Blame The Bigots
Instead they're blaming the lesbians, who just wanted the high school experience all the other kids are allowed to have -- taking one's boyfriend or girlfriend to prom. Sheila Byrd writes for the AP that a Mississippi school board cancelled a high school's prom rather than let two lesbians go to it together:
On Thursday, a day after the Itawamba County school board did just that, the 18-year-old lesbian high school senior reluctantly returned to campus to some unfriendly looks, she said."Somebody said, 'Thanks for ruining my senior year.'" McMillen said.
The district announced Wednesday it wouldn't host the April 2 prom. The decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that officials change a policy banning same-sex prom dates because it violated students' rights. And the ACLU said the district not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her free expression rights.
Which high school student goes to prom with which high school student is the school's business why?
Thanks, Patrick
I am also offended by the fact they wouldn't let her wear a tuxedo. I don't know the law in Mississippi, but I can't think they could enforce a dress code other than the one they have set for the school in general. In which case, the tuxedo would not violate anything.
And what kind of school has a policy in place banning same-sex couples? I was born and raised here in the south and I am constantly horrified at the bad name that things like this give us.
NumberSix at March 12, 2010 12:09 AM
Would it have been so shocking to see a woman wearing a tux? Or two women dancing together, as if only lesbians ever did that.
It will be interesting to see if the case ends here. The school board's decision to cancel the prom (rather than acquiesce to the ACLU or go to court and be handed a ruling that surely would have gone against them) has effectively made McMillan a target. She's already been subjected to harassing comments. How far will the students take this?
Placing the blame on her is basically saying, "Why can't you just accept your status as a second-class citizen and stay home while the heterosexuals enjoy their prom?"
Patrick at March 12, 2010 12:10 AM
I'm also wondering about the fact that the students seemingly had to register or something. When I went to prom, you just bought a ticket, or your date bought two. There were several singles there, especially at my senior prom. Who was policing the ticket table? Were the chaperons going to call roll at the dance to make sure everyone was there?
NumberSix at March 12, 2010 12:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/12/blame_the_bigot.html#comment-1701248">comment from PatrickOr two women dancing together, as if only lesbians ever did that.
I like seeing people who appear to love each other, whether it's Heather and Fran or Heather and Bob.
And you're exactly right, Patrick, about what they're saying in placing blame on one of the girls.
To those people: Gay people freak you out, gay people who are going to your prom, because they have every right to, same as everyone else? Well then, stay the fuck home.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2010 12:32 AM
Wouldn't it be cool if, I dunno, some organization or group of famous/rich people stepped forward and just paid for a party that all the kids could go to that was far more lavish than a prom could ever be? Then we could see how many people would hold on tight to their beliefs and not go, or see the school try to ban people from going or the like.
Instead of drag this through the courts and make SURE nobody has a good time, try spinning it around and offering them something better.
Vinnie Bartilucci at March 12, 2010 2:15 AM
I'll post here what I posted there: they could have gone together-groups or pairs of boys or girls go to prom together all the time. She could have worn what she wanted, no one would have cared. But since they decided to make a big stink about it, letting everyone on earth know their plans before the dance and "asking permission" (you'll note no one else thought they had to ask permission to go, no matter who with or wearing what), they brought this on themselves. I do blame them for trying to make some big statement instead of just going. I'm quite sure it was a plan, and this is the exact reaction they were hoping for, to get it in the news.
I hope all the other students blame them too. They wanted it cancelled to prove what bigots people are, they got it cancelled. Go them, now deal with the consequences.
momof4 at March 12, 2010 4:04 AM
Actually, this story (which appears to be updating itself), is showing that Constance McMillan is suing the school to force them to hold the prom that they canceled.
Patrick at March 12, 2010 4:15 AM
Sure, Mo4. You really think a "Can I bring so-and-so?" is an activist at work, and you want to make them hide.
Look here.
And then realize that your second wrong doesn't make you right. Offended by one, or maybe two girls' behavior? That doesn't excuse your hate, and if you are a professing Christian that reveals just how shallow your faith is, too.
Isn't it strange that someone would place the blame for bigotry on the people who expose it, rather than on the bigots?
That's what you're doing.
Maybe the white girl should try coming to the party with a colored boy, huh?
Radwaste at March 12, 2010 4:26 AM
Quite frankly, momof4, you assume too much.
Oh? You're familiar with this particular school's policies and you're positive they wouldn't ask any questions like who your date is? Or place strict rules about the dress code for this event, such as boys in tuxes, girls in gowns? How do you know how the school found out about this? Perhaps she told some of her fellow students whom she was going with and what she was planning to wear, and someone might have told a teacher or the principal, and the school is reacting to that.
And you're assuming that "they" (meaning McMillen and her girlfriend) wanted it canceled?
From the article:
Seems like you're doing an awful lot of mind-reading, Miss Cleo.
Patrick at March 12, 2010 4:34 AM
Wouldn't it be cool if, I dunno, some organization or group of famous/rich people stepped forward and just paid for a party that all the kids could go to that was far more lavish than a prom could ever be?
Morgan Freeman did exactly this with the condition that the prom be racially integrated.
http://promnightinmississippi.com/the-film
Maybe Ellen Degeneres could step up?
