I guess they think if they ignore lesbians they will go away. What a bunch of idiots.

Baby and bathwater.

prom sucks anyway.

Serious overreaction, but anytime the ACLU gets involved events become nothing but an activist's circle-jerk. It's best to just ignore such things and let people do what the damn well please from the get go.

Different year, same shit.

Different year, same shit.

Regardless right or wrong, kids today are a lot more emboldened than they used to be. I can remember a time or two my son threatened to call the cops for spanking him. (I handed him the phone and told him the three digit number to dial). Likewise, a kid with an agenda or retaliation desire, whether she is gay or not, is more likely to pull a stunt like threatening to dress up in a tux and bring another chick as a date. It's not always an issue of gay rights, but is sometimes an issue of teenage angst.

In our day, we read Catcher in the Rye to deal with it. Today, the kids call the cops or the ACLU.

I don't really understand the schools stance on this one.

I think part of the problem might be the outward acknowledgment that it was a homosexual couple and they were coming together for that purpose.

I remember girls being able to go to Prom with other girls when I was in school, and it was a non issue, although it wasn't claimed to be specifically for a homosexual reason, everyone knew which girls were homosexuals and that they were going for that reason.

I am not sure why the limitations.

I know people won't like t his, however there is the possibility that they could have gone and still had a great time together if they would have found a male homosexual couple, gone each with one of the male homosexuals and then coupled up when they got to the Prom. I don't think either party would have had a problem with that (in terms of the male and female homosexual couples) and it would have been too late to do anything on the schools part at that point. I mean girls dance with other girls all the time.

I know it is not the ideal situation, but it was a way around this. Not saying the cancellation was the homosexual couples fault.

(You can't call the Lesbians because the real Lesbians on the isle of Lesbos will get offended over that, as they were called Lesbians first and are mostly heterosexuals.

What kind of Talibaptist goathole has rules telling kids who they can date? I'll bet they also have rules prohibiting mixed-race couples in public, too.

The sooner ALL religion is outlawed, the better this country will be.

Well they get a two-fer. 1. They don't have to pay for a prom. 2. The student body will not ostracize and hate this lesbian for ruining their prom. A BIG WIN for the brainless haters.

Wiil NOW ostracize. I have no idea why I typed "not."

Teenage angst? Wanting to do exactly the same thing as everyone else? That's angst?

Sounds fair: All or none -- and they chose none.

Posted already. Buffalo Man beat you to it.

EXP

Where? I don't see it.

MSGT,

Nothing fair about it. It's punishing everyone for something that should be a non issue.

#8 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-11 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doesn't realize that crazy people make religion crazy, not crazy religion making people crazy.

Fails to realize that religion cannot exist without people, people can exist without religion.

Fails to realize that people will find another thing to hind behind, like science and eugenics, space and aliens, etc and etc.

Fails to realize that people are the problem, claims that people created religion, but then blames religion for crazy people.

Fails to realize.

Goatman,

Bullshit. I know many adult lesbians that wear men's clothing on a regular basis and even marry in Tuxes. This boils to homophobia plain and simple.

Goatman,

Bullshit

What part is bullshit? Where I said, "regardless right or wrong kids are more emboldened"?

#13 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-03-11 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

they should have tried to get prom king and queen, they they would have to let them go.

Richard,

Many chicks wear mens clothing no matter if they are straight or gay. The clothing does not make the person as most people know. I don't really even understand the issue frankly. Who the fuck cares who takes whom to the prom? Was it the tux that got the school boards panties in a wad or was it the two girls, or what? Just don't get it but then again I belive that people should be allowed to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt other people, how this would have hurt anyone I just don't get.

The sooner ALL first amendment rights [are] outlawed, the better this country will be.
#8 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-11 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

FTFY

Why don't kids just sponsor their own dance? Why should the school do it?

Pick a place, gather your money, and rent it.
Certainly there is more than enough money to do it and it'll be cheaper than paying the school.

Think about it.

They sell $1 candy bars for $5. The dance tickets probably cost $50 per couple when you could charge $25 for the same couple and do the dance yourself.

I found that my class reunion was a heck of a lot cheaper doing ourselves than letting the school into the process. They skim off the money.

Goatman,

What's bullshit is your are trying to chalk it up to teen angst. Kids today don't have to feel alone they have people who will fight for them.

TAOWARRIOR

I agree the school is making it an issue because the reality is that they don't want two kids challenging the status quo.

