well, he was plotting violence against King before the shooting. He was part of a group of boys who were going to be beating King up.
Now they could do this in secret, and it wouldn’t be bullying–but this is middle school.
I will qualify my statement to McInerney was involved with people bullying King.
You’re oversimplifying King’s actions, it was a whole lot more involved than making someone uncomfortable.
He had been going on and on for days provoking the other boys purposely because he “like[d] to make them squirm.” This included following them into the bathroom and trying to observe their private functions.
King ignored his teachers’ instructions to tone it down. For days and days he pursued McInerney as a love object after McInenerney told him NO.
He was blowing kisses in class at boys he knew wouldn’t appreciate it.
But he’s not nearly to blame for egging this on as the assistant principal is, who said she could do nothing about King trying to watch other boys going to the bathroom and in fact encouraged King to continue with his activities.
It’s gay rights gone too far.
But no-one is saying that McInerney isn’t to blame, he is the most responsible for this happening, and everyone here thinks he needs prison time. Some of us simply think that the assistant principal’s behavior and King’s behavior are worthy of notice as mitigating factors, and that he should have been tried as a juvenile.
PErhaps they could have, but standing in the way of working it out was an assistant principle who encouraged King every step of the way, and even went so far as to dismiss unwanted voyeurism on the part of King. This didn’t get worked out because Joy Epstein, herself lesbian, had a vioew that gay rights trump the rights of other students to not be sexually harassed.
Actually, when boys do this to girls, quite frequently the girl is the one who is blamed and shamed. If a boy sexually assaults a girl, she’s told to change schools. And sexual assault is far more than just trying to make someone squirm, or blowing kisses at them.
Now, harassment of other students shouldn’t be tolerated, no matter which sex is targeted. My point is, though, that harassing other students often IS tolerated. For that matter, male harassment of females is quite frequently dismissed as “boys will be boys”, which is why there are some classes about sexual harassment, which are often angrily dismissed as being PC and completely unneeded, that women should just ignore the harassment.
This isn’t an issue of gay rights. This is an issue of students harassing other students, and being allowed to do so. And this sort of thing should stop.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124111931&ps=rs
I agree that there’s problems all around. I’d nitpick that while you argued “the girl is told to change schools” is not well supported by a link wherein the girl voluntarily changed schools, however.
What you show does differs from the above case at hand, King and McInerney. The girl in the first link did have her problem recognized and in fact the man she accused of raping her was suspended for a year. (She didn’t wait a year and then find herself on campus with him. She imagined that is what would happen if she stayed. There’s a difference.) She wasn’t ignored and told that she had to accept rape. She is dissatisfied with an administrator wanting to focus on the man’s alcoholism as the root problem.
But how much power does an administrator have? He can’t throw the guy in prison, after all. I’d defend the administrator there in a limited way, as in that he wanted to get the offender some treatment and hopefully rehabilitate him. I’d criticize the administrator that he didn’t himself impose the suspension. The dean who did give the suspension could have made it longer than one year; the length of the girl’s education at the school may have been appropriate. But we don’t know whether the dean might have extended that suspension after the first year if the girl complained again. There’s a bit of speculation in this link as to “what would happen…” that didn’t happen. The dean took it more seriously, he may have extended the suspension a second year if the girl was uncomfortable seeing him around campus after the first year.
P.S.
I thought I mentioned it but I guess I didn’t. Your second cite has nothing to say about whether assaults or harassment is tolerated. It’s a story about a girl who got shot by a guy and doesn’t say a thing about how authorities reacted to it.
the 3rd cite is pretty plainly about a woman who lied to the police.
Neither your second nor third cite supports your statements and the first is mischaracterized; as I said, no-one told that girl she had to change schools, she did it voluntarily.
I just want to state, for the record, that I entirely agree with magellan01 in a gay rights thread.
Which probably means that the Mayans were right, and the world is going to end sometime next year.
But seriously, I have a real problem with the seemingly more common practice of trying juvenile defendants as adults. Arguably, there are some times when it might be appropriate, but this particular situation, which came out of a nexus of burgeoning sexuality, peer pressure, and public humiliation is precisely the sort of thing we invented the juvenile justice system to handle, because it involves a situation and emotional state that are unlikely to ever occur again in the shooter’s life.
