In this GQ thread, Pepperlandgirl recounts her experience with a school being asked to start a “Gay-Straight Alliance Club,” with the protest offered by some students, and the apparently definitve answer that the school must either permit such a club, or cancel all extra-curricular activities.
While I do not support the following argument, I wonder if it can legitimately be made.
Schools should not be required to support a gay-themed club in any state that criminalizes homosexual activity.
Only if being homosexual inevitably means engaging in homosexual activities. Which it doesn’t. You can’t arrest someone on sodomy charges for having attractions to the same sex, therefore non-sexually-active homosexuals (there are some…for the last two years, I’ve been one) aren’t breaking the law.
While it’s true that being homosexual does not mean engaging in criminally-proscribed acts, it’s also a fairly clear inference that this is the desired destination, eventually, of most homosexuals.
An analogy: a school might legitimately choose to deny permission to a Software Piracy Club, or a Car Theft Club, even if the club members practiced their skills only on software in the public domain or cars for which the owners had given permission to break into, when they were in school – because the clear inference of the club is that it paves the way for future criminal activity.
[Jimmy Stewart voice]
Well, I don’t know about that.
[/Jimmy Stewart voice]
In counter-evidence, I could point you to one inactive member here for whom such a group, affirming him as not an evil and perverted creature, would have been a great benefit – but who absolutely wills not to participate in such acts. I believe there have been several other celibate posters with homosexual orientations who felt safe “coming out” here under the anonymity of screen names.
Finally, I’d have to criticize strongly your logic in this proposition – granted that you were playing Devil’s advocate. I had thought this guilt-by-association tactic went out in 1954, and deservedly so. Certainly you are participating in a board where there have been discussions of whether the Presidential election of 2000 was illegitimate and proposing changes to our national government. You are therefore, by your logic, engaged in a conspiracy against our government, and should be disbarred. :rolleyes:
“Madam Administrator, I have here in my hand a list of 202 trolls and sock puppets in the State Department…”
While I agree the logic steps I’m peddling here are weak, I don’t think the issue has been fully tested by debate.
I think everyone knows, in their heart of hearts, that there is a difference between Science Club and Gay-Straight Alliance Club. Those who believe Gay-Straight Alliance Club has no place in schools are undoubtedly motivated in the main by their belief that, at its core, homosexual acts are wrong, and schools should give no sanction, direct or indirect, to them. Since this assertion is unproveable, I’m wondering if the simple fact that homosexual acts are illegal serves as sufficient basis to distinguish the Science Club and the Gay-Straight Alliance Club. If it doesn’t, why not?
And lest anyone doubt where I stand: while I do think homosexual acts are wrong, I think what other people do is generally none of my business. I also think hatred and ostracism are wrong. I believe such clubs act much more as a positive, accepting force than as a negative one, and I am not remotely opposed to them.
No arguments here, just throwing stuff out as it comes to me.
It may come down to intent. If the stated goal of a pro-homosexual club is not to promote sex (and therefore not to promote breaking the law) . . .
Issues discussed in metal shop can aid in b&e and auto theft. In my science club we spent a lot of time on explosives, going so far as to design a thermite bomb for disabling tank engines. I was numerous school plays that involved illegal and semilegal behavior, including homosexuality, underage sex and drug use.
I guess the “we all really know what’s going on” argument is a big flaw to me. We all know that kids are going to get drunk and have sex during and after the prom, yet it’s not a point of legal concern.
The issue that I hear most often in reference to this subject is that “well, the Science club exists for kids who are interested in Science, so what is this Gay club all about if not to talk about sex and by dangit, the school shouldn’t be involved in that”.
I don’t think that it’s a good analogy, however. School clubs exist for a wide variety of reasons:
some, like a Science club, exist so members can get together and learn about a subject that interests them highly, others like a Scrabble club exist so members can get together with others who enjoy a similar activity.
I feel that a club such as the ones proposed by the Gay/straight alliance exist for different purpose, and one more similar to something like “Alateen”, where the membership criteria involved and direction of the group is more for self awareness and development of coping skills for a common or shared situation.
The truth is (at least to me) that there are issues facing young adults who are gay, believe they are, or have close friends/family members who are. and clubs such as these can be very helpful.
However, do they belong on school campus? That depends, IMHO, on the make up of the clubs that are allowed. If only clubs with an academic or sports link are allowed, then I’d suggest that the club look for alternate meeting space. if there are other clubs where the focus is self awareness, personal growth, I’d say there’s no particular reason to deny it.
I think everyone knows, in their heart of hearts, that there is a difference between Science Club and Gay-Straight Alliance Club. Those who believe Gay-Straight Alliance Club has no place in schools are undoubtedly motivated in the main by their belief that, at its core, homosexual acts are wrong, and schools should give no sanction, direct or indirect, to them. Since this assertion is unproveable, I’m wondering if the simple fact that homosexual acts are illegal serves as sufficient basis to distinguish the Science Club and the Gay-Straight Alliance Club. If it doesn’t, why not?**
Here is the fine line between homosexual acts and homosexuality. BEING a homosexual is not illegal, but in many states (sigh) ACTING on those desires IS illegal.