Flynne at March 12, 2010 4:55 AM
"And then realize that your second wrong doesn't make you right. Offended by one, or maybe two girls' behavior? That doesn't excuse your hate, and if you are a professing Christian that reveals just how shallow your faith is, too."
I don't hate. I don't give a rats ass who people fuck. They're no more sinful than me or the lard-ass down the street (since you brought up religion, although I didn't) It's when they want to smear it in everyone's face, and try to force people to not just allow it but love it, that I get irritated. I've been to proms. There are not people at the door matching up pairs. In fact, many people have no dates to prom and still go. Yep, even here in the south.
I say again: they could have gone together, exactly how they wanted to. But they decided to be like the idiot 16 year olds who came into the tattoo parlour giggling and saying "um, how old do you have to be??" instead of just walking in and getting one, like I did that same day, at 16.
momof4 at March 12, 2010 5:33 AM
Then what's your problem with McMillen? She's just trying to be allowed to the senior prom with a date of her choice, who is also a student at the school. I don't think she's asking that everyone love it. But accepting it would be nice, or at least quell the sense of outrage enough that it doesn't distract from everyone else's enjoyment of the prom.
And the school rather than capitulate to this request (which apparently you deem reasonable, since no one has to love it, just allow it), they decided to cancel the prom for everyone, including those good boys and girls who have the distinction of being those fine, upstanding first-class citizen heterosexuals who are able to form committed relationships with the opposite gender...for your peace of mind.
Sorry my existence bothers you, but I can't form relationships that fit your criteria. So, I just pretend I can on prom night, for your peace of mind? Sorry. Not going to.
Radwaste:
What behavior is there to be offended by? One of them is going to wear tuxedo. Unheard of! And they're going to be dancing with each other. Monstrous!
By the way, Rad. You are RAD!
Patrick at March 12, 2010 5:55 AM
>>It's when they want to smear it in everyone's face, and try to force people to not just allow it but love it, that I get irritated. I've been to proms. There are not people at the door matching up pairs. In fact, many people have no dates to prom and still go. Yep, even here in the south. I say again: they could have gone together, exactly how they wanted to.
Momof4,
Your 'smear[ing] it in everyone's face' is not a lovely image!
Asking for a don't ask/don't tell policy for tickets to a school prom is not tolerance.
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2010 5:59 AM
"they could have gone together, exactly how they wanted to"
Actually - no they couldn't have. There is a policy that forbids same sex couples to attend. They are obviously openly gay so they could have been denied access to the prom if they had just showed up together. Which is possibly why they asked for permission in the first place (seeing as we're speculating on motives here). Nothing worse than getting all dressed up and then not be able to get in to the party...so ask first to be sure!
Karen at March 12, 2010 6:04 AM
momof4:
if you read the article the school told the girls something similiar, they COULD go, but ONLY if they arrived seperately (not together not in a group), she must wear a DRESS, and if anyone was "uncomfortable" they would have to LEAVE.
After hearing that, would you believe the school would let them stay at the prom even if they did all the things you say? No they wouldn't.
plutosdad at March 12, 2010 6:14 AM
American children are over-indulged and not voting citizens.
Meaning they should be limited in what they have influence over.
I wish they would cancel all extracurricular activities like this, so these teenagers could work, study and spend more time with their families.
David M. at March 12, 2010 6:37 AM
"Asking for a don't ask/don't tell policy for tickets to a school prom is not tolerance."
Exactly, Jody. Besides, this is Missisippi, not "Annie Hall". I'm pretty sure the chaperones wouldn't have been ok with the tuxedo, even if she showed up unannounced. A girl wearing a tux - why, that just isn't done here! She probably would've been sent home. But, then, the bigotry behind it would be covered by some dress code violation.
These students were right to take a stand and call out the bigotry. The school is trying to appease the supposed christians who wouldn't send their children to dance alongside openly gay couples. That is such a non-christian attitude.
lovelysoul at March 12, 2010 6:54 AM
Do people really think The Gay is catching or something? I'm getting really tired of this narrow-minded crap, especially when it comes from so-called "Christian" people. Way to love your neighbor, assholes.
Ann at March 12, 2010 7:14 AM
I've been to proms. There are not people at the door matching up pairs. In fact, many people have no dates to prom and still go. Yep, even here in the south.
Actually, some proms are very much controlled. In a neighboring town (St David, AZ for anyone keeping track), the girls were required to wear a particular color of dress, the boys had a dress code, and each couple was announced as they arrived. No going stag and no going with a group of friends. In addition, each couple was registered in advance. Is it possible that this could be a similar situation?
Not every prom is just like the ones you've experienced. We must also remember that this is Mississippi, the place that still has racially segregated proms.
-Julie
JulieW at March 12, 2010 7:27 AM
>>We must also remember that this is Mississippi, the place that still has racially segregated proms.
Julie,
Why does 'remembering' that about Mississippi require us to look indulgently on this nonsense in 2010?
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2010 7:43 AM
Julie, my school's prom did have a rule that only couples would be admitted. Since I had no date and no prospects of finding one, I never even considered going.