That having been said, I’m very bothered by David42’s attempts to paint this as the result of the gay rights movement. This is not a gay rights issue. The gay rights movement does not advocate for the right to freely sexually harass straight people. The only part of this entire debate that has anything to do with gay rights is the question of whether schools should ban “gender inappropriate” clothing, which is largely tangential to the subject.
Gay rights did not lead to King harassing McInery. It did not lead to Epstein ignoring the harassment reports. It did not lead to McInery killing King. The only thing in this whole sad, sorry affair that was directly influence by the gay rights movement is that King felt safe enough to be open about his homosexuality in school. That’s where the subject of gay rights in this story starts and ends. Claiming this as an example of “gay rights gone to far” is breathtaking in it’s chutzpah, considering the only reason we’re discussing the story at all is its “man bites dog” factor: it’s the idea that King was the bully, and not just the victim, that makes this stand out from the hundreds and hundreds of other stories about gay kids being victimized and worse by their classmates.
It almost seems like Joy let this happen as a response to all the bullying King received earlier in life (he said he was gay at 10). As far as her being lesbian might not mean too much, but the fact that she let it go on, I mean, what did she think was going to happen? Be a happy couple in a lollipop world? She really, really should’ve intervened.
Also, you mentioned Brandon being part of a group of boys that wanted to beat up King. But those boys declined the invite. I wonder why about that too. Most likely fear from getting in trouble, but I wonder what the students knew or feared about teasing a homosexual classmate. Maybe the norm was ust to walk on eggshells around the issue. They seemed to tease Brandon a little more than Larry in the past year of school they had together.
And I’ll agree with magellan that King wore clothes and blew kisses at classmates to get under their skin. Sort of like a “you can’t tease me, you’ll get in trouble” singsong.
Other teachers tried to intervene and Joy Epstein is an idiot for not stepping in.
And Brandon deserves jail time.
Miller, I’d never be one to say that there aren’t level headed people in the gay rights movement. But it’s hard to say what is or isn’t the gay rights movement. SOME people in the gay rights movement are extremist.
Nevertheless, whatever the “official” position of the gay rights movement is, there can be no doubt that some people, who weren’t too whippy with constitutional law to begin with, have mistaken it and/or implemented it wrongly, like my employer who fired both a man harrassing a woman (fear of her lawsuit) and a homosexual harassing other men (fear of the homosexual’s lawsuit).
There can be no doubt that Joy Epstein’s take on gay rights had a lot to do contributing factor to this murder, outside of Brandon’s actions in pulling the trigger.
I do not make a claim that gay rights organizations on a national level call for gays having the right to sexually harass. I do not make a claim that gay rights organizations officially approve of Ms. Epstein’s actions. Try to ignore her actions or downplay them, yes.
But I do claim that in Joy Epstein’s mind she took a right to be gay as trumping the rights of other students to be free of sexual harassment. It is plain from her behavior that she did.
This is an isolated case and doesn’t reflect on the movement as a whole, but it does reflect on a need for better education of what gay rights entail.
The King/McInerney case is DEFINITELY a case of gay rights gone too far, but I am not trying to claim, on the basis of this incident, that gay rights have gone too far generally.
When people in authority do not see the rights of others because they are blinded by one specific issue, then, whatever their issue, it’s a case of taking it too far.
This is one of those cases.
No, that’s not the only alternative. If you think REEEEEEEALLY hard you might see one or two points on the spectrum between trying a 14 year old kid as an adult and giving him 25 years for shooting his bully, or congratulating him for killing a dirty queer.
Yeah, there are idiots and assholes everywhere. Some of them are gay. Some of them are in the gay rights movement. Nonetheless, the “official” position of the gay rights movement is that gay people should be treated exactly the same as straight people, full stop. Some people are idiots, and have idiotic ideas about how to achieve equality. And some people are assholes, who will latch on to the movement and use it for their own personal advancement. And there isn’t any movement or organization in the history of the world that’s any different.
I think that is, in fact, highly debatable. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone in this thread has enough information to make a reasonable go of the debate on either side.