"I agree the school is making it an issue"

The school?
They set rules, the girl is making the issue. It sounds like they gave her guidelines that she could have followed. No tux, no arriving together and no making other kids uncomfortable. Are dress codes now going to far, when i was younger i knew kids kicked from prom for dressing properly, was that wrong too? As for making other kids uncomfortable, i also recall that PDA was closely monitored by staff, it's called decency. i seriously doubt talking or dancing would have made others uncomfortable. I don't get the the arriving together unless the school feared it was all a publicity thing, which it kinda seems like, and wanted to avoid a scene.
Bottom line, these are kids and the school gets to decide what they consider disruptive, if you don't like it don't go there.

What's bullshit is your are trying to chalk it up to teen angst.

No I wasn't. In fact, i clearly stated in the first sentence of that post that I wasn't getting into whether it was right or wrong. That is quite clear and unambiguous. (but for the record, I tihnk it's wrong). I merely was making a point that kids today are a lot more emboldened and pull shit to test their limits. Nowhere did I say or even imply that was the case here.

Please don't try to shove me into your mold by putting words into my mouth.

SALAMANDAGATOR,

What grounds does the school have to assume that it is going to cause a disruption? I would say these girls seems pretty open about their sexuality so I'm sure much of the school already knows.

Are you assuming that because they are gay that they are going to grope each other? Please PDA is very different than being honest about ones sexuality.

I have a little girl and I have never forced her to wear dresses and if she wanted to wear a tux to prom I would stand behind her. But then I would care if she decides she was gay/bi/poly/straight or otherwise as long as she is happy.

Goatman from your post

"Likewise, a kid with an agenda or retaliation desire, whether she is gay or not, is more likely to pull a stunt like threatening to dress up in a tux and bring another chick as a date. It's not always an issue of gay rights, but is sometimes an issue of teenage angst."

edit #23

Wouldn't

If the school simply did not react and let the prom go on then this would have never come up and would never have been and issue.

If she is doing it for a reaction then she is winning and the school will ultimately lose.

Yes, that is from my post. Did I say it was this kid? No, I used the indefinite article "a", the the definite article "the".

Even if I did specifically target this kid, if you don't want to entertain other potential facets and would rather focus on the pure homo-phobic aspect of it, that's cool. It sounds pretty closed minded to me, but I don't care. I see a lot of that here. But don't tell me I said thing or assigned positions I didn't.

the the =
not the

Goatman

You remind me of Clinton when he said he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

"What grounds does the school have to assume that it is going to cause a disruption?"

The same grounds that is can say no shirts with guns on them or gang colors. That is their choice, the correct action would have been to take it up at a board meeting or at least a pta meeting not just raise a stink for the sake of getting your name in the paper.

"I'm sure much of the school already knows."

I'm sure they do, but how does that make it okay to be disruptive? Maybe they know the gym teacher is a drunk does that mean he should display it openly at school functions? Or that kids constantly use vulgar terms should that be allowed too? Part of the education process is social, knowing how to make yourself acceptable to your surroundings, which is a necessary part of being an adult.

"Are you assuming that because they are gay that they are going to grope each other?" '

No and neither is the school, which is why they said "and that she and her girlfriend might be asked to leave if their presence made any other students "uncomfortable."

Notice the if? Also as i said in my previous post that is not uncommon for heterosexuals either, so what is your problem with that?

"otherwise as long as she is happy."

Fine, but if her happiness came at the expense of others would you ask her to make some minor concessions?

It seem pretty clear to me that she is grandstanding.

#29 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-03-11 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong and stubborn about it.

Goat was making a tertiary point alongside an immediate point.

No need to argue with him, he is not in disagreement with you thus far, beside you trying ti dictate what he says.

You remind me of Clinton when he said he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Lawyers hate people who precisely and unambiguously use their native tongue (not that I do all the time) I have three cousin lawyers -- one of whom was rated in the top 100 in the country this year by a national business magazine -- and they told me so. In fact, part of their schooling is to acquire that skill. My father every night at dinner would have each of us four kids bring a new word to the table and use it every night. (we rarely brought verbs because he expected us to conjugate them as well) I was on the HS debate team for a couple of years.

So yes, I sometimes choose my words very carefully to prevent people like you, dull, woke, axe, ringo, et alia from being able to twist them into what y'all wish I had said.

C'est la vie

Goat was making a tertiary point ...