And to address what I think M4 was getting at: If someone is trying to put an issue like that in your face, the way to handle it is to act like you don't notice that anything is different. "Hello Ms. McMillen, you date is very handsome, punch bowl's over there, see you later." That way, you find out if they are sincere or just trying to make a scene. If it's the latter, they won't stay long once they realize that no one is paying them any attention.
Cousin Dave at March 12, 2010 7:49 AM
I didn’t go to prom, but I do know my high school required students to give the name of their date and the school their date went to if they brought a guest from somewhere else. I think it was a matter of protecting students if something went wrong. That way, no strange, unknown guest would be able to do something “bad” or whatever they worried about, since prom was held in the gymnasium, but access to most of the rest of the building was still possible.
Assuming that this girl went and announced who her date was to stir up controversy is kind of stupid. She may have been required to tell them who she was attending with, so that the school had a good idea of who was supposed to be attending. From there, maybe she was questioned about what two girls on a date would wear to prom.. you don’t know the entire situation, but to automatically jump to the worst conclusion says a lot about you.
Angie at March 12, 2010 8:15 AM
Why does 'remembering' that about Mississippi require us to look indulgently on this nonsense in 2010?
I'm not asking for indulgence of this behavior, far from it, I invite scorn. M4 seems to believe that if these young women hadn't made a fuss that they would have been allowed to attend the prom. I'm attempting to demonstrate that the world does not generally run parallel to her cloistered existence, and that there are still horrible examples of bigotry in the south...Mississippi having more than average.
Julie, my school's prom did have a rule that only couples would be admitted. Since I had no date and no prospects of finding one, I never even considered going.
I attended 3 proms during my high school career, two I attended 'stag'. Prom should be a more formal dance with a more exclusive guest list (underclassmen cannot attend unless invited). Placing all of these rules on it are counter to the spirit of the event.
-Julie
JulieW at March 12, 2010 8:16 AM
I never thought I'd be able to look back at my preppy, boring, Central Florida high school and think of it as progressive, but now I can: our prom, in 1995 (age showing), was attended by not only open lesbians, but lesbians in tuxedos, and not only were they not banned or ejected, no one complained or gave a rat's ass. It did not make anyone uncomfortable. It did not ruin prom. The oceans did not rise up. Someday the people of Mississippi may pull their heads out of their own asses, but I'm not counting on that day to be soon.
mse at March 12, 2010 8:36 AM
>>I'm not asking for indulgence of this behavior, far from it, I invite scorn.
I see what you meant now, Julie!
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2010 8:42 AM
I find it disingenous to complain about someone putting something "in your face". This has been used, time and again, to politely justify discrimination. I knew whites who would say they had no objections to blacks, they just didn't like black issues being "rubbed in their faces", etc.
Yet, if a group doesn't have the same rights, how are they supposed to gain those rights without speaking up? It's a catch 22, which the people who use this mantra well know.
The last thing most teens want is to draw attention to themselves. I'm sure these young girls are not having fun and are being ostrasized by much of their school and community. They did this because it's right, and they would've rather not had to do it - or rub their gayness in anyone's face - but no one was going to change this if they just stayed quiet. That's the lie of "just don't put it in our face," which implies that there will be more fairness if you just act better, effectively placing the blame on those being discriminated against.
"It's not that we're bigoted, it's that you're acting up. We'd change things if you'd stop." Not true.
lovelysoul at March 12, 2010 8:44 AM
>>I'm not asking for indulgence of this behavior, far from it, I invite scorn.
I see what you meant now, Julie!
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2010 8:47 AM
"I don't hate."
Funny. Your posts indicate otherwise, and often. If you are repeating that as you might a prayer, it will be just as effective - i.e., not. Except to you.
Radwaste at March 12, 2010 9:45 AM
I have no doubt that if these girls had gone to the prom together, in tuxedos, and behaved the way other couples do (close dancing, kissing, etc.), they would have been escorted out. I want to see people making a big stink about this stuff every single time it happens, instead of quietly going about their business and hoping it gets better at some magical point in the future.
Well-behaved women rarely make history.
MonicaP at March 12, 2010 10:12 AM
I agree.
Cite? I reiterate my comment from May 24 2009:
Pseudonym at March 12, 2010 11:16 AM
>>If there actually were "many" accounts then it would be easy for the writer to mention one or two.
Pseudonym,
I agree.
The par below (from a NY Times tv review, July 2009, about the same NPR story your googling turned up) also makes a ref to the Georgia prom - and opts for the somewhat>/i> less weaselly phrase to describe these shameful events as "the exception rather than the rule".
This type of institutional exclusion is the exception rather than the rule in the South, but neither does the school depicted represent an isolated phenomenon in the region; a school’s segregated proms in Georgia was chronicled this year in The New York Times Magazine.
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2010 11:30 AM
Cite? I reiterate my comment from May 24 2009...
Having never done a study, I cannot give accurate statistics. However, we all know the examples that it exists, in some cases has only been stopped in the last 2 or 3 years when attention was drawn to it...that isn't in question.
jezebel.com/5319691/dancing-around-race-relations-prom-night-in-mississippi
www.npr.org/templates/storystory.php?storyId=91371629
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html
I also work with a man who insists that segregated proms occur every year in his Mississippi home town. I've known him for years, and he isn't the type to make up stories. Frankly I didn't believe it at first, having grown up in the West and currently living in a large southern city that would never tolerate that type of bigotry. Although I cannot provide statistics, if it were truly rare, would we be able to come up with so many examples?
