I’m thinking that they will cancel this year and a prom next year with the same discriminatory rules. They are betting that with the two known lesbians graduating, there won’t be any around to call the ACLU to complain next year.
Well, she wanted to wear a tux, which gave her a big ol’ Price Is Right “Thanks For Playing, But…” loser play out song to the gawking male thrill-seekers.
I can’t help hoping that this student shows up in my freshman classes next year, although I wouldn’t blame her if she just wanted to get the hell out of the state.
That’s what I was thinking. And what kind of weirdo has a problem with women wearing tuxedos?
Just wanted to chime in to mention I really admire this young woman’s resolve for going to school and being able to face potential criticism/ostracising from her classmates for prom getting canceled.
I say that because our dance (not prom, but one of the last dances of the year) in my senior year was canceled because someone started a rumor that I was going to plant a bomb to blow everyone up during the dance. I was a senior when Columbine happened, and many people in my school thought I was some Klebold the 2nd because I was some trenchcoat-wearing social misfit.
I myself allowed the administration to ‘suspend’ me because I personally did not have the courage to face people who thought I was guilty for something that was a total rumor. I’m not proud of that fact, but I also have immense respect for this woman for being upfront about being gay and facing her peers.
Also props to the classmate who said something to the effect of “while I don’t personally feel ok with people being gay I don’t care if they go to prom”. Not everybody is going to feel comfortable, but they didn’t have to cancel the prom over it :rolleyes:
I thought I had read somewhere (but can’t find the link now, sadly) that the Supreme Court passed a law that made the states’ anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. If anyone can find that link or article, I would appreciate it.
Sampiro or Oakminster would know for sure, I think.
This is beautiful. You owe me… well, I was drinking water, so thanks for the morning chuckle.
The young lady she wants to bring is a sophomore. Since it’s a junior/senior prom, they shouldn’t have prom for the next two years.
It’s mentioned in your link. The Supreme Court doesn’t pass laws, but in Lawrence v. Texas the court ruled anti-sodomy laws are an unconstitutional violation of privacy rights. The laws are still on the books but they’re not enforceable. I am sure Crampton (and I love that name) is aware of this. It’s not possible that he works in this field and doesn’t know the Supreme Court voided these laws earlier this decade.
Here’s the law from Mississippi:
I will not comment on the irony of punishing sodomy by sentencing a man to prison.
I see claims this law has also been used against women, but I don’t know if that is true or not, and it shouldn’t be an issue regardless. Incidentally that interesting phrase “the detestable and abominable crime against nature” is also found in Oklahoma’s laws against sodomy.
If you recall in the 50s there were school districts that abandoned public schools rather than integrate, the classic example being Prince Edward County, in Virginia
You won the thread!
Hey, watch your language!.. you could’ve used a contraction for “could not”.
It’s Friday morning. I’m always a little slow on Friday mornings. Thanks, Marley!
I would consider it very appropriate and ironically amusing if a couple of graduate in that class, who have turned 18, were to run for the school board and turn the issue back to who actually caused the cancellation of the prom and why.
Regardless of their intentions, I’m sure it will end up as the latter.
Case in fucking point:
I’m not sure I follow. How does barring same-sex couples do anything but keep out gays? I don’t see how that specific prohibition even relates to worries about the place becoming a “pick-up joint.”
He’s saying they had a rule that you couldn’t go alone.
Ahhhh. That makes more sense. Still a silly rule, though.
The Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to private acts. States have been continued to try and convict people on sodomy laws for acts that occur in public places. So, Lawrence v. Texas protects you from being charged for acts in your own home but would not protect you from being charged for acts committed at say a rest stop or a school.
The school expected a private organization such as a church to hold an alternate prom; knowing that such an organization could bar gays and yet would be shielded from a lawsuit unlike a public insititution.
What they didn’t expect was the offer from the American Humanist Association to be the one to step up to the plate, with an offer to host a gay-friendly event…
Religious conservatives are probably correct when they suppose their’s to be the majority view, but they also seem believe any dissenting views to be in such a minority as to be nonexistant.
Bravo for the AHA, and particularly for the Stiefles, who provided the funding grant. I don’t know what it costs to put on a prom, but it seems like twenty grand ought to cover a rather nice one.