Good point and I should have said that. "Tertiary" was a word I brought to the dinner table for my dad one night decades ago. LOL

Different year, same shit.
Regardless right or wrong, kids today are a lot more emboldened than they used to be. I can remember a time or two my son threatened to call the cops for spanking him. (I handed him the phone and told him the three digit number to dial). Likewise, a kid with an agenda or retaliation desire, whether she is gay or not, is more likely to pull a stunt like threatening to dress up in a tux and bring another chick as a date. It's not always an issue of gay rights, but is sometimes an issue of teenage angst.
In our day, we read Catcher in the Rye to deal with it. Today, the kids call the cops or the ACLU.
#6 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-11 10:42 AM

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that Catcher In The Rye shows up in so many whack-o killers possession? Is that co-incidence or a content warning label? I've been afraid to touch it.. But I do know the song.

"I agree the school is making it an issue"

The school?
They set rules, the girl is making the issue. It sounds like they gave her guidelines that she could have followed. No tux, no arriving together and no making other kids uncomfortable. Are dress codes now going to far, when i was younger i knew kids kicked from prom for dressing properly, was that wrong too? As for making other kids uncomfortable, i also recall that PDA was closely monitored by staff, it's called decency. i seriously doubt talking or dancing would have made others uncomfortable. I don't get the the arriving together unless the school feared it was all a publicity thing, which it kinda seems like, and wanted to avoid a scene.
Bottom line, these are kids and the school gets to decide what they consider disruptive, if you don't like it don't go there.
#21 | Posted by salamandagator at 2010-03-11 01:46 PM

It must have been exhilarating back in them goode olde tymes when you were not allowed to touch your "dance" partner. All very structured and polished, nothing "wild" or "obscene" - other than the obvious mind-wiping. [sigh] There is no issue here? The school administration have over-reacted like some hizzy-prone bitch, makes a sweeping over-generalized rule that no dance it oversees can accommodate both sexualities. GUESS WHAT?! ALREADY HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL YOU IGNORANT EXCUSE FOR A SCHOLASTIC FACILITY. [whew, better!] Some school administrators need to get fucked right in the ear. The ACLU obviously can ascribe these consequences to homophobia - perhaps this was merely a ploy of the left-wing conspiracy inside of the Mississippi (do we all internally chant it while we type it? Just curious) educational system. [laughter]

Goat and EXP

Perhaps I am wrong but it does not appear that way to me. In the end it does not really matter as none of us is likely to affect what happens down there.

#35 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-03-11 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, that is a false statement as well. There is plenty we can do to change what happens down there, the question is whether we will do it, and do enough of it, to where it will cause others to do it.

The mentality of "I can't do anything about it" is part of the mentality that 1. allows things like this to happen and 2. Has America in the state of discomfort it is in.

Things can be done, you just have to be willing to do it.

I get what you are saying though. It was Goats clarifying clause that prevented me from taking int the way that you are seeming to take it.

EXP

I never said I couldn't but I said not likely.

The problem I have with Goats comment is that those literary technicalities are often used to avoid taking responsibility for ones real beliefs. I have used it myself when ranting about co-workers on social sites so that I can bitch without directly bitching about them.

This sounds like I'm changing the subject, but hear me out. I've long defended the right to a Jewish homeland, despite Israeli atrocities in the Islamic lands that they occupy.

Can we not give Israel back to the Palestinians and give the Jewish people Mississippi instead? Mississippi is probably much more fertile. It contains far less desert. And the aborigines are no real threat. herm

... literary technicalities...

If a common language (technicalities and all) cannot be agreed upon, all laws and codes -- indeed, everything we say -- are meaningless

herm,

I hate to say it, but that is reasonable.

It would certainly solve LOT of problems.

Certainly, it would piss off the people of Mississippi, but a Zionist state is pretty commensurate in terms of values with how they live now.

Granted, it will never happen, but for once I like where your head is at.

#38 | Posted by herm at 2010-03-11 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why don't we uproot you from the state you live in (the physical one, not the state of insanity your mind lives in), and give it back to the native americans?

I guess the religous and historical importance of Israel is lost on a "humanist" such as yourself HERM. But then again, humane thought is foreign to you so why should this be any different?

Why don't we uproot you from the state you live in (the physical one, not the state of insanity your mind lives in), and give it back to the native americans?

There was a war---the Indians lost. We had this guy on our side.

#39, "Everything we say are meaningless"

Give I a break!