-Julie
JulieW at March 12, 2010 11:45 AM
Excuse me, but does anyone know where the place for social experimentation is? I'd like to move there, I think.
I shared this story on another message board, and I got the response, "High School is not the place for social experimentation."
Izzat so?
Seems like something I heard when Clinton had determined to repeal the ban on gays in the military; that the military is not the place for social experimentation.
So, where is this place? We know it's not the military and we know it's not high school...so, where is it?
Patrick at March 12, 2010 12:07 PM
Maybe, since schools always claim to be short on money, they shouldn't be holding proms in the first place?
Let the schools teach.
Let parents fund and operate social nights for students who want to dress up and dance.
Problem solved, tax money not wasted on dances.
Sigivald at March 12, 2010 12:32 PM
Let parents fund and operate social nights for students who want to dress up and dance.
In my experience with the prom, the school didn't fund it. The students raised money (bake sales, car washes, rummage sales, ticket sales for the prom itself, etc) and paid for it themselves.
-Julie
JulieW at March 12, 2010 12:46 PM
If the students are paying for whatever it takes to make a prom, then why is the school arbitrating rules about dates and dress codes? As long as no laws are broken, the school should be fine with whatever the students do.
Patrick at March 12, 2010 1:07 PM
I wish they would cancel all extracurricular activities like this, so these teenagers could work, study and spend more time with their families.
I suppose this would provide a good leveling effect, so that the geeks and nerds don't have to be hurt by all the Beautiful People (TM) over at the Sheraton Hotel ballroom having a good time.
In reality, the extracurricular activity ban would swing both ways. No Its Academic or math clubs for the geeks and nerds. Sorry...
Extracurriculars rule!
mpetrie98 at March 12, 2010 7:14 PM
As long as no laws are broken, the school should be fine with whatever the students do.
When I was in HS, the schools tried banning kids from smoking (some 18y/o seniors could legally smoke). They could ban smoking (for everyone) inside the buildings. The surprising thing is they were allowed to ban people from publicly smoking if the smoker was identified as a person with the school...the letter jacket was the main thing - wearing a jacket then no smokie for you. Wearing the attire made the person a school representative and as such the school could say what they are allowed to do.
The Former Banker at March 12, 2010 7:51 PM
"I wish they would cancel all extracurricular activities like this, so these teenagers could work, study and spend more time with their families."
In high school I worked, held internships, studied hard enough to graduate second in my class, spent a pretty good amount of time with my family, and still was involved in a TON of extracurriculars, including student government, which organized and sponsored prom.
Extracurriculars are fun but they also look good on a resume and build invaluable life skills. Planning prom (and the three years of fundraising that preceding it) gave me hands-on experience in leadership, organization, budgeting, marketing, teamwork, managing bureaucracy, and large-scale event coordination. You can't get that in a classroom.
For the students who simply attend prom, it's just a one-night commitment and I doubt it detracts significantly from their job/studying.
Shannon at March 12, 2010 7:59 PM
Your bringing up smoking reminds me of my high school. There was no smoking, period. Seniors or otherwise. We were always jealous of the school in a tiny little town three miles away, where the school had an actual smoking lounge for their seniors!
Pricklypear at March 12, 2010 8:06 PM
Based on my personal experiance, I think a lot of this stuff should just be cancelled because it is too distracting.
My prom was a big deal and pretty much everyone was talking about it for months -- people began making their individual plans in Jan. People had their plans. Then our winter sports teams all did well. Because a certain % of students had ( or potnential had...if they did well in the state compentitions) conflicts with state sport activities the prom had to be moved. That screwed up everyones plans, not too mention most all the venues were booked. So it was cancelled...but then there was such an uproar that it was re-scheduled but the venue was really way too small. The whole thing was a huge distraction for months. And the actual event was a total disastor.
I am surprized to hear that other schools control the prom so much. We had to register who was coming and it was carefully checked because of gangs getting into them in years past and causing problems. Other than that, they didn't care who you came with or what people wore as long as it was reasonably formal wear - the only person I heard of getting reject was jeans & t-shirt w/ tux shirt pic on it. As far as kissing etc...that was just plain banned for everyone.
The Former Banker at March 12, 2010 8:08 PM
The surprising thing is they were allowed to ban people from publicly smoking if the smoker was identified as a person with the school...the letter jacket was the main thing - wearing a jacket then no smokie for you.
So, basically, proud sport-o's and cheerleaders couldn't smoke, but the rest of the school could?
mpetrie98 at March 12, 2010 8:09 PM
So, basically, proud sport-o's and cheerleaders couldn't smoke, but the rest of the school could?
At my school, lots of people got academic letters which were inverse color scheme. Most the band had them, most the debate team, the "Math-eletes" too. If you had a letter you could buy a jacket.
But yeah, most of the smokers were not in any of those groups (and I don't think the rule caused that). Actually most the smokers were probably smoking something else.