If these clubs were encouraging people to commit homosexual acts especially in a state where they’re illegal, that would be grounds for shutting them down.
From all I’ve heard, however, these clubs are merely peer groups for people to talk about their sexuality, how they deal with the resultant issues (especially coming out) and offer support to each other. They are NOT talking about setting up sex clubs or engaging in sexual acts or acting as a dating service (well, no more than any other club at a school, I’m sure).
First, a thanks to Bricker for returning gentleness for grumpiness. I had suspected you were posing a “suppose that” sort of question; I’m gratified to know your stance.
One of those “it’s obvious to me” points that you neglect to make until too late – what exactly does it mean to be gay? The kids are not discussing how to get laid; they’re interested in how to deal with people who have no idea what they’re going through, and ready to condemn them. And as I recall high school, back in the Middle Pleistocene, the two things most on people’s minds were one’s popularity and one’s love life (not particularly meaning sex, but rather dating and all the other romantic stuff that went with it). It ought to be obvious precisely how being openly gay, or even closet-gay, is going to affect those two items of importance to almost every teen’s agenda.
QED: Contrary to our vision of teens as sacs of raging hormones looking for a place to mate, they’re in much the same boat as everyone else: avoiding being lonely and excluded, seeking (emotionally) intimate relationships, dealing with a world that’s not particularly interested in dealing with them. And such a club provides a necessary, or at least vitally useful, support group to kids for whom the natural terrors of adolescence are exacerbated by being gay as well.
I’d add to that list clubs whose primary purpose is politics or advocacy: Young Republicans, Young Democrats, environmental clubs, Amnesty International chapters, etc. I could see a gay/straight alliance fitting into that category, as well.
As far as the OP goes, I’m sure if it were a viable option, somebody would tried it already. I’m inclined to believe that one reason they haven’t is that appealing to unenforced and unenforceable laws prohibiting sex acts between consenting adults is so ridiculous that their attempts would just be mocked. Or, if they draw too much attention to the blue laws, then, horrors of horrors, the legislature might decide to step into the 21st century and appeal them.
I was going to suggest protest organizations, such as “Students for Legalization” of various and sundry illegal substances. As long as they’re not doing it in the school (whatever IT may be) I see no reason the school shouldn’t permit them to assemble, along the lines of their first ammendment rights.
You’d have a difficult time convincing me that a bunch of kids who get together to create a support system for gays/lesbians is “promoting sex” any more than the cheerleading squad.
You can see from this summary of state sodomy statutes (wow, can you say that ten times fast? if you can, will somebody who overhears you try to arrest you? :)) that in fact, there are only five states with sodomy laws targeting only same-sex acts. (Mostly the usual suspects: Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas.) The other 13 states with sodomy laws still on the books ban the “naughty stuff” between same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund provides a more detailed Q&A on how and why G/SA clubs are protected under the Equal Access Act. So no, I think the “fostering criminality” argument proposed in the OP as a way of excluding them from schools has been thoroughly examined and rejected as unworkable.
As that second link indicates, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule sodomy unconstitutional across the board back in 1986, so, unless the Supremes choose to revisit the issue, getting rid of all the remaining laws will be a piecemeal process. How the U.S. Supreme Court managed to find in the U.S. Constitution a “right to privacy” which protects abortion (which a significant portion of the population argues is tantamount to infancticide) but which does not protect the right of consenting adults to have sex in the manner in which they choose in the privacy of their own homes is beyond me, but IANAL. (Note that I’m not arguing against abortion rights; I just think this “right to privacy” is very strangely shaped.)
MEBuckner thanks for providing those links. I just read “The Courage of Their Convictions” by Peter Irons, and one of the cases was “Hardwick v Bowers”. I have been extremely curious about what eventually happened to Georgia’s law, since the Hardwick case was 20 years ago.
IANAL either, but IIRC the “right to privacy” was found in the murky depths of the Ninth Amendment under the “penumbra” theory of rights. The cases in question, other than abortion case, would be Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia. I do tend to agree with MEBuckner that the SCOTUS does tend to apply this in a rather scattergun fashion, and hope Jodi, Sua Sponte, Bricker or another lawyer with some background in “right to privacy” law will see fit to fill us in a bit more on the rationale.
Ironically, pepperlandgirl, the Georgia sodomy statute was declared unconstitutional last year. By the Georgia State Supreme Court. As a violation of the explicit right to privacy in the Georgia State Constitution.
Sorry, ME! I plead guilty to “skim-the-post syndrome” and didn’t realize you’d linked to the State of Georgia thing until after I wrote and submitted my post. Mea culpa!