This sounds like I'm changing the subject, but hear me out. I've long defended the right to a Jewish homeland, despite Israeli atrocities in the Islamic lands that they occupy.
Can we not give Israel back to the Palestinians and give the Jewish people Mississippi instead? Mississippi is probably much more fertile. It contains far less desert. And the aborigines are no real threat. herm
#38 | Posted by herm at 2010-03-11 02:57 PM

How mystical of you. I suspect that the Mississippi was perhaps inhabited by similar Druid people as in Egypt and possibly along many major rivers across the planet. However, getting the current inhabitants of either location to uproot is seriously nonsense. Israeli Jews as well as Muslim and Christian all have religious affiliation with Jerusalem and seem to be "discovering" more scripturally significant artifacts year by year. For either the Mississippians or the Israeli to just "play nice" and make room for one another is only likely under very specific scenarios - such as either a catastrophe or the Rapture. That would be entirely magical.

herm,

...for once I like where your head is at.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-11 03:02 PM

They have a lot of goofy rules in schools..

No gum

No dodge ball

No medications

No sharing

No candy

Dress codes up the whazoo

So for the school to have a rule about opposite sex dates is just par for the course.

The dunderheads are the girl(s) who wanted to be the exception to the rule.

And they made a big deal out of it.

The ACLU threatens to sue the school.

School cancels the prom.

No lesbians at the prom, prom cancelled. and lawsuit cancelled.

Homosexuals are causing a lot of trouble. They redefined the word "gay", they want to serve openly in the military, they want to get married and now they want to destroy prom night.

Murphy proves to be retarded once again. People should be able to bring whoever they want to prom as long as they won't be a threat to other students such as a convicted sex offender.

#53 | Posted by jackass at 2010-03-11 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Never followed the rules and look where he is now...

Posted by jackass at 2010-03-11 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Never followed the rules and look where he is now...

#54 | Posted by MURPHY

Hmm, probably making more money than you.

The dunderheads are the girl(s) who wanted to be the exception to the rule.

#51 | Posted by MURPHY

They are gay. They didn't want to be an exception to anything. They wanted to bring the person they are dating. Does your head hurt from being so stupid?

Simple military policy. "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Uh, oh. Someone's gonna get called on the carpet for this.

Proms are a luxury, not a guaranteed constitutional right. The girls called the ACLU. The school took the luxury away.

The girls have every right to date each other. So also the school has every right to cancel their prom when two students blow the issue entirely out of proportion.

Proms are a luxury, not a guaranteed constitutional right. The girls called the ACLU. The school took the luxury away.

Marriage is a luxury too, not a Constitutional right.

So let's solve this whole "gay marriage" issue by taking away the special privileges that married couples enjoy.

So also the school has every right to cancel their prom when two students blow the issue entirely out of proportion.

#59 | Posted by osbo25 at 2010-03-12 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would say it is the school that has blown the issue entirely out of proportion. So a girl takes another girl to a prom, and wears a tux---big deal--where's the story? Would we be talking about it here? No. Not the girls fault, it is entirely the school that has made an issue of this.

Gays and lesbians are not going away. They are people with just as much rights and are as decent citizens as anyone else. They should not be discriminated against in the workplace, by marriage laws, or in where they can take a date. The prom is an important time in every high schoolers life. Gays and lesbians should be able to enjoy it like everyone else.

Those against such equal treatment have been poorly raised and educated. Bigotry is taught.

The loonie left again. Seems those bigots can not stand anything wholesome and hence have to wreck it for all. They will not be happy until the whole country is as ugly as they are.

"So also the school has every right to cancel their prom when two students blow the issue entirely out of proportion."

At everyone else has the right to say its a shitty, pathetic administration that has to cancel a prom over a couple girls showing up together. Students at the school now have a lesser experience compared to students who attend schools that are run by competent people. Do you think administrator's who provide kids a lesser experience due to their own inability to resolve minor issues should keep their jobs?

They obviously should have been able to find a much more reasonable solution. Not sure why so many of you insist on missing the obvious.....

"They obviously should have been able to find a much more reasonable solution."

They gave the girl guidelines, she got the aclu involved and the school cut it to avoid the hassle. The had a solution, the girl just wanted to make a a big deal out of this. Yes, the administrator should keep his job, he made a decision to stand by school policy rather then rolling over and playing dead just because some lawyers threatened him.