The Former Banker at March 12, 2010 8:24 PM
I do not consider myself a fast learner, but I have been at it for a long time. Visiting Mexico, a different culture, gave me a totally different viewpoint of culture and human nature. There is something you folks need to learn about human nature before you become as educated as you think you are. Don't feel bad. Most people are just as ignorant of human nature, and I was until well past fifty years old before I learned, so I can't be too smug.
I am going to try to explain this concept. Not sure you will even try to grasp it, but at the same time I don't really care much, except for Amy. She works with people and therefore it is more important she understand this concept. If she can.
People are different. To put it technically, almost all human characteristics are on a Bell Curve, or whatever they call it now. Some people are tall; others are short. Some are skinny; others are naturally heavier. On meds, some people only need a bit of a medicine; others need a lot. Some folks like the mountains; others like the ocean. Some like the city; others like the farm or ranch. If you can name it, humans vary on that characteristic.
And, it is also true for such things as emotions and tendencies. From the days of Plato and Socrates, humans have been divided as liberal left, or right wing conservative. There are abstract people, and there are people who deal best with the concrete. There are people who are great artists, and people who are great mathematicians. There are people who are very patient, and people who are very impatient. There are people who are extremely honest, and people who are extremely amoral in all things. There are people who want to get drunk on alcohol or drugs, and people who don't.
And, always, in all characteristics, most people are in between the extremes. It has always been thus, and it will always be thus, and in all cultures.
I am not saying no one ever changes. I am saying it is a mistake to assume you can change what people are, by calling them ugly names; by persecuting them; by harassing and hounding them and tossing them in prison.
Any society in history, or to come, will be forced to deal with these inherent human differences in some manner. From the days of left wing Plato, one common solution has been to exterminate anyone with a different viewpoint. Read Plato's REPUBLIC, if you doubt my words. Imitators have been wonderful folks like Stalin and Poi Pot and Janet Reno.
Actually Hitler was not among the worst. I suspect most of you don't know it, but before Hitler started his Holocaust, he first contacted Roosevelt, and offered to let the Jews emigrate to the US. Roosevelt turned him down. This is documented historical fact. At least one ship load of Jews was allowed to go to Cuba, which also sent them home to their deaths.
And, Castro was in power for over 50 years because he let his dissenters go to the US instead of continuing the mass slaughter, thus defusing the otherwise inevitable desperate resistance.
A truly civilized nation makes provisions for these inherent differences to the maximum degree possible. The optimum solution is to give people who wish to live outside the mean, a safe haven to live in peace. Many decades ago, it was well understood that San Francisco was a somewhat safe haven for homosexuals. Those who do not like homosexuality were wise not to live there. Homosexuals who felt persecuted had that safe place to live if they wished. That was good.
Those who have studied the history of the US Constitution SHOULD be able to understand the Federal System was intended to make provisions for these differences. States rights, clearly delineated to this day in the Constitution said all rights not delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the States. If a State wanted booze or marijuana they could have it. Those who didn't like it could move to another state. If a state wanted women's lib, they could have it, and those who didn't like it can have their own haven. If enough people wanted 'free love' they could find a state and take over its political system and have it.
Today, increasingly, the uneducated people of the US are determined to destroy anyone outside the mean. There are whites who hate blacks, AND THOUGH WE PRETEND IT ISN'T SO, A LOT OF BLACKS HATE WHITES. They both need a safe place to live, without harassment and persecution as long as they stay where they are safe and don't openly slaughter those who mistakenly wander into their turf. Some years ago, a man hated blacks, and he did the right thing. He moved his family way up in the mountains to get away from them, and urged others who don't like blacks to do the same. The smart aleck liberals sent in armed officials who killed his son; his dogs; and his wife and threw him in jail. This only strengthened the movement.
There are people who do not like homosexuals. So, do the homosexuals settle for 90% of the nation? No, they want anyone, anywhere, who does not accept them with open arms to be destroyed by any means possible. Including Boy Scouts of America.
Momof4 is right. This is another attempt to force the pro-gay agenda on every square inch of this nation; every school; and every person. That girl knew exactly what she was doing. She well knew she could wait one year, and go to a big college campus which would welcome her with open arms, many of them.
The problem for gays is forcing their views on people who really don't like open practice of homosexuality increases the hatred for gays. This is basic human nature 101. Another rule of basic human nature known for 10,000 years is you can only push people so far, and they will try to kill you. Yet, societies seem to invariably make the same mistakes and thus all societies are doomed.
irlandes at March 13, 2010 10:44 AM
Irlandes, what it seems you are arguing for is segregation. Yet, San Francisco cannot hold all the gay people in this country. And it is absurd to suggest gays should form their own state and live apart. Why? What does it really hurt for a gay couple to go to a dance or a black person to drink from the same water fountain?
They are not the problem. It is the ignorant people who hate so much that they are offended or believe this has anything to do with their own lives.
If our forefathers really believed in segregating those with different views, they would've suggested each religion have its own state. Instead, they envisioned a country where we could all practice our various religions, side by side, free from persecution.
