowbrow as it gets.
This lesbian prom business just makes me want to shake my head and say “the Rebels are at it again” and not care anymore, really.
skwiself (b69230) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:29 pmjust makes me want to shake my head and say “the Rebels are at it again” and not care anymore, really
I find that fascinating; I don’t think asking to take your girlfriend to the prom is an act of rebellion. I think it’s an act of conformity.
Once upon a time, the gay movement was all about being outre; about reveling in freedom and rejecting dominant sexual and cultural mores.
Nowadays, the gay movement is largely about trying to say “hey, look, we’re just like you in every way except the gender of our partners.”
This isn’t a bad thing; it’s probably a very good thing, both for the long-term emotional health of the people involved and for the ability of the culture as a whole to absorb an openly gay population.
But it seems bizarre to me to characterize it as ‘rebellion’ … and also, perhaps, a bit dismissive.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:40 pm“Using a bastardization of a word’s meaning in a vulgar way for the purpose of mockery is about as lowbrow as it gets.”
Cuz nowadays it is pretty standard to use “gay” for “homosexual” rather than “happy.” I’m not sure where the bastardization is.
imdw (c5516c) — 4/6/2010 @ 3:58 pmI’m pretty sure I know where the “bastardization” is. So is everyone else, imdw.
Eric Blair (0d131e) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:12 pmExcept for there being a heckuva a lot more hysteria over the possibility of Bush and Cheney directing Halliburton to build concentration camps then declaring martial law and using them to house political dissidents and other undesireables, than there is over the Obama regime building work camps, I think imdw has got the meme just right as usual. Our troll is just not reliable when it come to history.
I still want to know what Obama was talking about when he said he intended to create a civilian defense force larger and more powerful than the military. That’s scary.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/6/2010 @ 4:48 pmThe Human Rights Campaign sends out the following fundraising email today:
MayBee (48e17d) — 4/6/2010 @ 5:34 pmHigh School lesbians in prom dresses… and only 7 people show up?
Everyone must have been over dressed for the occasion…
They must have been the kind of lesbians that march topless through the streets and then get mad when men “ogle” them and take their picture.
Or maybe it was girls who flash you and you gasp in horror…
I dunno…
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/6/2010 @ 6:04 pmaphrael or azazel or whatever i meant this whole thing is something i just look at yet as “oh look the johnny rebs are riling themselves up again” and hey man its the south its gonna happen.
Skwiself (225630) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:54 amTruer words have never been spoken. Translation: “You can’t cure stupid.”
PatriotRider (483886) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:14 amIgotBupkis – Thanks for the link at #51.
As far as the main topic goes, if the school participated in an action of deliberate deception I think they are in trouble. If it was done apart from school officials, I don’t see how the school can be made responsible.
aphrael, do these cases come up because the school body and administration are being proactive or reactive? I imagine if the two girls showed up together unannounced they would not usually be turned away.
The law may be able to do many things, but it can’t make somebody like you or agree with you, and people should understand that rather than allow the ACLU to mess up their lives over it.
It can, however, marginalize you to the side of society if you don’t abide by its rules.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:38 amIgot
> at least two prominent figures were well received in French social circles — Franklin and Jefferson — and as a result almost certainly didn’t have any major problems with associating with gays and so forth, as the various behaviors were hardly unusual in pre-Revolutionary France.
Well, first out of those two, only Franklin was actually a framer of any part of the constitution.
And he wasn’t a framer of the part I was talking about. Indeed, he was not even alive when it was written. The equal protection clause is in the 14th A, which was ratified in 1868. It was pushed by an abolitionist movement that was evangelical in nature.
Really, if you went back in time to around 1866, convinced them that you were from the future and said, “so, um, aren’t you glad to me making gay sex a constitutionally protected right?” they would look at you like you grew a third arm. And if you successfully convinced them that yes, the supreme court would actually hallucinate a right to gay sex into the 14th A, I can assure you that they would be so horrified that they would add a specific clause to their draft to deny it.
This notion that there is a positive constitutional right to engage in gay sex, is bull. like it or hate it, that is the truth.
As for the feds, i think that as far as the states are concerned the Feds have no power over this. of course, I think they don’t have power over whether i buy health insurance, or over the speech that occurs prior to a federal election, so clearly the SC is kind of hit and miss on following my understanding of the constitution. A tougher question comes in the federal power to run its territories, but i think its answered pretty conclusively by the fact that sodomy was outlawed in american territories from the beginning.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:52 amGood Grief! Someone needs to tell this girl to pull up her big girl panties (boxers?) and get on with her life. Life isn’t fair and the sooner she figures that out the better off she will be.
PRM (310ebf) — 4/7/2010 @ 11:20 am