"So a girl takes another girl to a prom, and wears a tux---big deal--where's the story?"

Take the gay element out of it.

Girl want to break school rules regarding dress code and conduct policy. Rules placed before she had an issue, rules that apply to every one. Would you feel more comfortable saying "lesbian wants special privileges and rules not to apply to her?"
That is all this is about.

Fails to realize that religion cannot exist without people, people can exist without religion.

#16 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

exps fails to realize he just admitted religon (and therefore, god) is made up by humans.

thanks for playing

They have a lot of goofy rules in schools..

No medications

#51 | Posted by MURPHY

you demonstrate your ignorance when you call this rule goofy, but i suppose that is par for the course

Hey, whatever it takes to prevent those tuxedians from spreading their evil lifestyle.

What about the chirrun? Won't somebody pleez think of the chirrun????!!!! (begins weeping, but in a manly way, like Glenn Beck)

"They gave the girl guidelines, she got the aclu involved and the school cut it to avoid the hassle."

OK, so if you are a school administrator who cuts proms because you can't be bothered to deal with easily resolvable issues, you don't deserve to have a job right? I don't understand why you think "doing their job would have been a hassle" is a good excuse to do a lousy job.

"The had a solution, the girl just wanted to make a a big deal out of this."

Well obviously if a child can bowl right through your solution and then you have to cancel the prom, then your solution sucked. Repeating over and over that they had a solution and blaming the kid doesn't change the fact that their solution failed and there is no prom as a result. It is a given that kids are difficult, school administrators are supposed to be able to work around that. If the best they can do is cancel the prom then obviously the school board can find better people to run the school.

"Yes, the administrator should keep his job, he made a decision to stand by school policy rather then rolling over and playing dead just because some lawyers threatened him."

That makes no sense. School policy would be to have the prom and to ban the lesbian couple. They didn't do that. They cancelled the prom. I'd say they did roll over when confronted, just in the most idiotic way possible.

"Girl want to break school rules regarding dress code and conduct policy. Rules placed before she had an issue, rules that apply to every one. Would you feel more comfortable saying "lesbian wants special privileges and rules not to apply to her?"
That is all this is about."

Then why didn't they bad the lesbian and cancel the probm? Your excuse makes no sense at all.

"Then why didn't they bad the lesbian and cancel the probm?"

Holy crap, I'm not even drunk.

I meant to say, why didn't they ban the lesbian and still have the prom as per the rules?

"I meant to say, why didn't they ban the lesbian and still have the prom as per the rules?"

Because she got the aclu involved. No matter what the school would have done they would have ended up in court costing tons of money. Now, do you think the administrator is inept for saving the school money?

" School policy would be to have the prom and to ban the lesbian couple."

They did not want to ban her that is why the gave her guidelines for attending, the same guidelines EVERYONE ELSE had to follow. So ask yourself this, should the school have allowed only her to break the rules or should they have disbanded them completely? The administration said she is equal to everyone else and has to follow the rules set for everyone else, but she got lawyers involved and the school, regardless of the outcome would be out a lot of money, all because she did not want the rules to apply to her.

This is exceptionally sick, even for Mississippi. The school's actions have now made it possible for the entire community to blame this girl for the loss of the prom, which they've begun to do. The school board may have been trying to avoid a basis for legal claims, but I think they're going to end up paying for the emotional distress they're causing the kid. I hope she takes her settlement and moves to a place where differences are a bit more respected.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2010-03-12 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

If this is the case, this makes sense.

I am no sure however that this is the case.

It is a fact that the school would have lost major amounts of money either way the decision went.

It is also true that the ACLU does not really care about already sanctioned rules and therefore it would not matter that the school had set guidelines, thus the ACLU would still take the case.

I don't think the girls intention was to ruin the prom for everyone, however it seems it may have been the only solution to make sure there would be a school in the future, let alone proms.

"Because she got the aclu involved. No matter what the school would have done they would have ended up in court costing tons of money. Now, do you think the administrator is inept for saving the school money? "

If you can't figure out a way to have a prom without bankrupting your school, you are inept. I don't see how it is reasonble to pretend otherwise.

"They did not want to ban her that is why the gave her guidelines for attending, the same guidelines EVERYONE ELSE had to follow"

OK, so why do you keep hiding behind the policy in your defense of the admin? The policy is to not allow her to attend - aka ban her - because of her same sex date. Now you are saying they didn't want to follow the policy and ban her. It has to be one or the other.