Sure, anyone may hate a Jew or a Catholic or a Mormon...or a Mexican or Irishman...but that is decidely different from expecting not to ever encounter one at a social event, or ban them from the local grocery store because the mere sight of one would be too offensive.
That is what we are talking about here. These girls attending a dance together doesn't harm anyone else. "Gay" isn't catching. If the mere sight of a gay couple upsets or offends someone, then they need to get a life and stop worrying about what other people do in the bedroom.
Frankly, our young people already know this. Gays and lesbians are completely accepted at my daughter's school, and no one would have any problem with a gay couple attending prom. Mississipi is a backward state, as are many other southern states - always the last to catch up - but they eventually get on board. I applaud these students for giving them a much-needed push.
lovelysoul at March 13, 2010 12:00 PM
So, gays should have to capitulate to people who don't like them? Before I go anywhere, I should just stick my head in the door and say, "Excuse me, I'm gay. Anyone have a problem with that?" And if anyone says yes, I should just wait outside until they leave, or just go home. Is that it? I think I'll try it the next time I go bowling.
This girl is only getting one senior prom. And because the school board is so bothered by this -- and the article doesn't say that the students would have objected to this; just the school board -- she has to deny herself the privilege enjoyed by all seniors at her school, just because of who she is.
Again, I would like to know how you know this. I should point out that this article has been updated since I sent it to Amy. When I sent it to Amy, the article ended with the school board canceling the prom. Now it seems this same link leads us to an article where McMillen is suing to force the school to hold the prom. I bet she wins, and good for her. Some of her fellow students are wrongly blaming her for the prom being canceled.
Just what the hell do you mean by "open practice of homosexuality"? You think McMillen and her date are going to the prom so they can get out to the middle of the dance floor and munch each other?
They're going to dance and socialize, the same as everyone else.
I think the heterosexual students can handle it. Again, we don't read that the students are having a huge issue with this. Just the school board. And this society still has a problem with anyone's "open practice of sexuality," not just gays'.
By the way, your views on human nature are a lot of horse shit. I exist in the here and now, and I'm going to assert my rights. I'm not going to keep myself out of everyone's way for the sake of few who might be uncomfortable with my sexual orientation.
If you have an issue with that, you're the one with the problem, not me. My sex life doesn't concern you. (You couldn't pay me enough to have it concern you.) If you're bothered by something that doesn't concern you, it's your issue, and not for me to accommodate. It's for you to get over.
Patrick at March 13, 2010 12:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/12/blame_the_bigot.html#comment-1701507">comment from irlandesThat girl knew exactly what she was doing. She well knew she could wait one year, and go to a big college campus which would welcome her with open arms, many of them.
Should blacks and Jews also do the same? Stay out of prom, because it might upset the haters to have "their kind" there, and wait until college to attend social events?
As Patrick noted, they weren't going to be having sex on the dance floor; they just wanted to attend a normal high school rite of passage. You don't like "their kind" attending, your kind should stay the fuck home.
Amy Alkon at March 13, 2010 1:56 PM
Exactly. And thank you, Amy. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Since some people have a problem with gays, it falls to gays like me to stay out of their way, and just lay low, so they go about their business with icky old us making them uncomfortable.
I agree that if any students have that big a problem with homosexuality, they're the ones who should stay the fuck home. While they're there, missing the prom, they might take that opportunity to examine their objections. Maybe they'll realize they don't need to knot their knickers over something that doesn't concern them.
So, my sexual inclinations are toward my own gender. I cannot help that. It's an integral part of my biology. It also concerns no one but me and whomever I sleep with. So the haters can just get the fuck over it.
Patrick at March 13, 2010 3:43 PM
Maybe those of us who don't like ardent opponents of homosexuality should just stay the f*ck out of Mississippi.
mpetrie98 at March 13, 2010 4:11 PM
Yeah, we could do a boycott of Mississippi...oh, wait, that won't work. Who wants to go to Mississippi anyway?!
Remember, years ago, Elvis, the Beatles, and rock and roll, in general, was considered "devil music" that wouldn't have been allowed at many proms. Most of us now realize that sort of paranoia is silly. It took more than a rockin' beat to turn good kids bad.
That said, I do notice, as a parent, a growing trend towards bi-sexuality among girls. Some of my daughter's friends seem to think it's cool to be "bi". Maybe it's the Katie Perry song, "I Kissed a Girl" or whatever, but there is an influence, so I understand why some parents are afraid. They think gayness can be influenced. That is the fear behind this prom thing.
Yet, the bottom line is that if your child is going to lean that way or not, you can't control it any more than you can keep them from listening to rock and roll. They are almost adults and will be leaving home and exposed to many different temptations. Whatever romantic choice your child ultimately makes should be ok because, if you truly love your child, you want them to be happy in whatever relationship they're in.
lovelysoul at March 13, 2010 4:59 PM
Whatever romantic choice your child ultimately makes should be ok because, if you truly love your child, you want them to be happy in whatever relationship they're in.
Fine with me. I have better things to do than kick a son of mine out of the house (should I ever have one), just because he fell in love with Steve instead of Eve. However, my remark was mainly in response to the admonitions of certain posters to stay the f*ck home if you don't like homosexuals at the prom. However, as we all well know, they will not stay the f*ck home, so what do we do?
