Activist judge slags GSA

I think ETF’s point is exactly that. The people who are against this sort of thing don’t necessarily see it as a tool for the promotion of buttsex, but to a lot of them the promotion of buttsex and the promotion of goodwill and tolerance between gays/lesbians and straight people are analogous.

If “the local school officials and parents are in the best position to determine what subject matter is reasonable and will be allowed on LISD campuses”, then should that school district in Washington have stuck with their gut instinct to keep the kids from forming a religious club in the Prince case? Even the pinko-commie-godless-America-haters on the Ninth Circuit (/sarcasm) said the First Amendment allowed the kids to form their club and meet on school grounds.

Okay, who wants a t-shirt that says “promoting underage buttsex since 1992 (it’s taking longer than we thought)”?

Does that spell the end of state-wide curriculum standards and tests?

31 years and we still have people with more than one post actually contending that there is a homosexual lifestyle?

No wonder it’s taking longer than we thought.

I just want to observe that it’s vaguely disturbing that no one has pointed out that GSA is supposed to be an abbreviation for “Girl Scouts of America” rather than “Gay-Straight Alliance.”

The confusion is a serious problem. For one thing, I was expecting some activist judge to be going after the Girl Scouts. For another thing, while I’m all in favour of gay rights, their cookies suck.

Actually, there’s a local hubbub currently running regarding the Girl Scouts, who are being funded (or something; I only briefly read the article enough to get a general idea of what’s going on) by Planned Parenthood. The local bastion of journalism, the Kingsport Times-News (, had something on this today, though as of yet I’m not finding it … it might have been included in the “local daily insert”, which I just today happened upon. I’ll see if I can drum up something for you if you’re interested. Meantime here’s an article on it that touches on the general ideas I read about: cite.

The gist of the broohaha is that some parents are upset that their female children (I’m under the impression that the GSA is available to both girls and young women) have been made aware of, and in some cases given, information regarding among other things such hot-button topics as homosexuality, masturbation and condoms. Accordingly many girls’ parents have withdrawn them from local chapters to the point that two girls (out of how many I have no idea) are left.

YES! YES! Thank you for getting my point. When you’ve got a school superintendent equating a Gay-Straight Alliance with Bestiality Clubs and such-like, I have to believe that attitude arises (more like crawls up out of the slime) from conflating tolerance of and learning about differences with promotion of “deviant” sex. And spectrum, you nailed it too:

Cervaise, do those T shirts come in size large? In blue with gold lettering, maybe?

Oh, and Mtgman, thanks for thinking of MY bitch in this fight. :wink:

Whereas I thought the judges was slagging the General Services Administration.

Not liking the layout on one of their forms, or some such nonsense.

There’s a related Pit thread that’s currently active.

I’m shocked that you’re upset with this ruling. Certainly I’m upset, because this judge is ignoring the proper method of statutory construction in favor of his own ideas about justice.

But that’s exactly what you recommend judges do. I’d expect you to perhaps be upset with the outcome, but acknowledge that the judge is acting appropriately.

  • Rick

Sorry, rainbow tie-dye only.

** insert (!) Michael Jackson humor here **


Except that it ignores precedents set by a higher court. Your simplistic, dishonest misrepresentation of my position is pathetically transparent. Perhaps sarcasm isn’t your best suit.

OK, fair enough.

In the hopefully unlikely event that this judge’s ruling is affirmed, I assume you’ll be pleased, or at least sanguine.

Neither actually. Just because I accept the way the system works doesn’t mean I’m always happy with the outcome. Are you always pleased with the outcome as long as it fits your preferred method of legislative action? Did DOMA please you? Does Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell please you? I’d be shocked to learn that you’re happy with every piece of legislation that gets passed, although it follows the legislative process to the letter. If you can dissent from the outcomes, why am I supposed to be pleased as punch with any outcome?