"So ask yourself this, should the school have allowed only her to break the rules or should they have disbanded them completely? "

Seems changing the rules to something that isn't going to get you bankrupted in court would be the more sensible solution than telling all the kids you are taking away their prom because you are incapable of providing guidelines that are within the boundaries of the law. I don't know why you think cutting off your nose to spite your face just so you can say this girl didn't get her way is a good lesson to teach these kids but it isn't. Kids aren't going to look at a spiteful fool who can't even manage a prom as a good role model anyway.

"The administration said she is equal to everyone else and has to follow the rules set for everyone else, but she got lawyers involved and the school, regardless of the outcome would be out a lot of money, all because she did not want the rules to apply to her."

High school kids can't just file a lawsuit any time they don't want to follow a rule. You can pretend that is the case but I'm not buying it. If there were no validity to the case, the court would reject it and the school wouldn't spend any money. Quite obviously, the school has reason to believe the student's case is at least valid enough to warrant a trial that will require a defense. To reasonable people who care more about doing what is best for all the students rather than making sure that one lesbian couple can't attend the prom, that would be the first clue that their stance needs to change.

The rules are in place to ensure the prom runs well. If your prom is cancelled due to a dispute over the rules, then obviously your rules served the opposite purpose.

#72 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-03-12 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think you are getting this very well.

If the school had rules set in place, and guidelines as thus, she is the one that made it so that the school took a move that would make it look like she canceled the prom.

She did not have to get the ACLU involved and there would have been a prom. She could always crash it an deal with the consequences.

IFF the school set guidelines as it says, then she is the cause of all of this fuss. She was free to be homosexual, free to do what she pleases, within the confines of the schools rules, a school which she, or her parents have chosen for her to attend.

She did not have to attend there in the first place.

Again, this is IFF the school had the guidelines they claim.

You have to face the music that she did cause this, as she is the one pursuing the litigation against the school and putting the school in this situation to potentially lose a lot of money, that other parents of other students have put into the district.

That would not be right to the other parents whose money and taxes are involved, just because one girl wants to fight against the rules that she knew IFF they were set up. Whether she was right or wrong to fight over them .

Sometimes good causes ruin other good things for other good people. You have to face that when you fight for a cause and be responsible when it comes back around to you.

"The policy is to not allow her to attend - aka ban her - because of her same sex date. Now you are saying they didn't want to follow the policy and ban her. It has to be one or the other."

You are still not getting it, they were not trying to ban her. The policy did not exclude her because of her sexuality, she chose to exclude herself by not following the rules. What part of that don't you understand?

"Seems changing the rules to something that isn't going to get you bankrupted in court would be the more sensible solution"

So you would rather tell the kids they do not have to follow any rules as long as they have a lawyer?
Seriously what kind of thing is that to teach to kids? I mean, are you really serious?

"you are incapable of providing guidelines that are within the boundaries of the law"

Now dress codes are illegal?

"If there were no validity to the case, the court would reject it and the school wouldn't spend any money. "

And obviously you do not need a lawyer to present the case that it is frivolous, right?
Wow, dude.

" If your prom is canceled due to a dispute over the rules, then obviously your rules served the opposite purpose."

Yup, and drunk driving laws are meant to keep us safe on the roads but since they take people off the roads we should just disregard them too right?

"I don't think you are getting this very well."

And I don't think you're getting this very well. The rule exists for one reason, and one reason alone - prejudice. No purpose except codifying prejudice into law - something Mississippi has a long and ugly history of doing - is served by the rule. If other people in this kid's community don't like what she's doing, they're free not to interact with her. The kid's actions are not harming anything except a few peoples' wish that time might stand still and remain 1955 forever, when God-fearin' folk ruled the world and nigras and queers knowed they place.

This will end up like that Texas sodomy bust that backfired so spectacularly, causing such backlash that it will force more change on this place than it dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

While I think the school acted stupidly in this case, these rules are not ALL about codifying prejudice as Whore suggests. Schools have all sorts of rules governing student's actions - from dress codes to censoring references to Christ in a validictorian address.

Jeff:

What part of the word "purpose" don't you understand?

The two common rules you mention are based in purpose - dress codes serve all sorts, from eliminating gang colors to reducing distraction. Censoring references to Christ is based in our separation of church and state.