When you say this is an example of “gay rights gone too far,” and use a similar incident as an excuse to say you “no longer support gay rights,” then yes, you are making the claim that this is the goal of gay rights.
There is absolutely no way you can know this, anymore than people arguing in favor of his sentence can know that McInery is a virulent homophobe or white nationalist.
Then why have you been explicitly spinning it as such?
Then why do you “no longer support gay rights?”
To answer the one question, “what do we know,” I am debating from a position tha the news accounts are accurate. I have conceded that we don’t have a first hand view and that news accounts can be wrong.
To the other, why do I not support gay rights any longer? Because the movement will not address incidents of gays bullying other people, handwaves them away, pretends they do not exist, and calls me a homophobe for pointing out, in their best interest, that they need to address this and educate the people that they represent about it.
We debate only one example here. There are many more.
Even taking the news accounts as accurate, you are still importing a considerable deal of bias into your interpretation of events.
Why should they? Gay rights and sexual harassment are two entirely different issues. There are plenty of organizations out there already working to fight sexual harassment. There’s no particular reason to break out gay sexual harassment as needing particular attention, because it’s functionally no different than heterosexual sexual harassment.
Now, certainly, if gay rights organizations have been rushing to defend gays accused of sexual harassment, you might have a point. Have they been doing that? Can you provide an example?
But that’s really secondary to the main problem, which is that you refuse to support gay rights, because of the actions of gay organizations. Why do you think I should be denied my rights, because GLAAD (an organization of which I am not a member) isn’t sufficiently on the ball when it comes to calling out gay harassment?
I also have to wonder, if the actions of some gays is enough for you to disavow the gay rights movement as a whole, what symmetrical action have you taken against heterosexuals? After all, the number of gays who have sexually harassed other people is dwarfed by the number of straights who have sexually harassed other people: certainly in absolute numbers, and almost certainly in per capita numbers. What organizations have you blacklisted because of their failure to address heterosexual harassment?
Lastly, are you sure that you’ve been called a homophobe because you’ve called out gay sexual harassment? And not because you believe that gay marriage is fundamentally damaging to the institution of marriage, that gay people are adopting children as part of a propaganda scheme to trick straight people into thinking they’re normal, and that gay rights organizations are actively encouraging gays to do this?
Because that seems a lot more homophobic than getting upset when a gay guy makes an unsolicited grab for your junk.
Can you name some?
You ask: “Now, certainly, if gay rights organizations have been rushing to defend gays accused of sexual harassment, you might have a point. Have they been doing that? Can you provide an example?”
This very King and McInerney case. The gay rights group came out universally to condemn McInerney 100% and make light or refuse to acknowledge King’s sexual harassment.
I never supported gay rights to begin with on some kind of grounds that its normal or good. I did it because they are people and I’m not a hypocrite when in other issues I say people have a right to do with their bodies as they will.
This in no way ever meant I bought the propaganda that gay marriage is good for our society. Also, the complete reason for not further supporting gay rights (I should clarify my statement–now that its no longer criminal to commit a gay sex act, now that it’s no longer a real problem with discrimination in housing or work, I’m not giving any further support) is hypocrisy in general.
This case points out that hypocrisy. You show me one gay rights organization that addressed King’s sexual harassment in a serious way.
The fact that you claim some generic sexual harrasment group ought to address it instead does nothing to relieve them of their hypocrisy in falsely characterizing the E O Green episode. Nor do they address any misbehavior of a homosexual at all–they just ignore it.
here’s an example. This story was written even after the first trial and it becoming clear McInerney didn’t shoot King because he hated gays. Still the story claims that McInerney is still out to kill effeminate gays.
Again, insistence from the gay community that King was “within his rights” and McInerney killed him out of hate for gays (at least this blog recognizes that he was a child and should have been tried as such):
more insistence from the gay community that homophobia killed King:
It goes on and on.
Nevermind, I didn’t realize this was a 4 page thread.
The cites you provided are to two blogs written by gay men, and an editorial from an aggregate news site focused on gay issues.
Do you understand the difference between “gay rights organizations” and “some random gay dudes?”