Maybe it's like irlandes said: each group can have a safe haven. For gays, it's San Francisco (although in any good person's aspirations, it should be just about anywhere). Likewise, OPPONENTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO BE, away from people who, judging by some of the replies on this board, would cheerfully throw this school board into a deep pit and never look back. If that place is Mississippi or Georgia, so be it.
mpetrie98 at March 13, 2010 5:18 PM
"Likewise, OPPONENTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO BE, away from people who, judging by some of the replies on this board, would cheerfully throw this school board into a deep pit and never look back. If that place is Mississippi or Georgia, so be it."
Just like opponents of civil rights and women's rights should have their own "safe place"? White supremists and chauvinists should have their own regions of the country? Women and blacks should only be allowed to work in certain areas? Uh, no. That's not how this country works.
As I said before, our forefathers designed this to be a country where people with different beliefs could live, side by side. Of course, they were specifically thinking about the devisive views of religion, but if we can live with our neighbor's opposing view of the afterlife - an arguably much more critical difference of opinion - then it seems we should be able to accept others' romantic preferences. Like religion, they DON'T EFFECT US! Going to a dance where there might be homosexuals DOESN'T EFFECT YOU! Just like going to a dance where there are Jews doesn't make you Jewish. Why would you be so scared to go someplace where there are others who don't believe or live like you? This happens all the time. It doesn't change you.
I don't want to throw this school board into a pit. They're already in a pit of ignorance and intolerence.
You don't get to live away from people you disagree with. Who do you so arrogantly believe that you deserve a community entirely committed to your narrow views? And how is that good - for you or anybody else? Part of an evolved life is growth, and growth often involves being exposed to different viewpoints and lifestyles.
lovelysoul at March 13, 2010 5:58 PM
Maybe, since schools always claim to be short on money, they shouldn't be holding proms in the first place?
Let the schools teach.
Let parents fund and operate social nights for students who want to dress up and dance.
Problem solved, tax money not wasted on dances.
Posted by: Sigivald at March 12, 2010 12:32 PM
---
But, thats what many homeschool parents do for their kids. You don't want your kids to turn out like those crazy antisocial weirdo homeschool fanatics right? Public school is where kids get their needed socialization!
;)
As for the attention ahem.. grabbing gals, I don't really care. They'd definately get more sympathy if they'd taken the high road and withdrawn just before or after the school cancelled the prom, to fight another day. More sympathy and their fellow students get their dance instead of a national media frenzy.
Sio at March 13, 2010 6:52 PM
There are people who do not like homosexuals. So, do the homosexuals settle for 90% of the nation? No, they want anyone, anywhere, who does not accept them with open arms to be destroyed by any means possible. Including Boy Scouts of America.
The wind coming off that sweeping generalization damn near leveled my house. Who have you had such a bad experience with, irlandes, to have this view of all homosexuals? This girl was not seeking out targets to destroy. She has not moved from town to town, taking out organizations that don't cater to her every whim. No matter what you may think of her motives and methods, this situation directly affects her and her high school experience. If the school thought they actually had a case, they would have let her sue to let her attend and lose. Instead, they cancelled the prom and painted her as the villain who ruined it for everyone. I still don't see how the school can legally say who may attend the prom beyond "only upperclassmen" or something. Actually, I guess they can't legally say anything, which is why they cancelled instead of holding firm on their position.
Also, before we start pitching all the haters and bigots down into the South, someone is going to have to fund my relocation, because I can't live like that. Concentrated areas of hateful people scare the hell out of me. Please don't send them down here and punish the rest of us.
NumberSix at March 13, 2010 7:57 PM
"Who do you so arrogantly believe that you deserve a community entirely committed to your narrow views?"
There's a point missing here. Individual rights include the freedom of association. Government functions must include all, but government doesn't have a clear duty to force people in private life to associate against their will. A "community" routinely collects people of commonality.
"Also, before we start pitching all the haters and bigots down into the South,..."
Bigots and "haters" are not terms owned by Redneck Nation of the South©.
Radwaste at March 13, 2010 8:56 PM
Bigots and "haters" are not terms owned by Redneck Nation of the South©.
God knows they don't see themselves that way. Which is why there are many branches of my family tree I do not associate with. My immediate family and I decided life was too short to share holidays and breathing space with people we can't stand but share blood with. Given one of my cousin's recent horrifying legal troubles, I have no regrets about it. I am related to more than my fair share of rednecks, some of whom are quite bigoted. We're not all like that, but it seems less surprising when situations like the one posted happen down here, as opposed to somewhere in New England.
NumberSix at March 13, 2010 9:22 PM
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't throw anyone down a pit, cheerfully or otherwise.
And if homophobes need their own safe haven from gays, they're free to form their own anti-gay social club any time they feel like. But they don't have the right to keep a high school senior from her own prom.
If I decided I didn't like you or your comments, should you be expected to stay off this blog, just so I can have a "safe haven" in cyberspace on this blog without you making me uncomfortable? No, you shouldn't. That would be my issue, and I don't have the right to dictate where you can post because your opinions make me uncomfortable. I can either learn to accept your right to post or I can stay off this blog.