No one would die, be harmed, break out in leprosy, go hungry, be victimized or anything else by the sight of one girl in a tux escorting another in a dress. Sorry, it's all about prejudice, and gays happen to be just about the last acceptable one.

While the Neanderthals on this school board consider their next move, I would really recommend that they come to grips with reality. Gays are here, they're queer, most of us are used to it. Anyone who refuses to get used to it is obviously clinging to the myth that they have some kind of right not to be offended, which they bygod do not.

That girl's a tramp, and so is the Anti Christ Lawyers Union ACLU

#77 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's fine, yes objectively it is wrong on the schools part, I am not arguing about that, my main issue is that you and others are saying that it is not this girls fault that the prom got canceled, when in fact, it is.

That is alright though, just because she caused it does not mean it is bad. It was for a bigger purpose, not just to ruin the prom.

I simply don't like when people get all defensive and try to claim that they are not the cause because they think that is some negative thing all the time.

It must be contention with the word fault.

Man we have a lot of threads with issues on words today.

Redemption:

I can see your point, but I think there were many other ways this could have been handled. I find it very regrettable that the school board chose a way that is going to make this kid about as popular as Osama bin Laden.

The only really correct way, as I see it, for this to have been handled was for the school board to heave a collective sigh for the "good old days" when such issues didn't come up, permit this young lady to attend with the date of her choice, and remind any complainers that it's a new world, one where the courts are not going to look favorably on any other course of action, including canceling the prom.

"You are still not getting it, they were not trying to ban her. The policy did not exclude her because of her sexuality, she chose to exclude herself by not following the rules. What part of that don't you understand?"

I understand your point better than you do apparently. By the rules, she should have been excluded due to her choice to have a same sex date right? That is not what the school did. They cancelled the prom instead. So for you to say they can hide behind the rules doens't make any sense. If they followed the rules, there would have been a prom and this girl would have been excluded. You can say excluded by her own choice but excluded nonetheless. No amount of spin on your part can change the fact that the school did not just follow the rules.

"So you would rather tell the kids they do not have to follow any rules as long as they have a lawyer?
Seriously what kind of thing is that to teach to kids? I mean, are you really serious?"

No, the school obviously cancelled the prom rather than enforce its own rules because it obviously felt that a court may decide they were violating someone's rights. I don't think teaching kids to follow abirtrary rules without question is a good lesson to teach them. If a rule violates their rights, they should question it. Plus, as I've pointed out many times and you still refuse to acknowledge: The school did not simply enforce the rules. It was scared to enforce its own rule so it cancelled the prom. So the kids didn't learn a lesson about following rules no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

"And obviously you do not need a lawyer to present the case that it is frivolous, right?
Wow, dude."

That makes no sense. If you get a lawyer and file a stupid lawsuit, the court will reject it before the person you are trying to sue ever hears about it. If it were really just a case of a kid not wanting to follow a rule, as you stated, then that is what would happen and the school would not need to defend itself because the court would reject the suit. This isn't that hard to follow. Obviously, the school had reason to believe there is more to this.

"Yup, and drunk driving laws are meant to keep us safe on the roads but since they take people off the roads we should just disregard them too right?"

The only way your comparison makes ANY sense at all is if drunk driving laws prevent SOBER people from driving too. See the kids who were following the rules didn't get a prom either because the school is incompetent. Do you understand that part?

good for the lesbians! stand up for your rights and I hope you win a huge payday from these immoral bigots.

#82 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-03-12 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Agreed. I have no problem with them inviting homosexuals to this dance, but I am still trying to figure out what they have against the people of Lesbos, and why they don't want them at their dance.

"No amount of spin on your part can change the fact that the school did not just follow the rules."

Are you being serious?

"I understand your point better than you do apparently. By the rules, she should have been excluded due to her choice to have a same sex date right?"

No, she was not excluded her choice of dates was not allowed, what part of that do you not understand? Are you having a hard time differentiating the application of the rules to her conduct and not her personally?

"Plus, as I've pointed out many times and you still refuse to acknowledge: The school did not simply enforce the rules."
Uhh, they dd, or rather they tried they gave her guidelines to follow and said she would not have been allowed without following them. She got the aclu involved as a threat. That prevented the confrontation that would have resulted if she had chosen not to follow the rules. So as it sits she broke no rules she just got a bully to threaten the school to a point where the opportunity had to be taken away.

"The only way your comparison makes ANY sense at all is if drunk driving laws prevent SOBER people from driving too. "

having trouble following your own argument are we?
These were your own words.
"You can say excluded by her own choice but excluded nonetheless."