I think it’s more accurate to say you never supported gay rights, full stop, isn’t it? Thinking that it’s not right to murder a bunch of queers is not the same thing as supporting gay rights.
In most states in this country, there is no law against refusing to employ or rent property to someone on the basis of their sexuality. Discrimination against gays is still very much a “real problem.”
Still not seeing the injustice he (Brandon) suffered. King made his crush known to him. He was not harrassing him. Brandon did not live in fear of King, there is nothing in the reports that suggest that King was groping him or behaving in a sexually aggressive manner. Blowing kisses at him just doesn’t rise to that level.
Brandon was disgusted. More than that, he was embarrassed in front of his classmates. This is not injustice. He was not wronged.
And what they all have in common is activism. So sue me, I should have said “activists” rather than organization. I’d still like for you to show me one single organization or activists that interpreted King’s death in any other manner than a homophobic hate crime.
Does that somehow mean I can support gay rights and approve of murdering a bunch of queers? Sounds like it.
And since I wasn’t a supporter, I’m sure they’ll be glad to refund my donations. of course, gay-hater homophobe that I am, I really donated just for income tax deductions. Kind of a trick, ha, ha, you think I’m supporting you but I’m really
not, ha ha, I’m getting one over on you queers, he he. (your choice of terms, not mine)
Really Miller, you do a great job proving my point that if you don’t agree with every last thing the gay rights movement says, none of it counts and you should be called names. 100% or nothing. I think that’s ludicrous.
Let’s say I support full fledged legalization of marijuana instead. Let’s say I’m politically active in a number of ways. Someone else comes along, echoes nearly all I have to say and has some other things I didn’t say to support legalization. They put their money where their mouth is, too, donating and spending personally for the cause.
Now, at the end of the day, it turns out this person is only in favor of non-smoked marijauna only but I wanna be free to use bongs.
According to your logic, Miller, instead of agreeing to disagree with this person, remaining civil and thanking them for the amount of support they did give, I should declare they never supported marijuana legalization AT ALL and call them names. That makes a whole lot of sense.
Lack of a law isn’t proof the problem has been solved. This just begs the question, if these are still problems, why is the political focus on gay marriage? I mean isn’t shelter and employment more fundamental? How do you expect to win gay marriage out of a society that won’t let gays have houses or jobs?
If this is true, I am greatly saddened because it truly is inhumane to deny shelter and employment to people due to things like sexual preference. Is this really still happening? I’m not hearing about it, I’m not seeing any news stories. If that’s the case, I think the gay rights movement has its priorities misplaced and should be working on this first.
The phrase “gay marriage” is a catch-all and does not indicate merely the right of two homosexuals to a stylish ceremony in a charming chapel. The cause represents changes to benefits such as health and life insurance, tax breaks, and the right to make medical decisions on behalf of one’s spouse. These are top-down changes and trump whether or not Cracker Barrel managers can fire you for perceived homosexuality. From Wiki: “In 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display “normal heterosexual values”.[9][18] The company stopped its implementation shortly after being introduced and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation,[52] after demonstrations by gay rights groups.[53] Later, the company’s founder, Dan Evins, stated that the policy had been a mistake.[18] Following proposals by the New York City Employees Retirement System, a major shareholder at the time, in 2002 the company’s shareholders voted 58% in favor of adding sexual orientation to the company’s nondiscrimination policy” This of course was resolved ten years ago, but newer examples shouldn’t be hard to find, as sexual orientation does not benefit from the blanket protection afforded to race or handicap.
There are federal and some state laws that protect persons from being discriminated against based on orientation, and some municipal measures have been take as well, but these laws are incomplete and vary by region and political climate. Here is a quick rundown of how to find laws in your area from NOLO.
I don’t feel that personal anecdotes have been particularly useful in this discussion, because one personal experience seems to have the power to influence the feelings of a case already decided with due process. But as the manager of a Flowerama (chain store; floral shop) I was fired in 1994 because I refused the demand of the owner/fanatic to fire my delivery boy. He fired us both the next day, me for insubordination, Tommy for “Being a practicing queer.” And at that time, my state was an “at will” employer, and both of us could have been fired for any frivolous reason, or no reason at all. It’s true, I should have been fired for refusing to follow orders, but Tommy had prior experience delivering in the same area, was on time and well liked by customers and fellow employees. His job should have been protected.
Seriously, David42, you’ve shared enough to let us know that you were embarrassed by the attentions of a same sex employee and probably razzed a bit by your fellow employees, too. And yeah, the media often gives more credit than is fair to “gay-dar” and it isn’t nice to slap a label on someone just because someone perceives a characteristic that hints at latent tendencies. It could just be wishful thinking on behalf of the tormenter, or it could be just simple bullying, as you said. And no, it deserves no special protection by virtue of the bully’s orientation. But we have to assume that mitgating factors on both sides were taken into account, that both defense and prosecution explored every avenue, and that among the jury of our peers was a homophobe, a homosexual, a bully, a victim, and a handful of neutral observers who made decisions based on personal experience, personal prejudice, and the facts. I’m inclined to find the punishment too harsh for a kid, but I can only read a summary of the trial and have no idea if the kid was guilty of other crimes prior to and unrelated to the murder. But I don’t blame the victim for merely an overbearing flirt. And in this climate of political correctness and attempts to make the world welcoming for everyone, I can’t blame the principal either, as I’d have erred on the side of tolerance as well. We can’t always rely on superiors to act in the best interests of everyone involved, and we can’t always blame them if things go horribly wrong. There were plenty of signs that should have been handled differently, but a murder happened, a life was taken, and that is the ultimate injustice here.
Well, by that grossly debased standard for “activist,” then I guess you could just use me. I don’t think this was necessarily a hate crime. I do think that homophobia had a large role in the murder: I don’t think that McInerney would have reacted similarly to a girl who behaved towards him in the same way. But I think there is a difference between being a bigot, and worried being perceived as the target of bigotry in an intensely bigoted society.
That’s an utterly bizarre interpretation of that part of my post. No, you can’t think killing gays is okay, and support gay rights. But opposition to gay rights is not an all or nothing proposition. Just because you are against the most extreme manifestations of homophobia, it does not automatically follow that you are not exhibiting a more mild version of the same.
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here.
I didn’t say that none of it counts, and I didn’t call you names. But you have put forward some pretty intensely homophobic rhetoric on these boards. Setting aside the occasional drive-by poster or short lived troll, I’m hard pressed to think of a more insulting sentiment than your bizarre theory that gay people are adopting kids as part of some sort of propaganda scam to gain social acceptance.
I’m sorry, but it’s almost 2012. Being opposed to housing and employment discrimination doesn’t really earn you a whole lot of brownie points in this day and age. Thirty years ago, you’d have been a bleeding edge progressive. In the 21st century, you’re a conservative. In ten years, unless you modify your stance, you’ll be a flat-out reactionary.
Nothing about this analogy makes any sense. It’s one of the most wildly nonsensical things I’ve ever read on these boards.
The political focus on gay marriage is almost entirely a product of conservative politics.
Gay rights is a patchwork in this country, with different states having radically different laws alternately protecting or victimizing gays. In a few states, such as California, the struggle is nearly over. Marriage represents the last hurdle to full acceptance of gay rights. Gay rights organizations in California, naturally, focus on gay marriage, because we’ve already won all the other battles. Gay rights organizations in Florida spend much less time on gay marriage, because they have much more basic and immediate concerns.
So, how did gay marriage become the symbol of the gay rights movement on a national level? It was almost entirely a function of the *conservative *political machine. When Gavin Newsom ordered city hall to approve marriage licenses to same sex couples, the right wing of this country freaked the fuck out. Which, admittedly, was probably Newsom’s intention. But it drove a huge wave of anti-marriage legislation across the country. It wasn’t the Mississippi chapter of GLAAD that was driving the gay marriage debate in that state in 2004, it was the Republican party who put up a constitutional amendment specifically targeting a minority of their own citizens for discrimination, despite the fact that there was virtually no movement towards legalizing it in that state, and absolutely no chance of it ever passing into law.
The same story repeated itself across the nation, with right wing politicians using the phantom of gay marriage to drive their constituencies to the polls. Marriage is only a focus of the gay rights movement in a handful of states. In the rest of the country, the focus is on much more basic protections.