"the court will reject it before the person you are trying to sue ever hears about it."
No the lawyer presents his argument that it should be herd. That is only one side, it is not the judges job to look at school policy or anything that would be the schools lawyers who would probably file a motion of dismissal but that still costs money. You don't seriously believe that many lawsuits are thrown out without a fight do you?

So ask yourself would she have made a decision that would have kept her from attending? If the answer is yes then why the hell would you think it is the schools fault. Rules were in place, the proper way to change a rule is not to violate it but to address it via proper channels like the pta or the school board. Instead she went for the bully tactics and screwed it up for everyone.
Your opinion of the rules does not matter, what matters is that she did not follow them even though she was given a way she could have attended. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I am not big on unquestionably following the establishment but i loath bully tactics like the ones employed by her. The school was well within its rights to establish a dress code, courts have upheld this time after time. It does not matter whether you find their rules morally wrong or not, some rules you have to follow and that is an important message for kids, blind rebellion is not.

"against the people of Lesbos, and why they don't want them at their dance"

They hog the refreshments.

"I hope you win a huge payday from these immoral bigots."

Definition of bigotry for you?
Anyone who disagrees with what you find acceptable?

"The only way your comparison makes ANY sense at all is if drunk driving laws prevent SOBER people from driving too. See the kids who were following the rules didn't get a prom either because the school is incompetent. Do you understand that part?"

Let me make this a little simpler for you with a few easy questions for you.
If you think a rule will disenfranchise you is that a reason to disregard it?
Just because you think a rule is unfair do you ignore it?
Do you think her opinion of that rule is enough to warrant disobedience?
Do you think that it is a right of ever person to disobey anything they do not agree with?
Do you think there is a responsibility to try provided avenues for discourse before disobedience become your action?

The good news is that everyone has been treated equally in the eyes of the law, so no lawsuit.

"everyone has been treated equally in the eyes of the law, so no lawsuit."

Never stopped them before.

I thought Lesbians were hot... What happened...

They should have both just shown up alone, then danced together. There's no rule that says you have to bring a date to the prom at all, or to date with the one you came with.

By the rules, she should have been excluded due to her choice to have a same sex date right? That is not what the school did. They cancelled the prom instead.

Bingo.

By canceling the prom, the school quashes the student's challenge of the prom rules.

But the rules themselves remain intact, and the next time a same-sex couple wants to attend prom, the school will simply cancel prom again.

Thus, the legality of their no-same-sex couples rule will never be challenged.

The school isn't required to sponsor the dance.

If a student speaks about God at a school sponsored event, they stop the student.

Why?

Because the claim is that it gives the appearance that the school is establishing religion.

Well, anything else that goes on during a school function has the same appearance.

The students can always pool their money for the prom and rent their own place. Then, it isn't school sponsored and they can do whatever they please.

Of course, the school will probably suspend or expel students for doing anything on their own time and dime later.

This is homophobia in the worst sense.

Not only are they making a statement regarding the rejection of a lesbian, but they are attempting to turn the rest of the student body against this girl.

They are sick and deserve to be sued by the ACLU.

Sometimes the ACLU is out of line.

They are not in this case.

She is not a "Lesbian" she is a homosexual. Get it right bill. You are being offensive to true Lesbians of Lesbos.

Oh wait,is it the case that if it doesn't fit your agenda, you don't really care?

"...Thus, the legality of their no-same-sex couples rule will never be challenged. #95 | Posted by snoofy..."

Au Contraire. It's being challenged now. And like most other Conservative School Boards who attempt to censor and punish the lives of their students the school board will be forced to change the rules.

That is what freedom is about. Don't like it?

Move to Uganda. Then you'll see yourselves some good-ol'-fashion Homo-cides daily! That'll make ya happy.

Or Iran. They don't have gays there.

I wonder the level of acceptance to the people supporting the two if it were two guys and one (the hairiest of the duo) wanted to wear a dress.

"This is homophobia in the worst sense."

Yes, yes pretend that all people who don't jump for joy when they see a gay person are afraid of homosexuals. Your choice of words that atttemt to belittle an stance by means of a personal attack only serve to betray your own biggotry. Ask yourself would you have the same belief if it was not about a gay issue but a religious or age thing would you feel the same way?
Jumping to the defence of someone based on theior sexuality is no better then attacking someone based on the same.