Patrick at March 13, 2010 10:10 PM
By the way, I did a google search for Constance McMillen and I found this article which reveals the rules that were laid out for the prom.
It seems that they discriminated against her in their rules, and that she appropriately challenged it.
Patrick at March 13, 2010 10:14 PM
Sorry, momof4, you need to do more research. You wrote: "I'll post here what I posted there: THEY COULD HAVE GONE TOGETHER (emphasis added)-groups or pairs of boys or girls go to prom together all the time. SHE COULD HAVE WORN WHAT SHE WANTED, NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED(emphasis added). But since they decided to make a big stink about it, letting everyone on earth know their plans before the dance and "asking permission" (you'll note no one else thought they had to ask permission to go, no matter who with or wearing what), they brought this on themselves."
I've read the complaint filed by the ACLU, which you may also read here: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/McMillen_complaint_final.pdf
Attached as an exhibit to the complaint is a memo sent to the students by the school which clearly stated that a student's guest had to meet certain criteria, including "MUST BE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX." I can certainly understand, given this memo, why the student would've "asked permission." DON'T YOU THINK SO? Or should she have showed up with her date, after paying for the tickets, and been turned away for violating the policy - would that have been the better route to go?
It certainly would make sense to me that the student, at the same time, would want clarification about any dress code at the prom as well.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that it's attention-seeking to seek guidance on these matters before paying for your tickets. I do it all the time.
I hope you actually read the complaint - it's very interesting as this case is clearly about First Amendment issues and freedom of speech. You have to remember - this is a public school (i.e., the government), so it should have been more sensitive about these issues.
factsarefacts at March 13, 2010 10:31 PM
I think it's worse for the school's case that they have a set policy not allowing someone to bring a date of the same sex. That means that at some point there was a discussion about the rules and it was decided that it was a violation to bring a same-sex date. My first inclination seems correct; Constance McMillen did not seek out trouble. She wanted to attend the prom with her girlfriend and found she was actually being discriminated against.
Props to Constance's dad, too. Good for him to tell his daughter to still be proud of who she is and not be ashamed that she was victimized in this way. I know from experience (a high school guy friend with whom I attended our senior prom) that it's hard for people of this age to be up front about themselves without seeming obnoxious about it. Teens have such a hard time anyway, and to add homosexuality to the mix makes the situations more volatile. I hope she and her fellow students can work past this.
NumberSix at March 13, 2010 10:34 PM
More on the case
Article is from a Christina news site, so with that in mind, the title shouldn't be a surprise. The article does contain more info, however.
mpetrie98 at March 14, 2010 1:17 AM
This sentence from that article both enrages me and cracks me up: An attorney says a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against a North Mississippi school district is an attempt to try and keep officials there from recognizing traditional morality.
Those damn civil liberties, always with the trouble. I love the use of both "attempt" and "to try and keep," as if the school district is a scrappy little underdog that is fighting for its right to be heard and will not be kept down. They're trying to paint themselves as the victim of a vicious lawsuit by a big, bad enemy.
NumberSix at March 14, 2010 1:27 AM
The whole issue can be summed up like this:
My mommy throws my brother a birthday party. Before I go I ask permission from my mommy if I can bring a polite boy to the party that she dislikes. Outside family members approve, but my mother does not. So as punishment for me dating this boy she cancels my brothers birthday party.
Whose the fucking asshole?
Ppen at March 14, 2010 5:13 AM
Ppen- you are. How dare you not do exactly what you were told. Thinking for yourself is illegal.
WestVirginiaGirl at March 14, 2010 8:49 AM
Hey, I wanted to add a couple more comments.
(1) Sorry Patrick, I made the same argument about the prom's discriminatory rules that you had just made. I didn't mean to be duplicative.
(2) I read with interest the "Christian" article for which mpetrie98 provided a link (thanks btw).
In it, it states that "Steve Crampton, vice president of legal affairs at Liberty Counsel, says the ACLU's lawsuit is an extreme move.
'There really aren't that many cases on similar facts. Although the ACLU and a lot of the media has presumed they have this constitutional right that's somehow well-established, I don't think that's really the case,' Crampton comments. 'A school normally has a right to establish a dress code. They have a right to impose reasonable regulations in an event that the school itself is sponsoring, and they have a right to enforce reasonable regulations and restrictions on conduct.'
I think it's incredibly sad that an attorney who's willing to speak publicly about an issue is either too lazy and/or too disingenuous to deal with facts.
(1) There are legal precedents re: the issue of same sex couples at public high school proms. In the complaint itself (to which I provided a link before) are mentions of a couple of cases (that the ACLU also provided to the Mississippi school board) that were directly on point. One was even a federal case.
(2) Yes, a school board is allowed to have a reasonable dress code. The dress code of this school was also in the complaint. (a) This school's dress code contained no provisions whatsoever about prohibiting a woman from wearing a tuxedo at school or any school function in the first place (i.e., this school just invented the "no tuxedo" rule to further discourage this woman from attending her prom and expressing herself); and (b)What is deemed to be a "reasonable" dress code is highly subjective - but one whose primary purpose is to silence a student's First Amendment rights are, in my opinion, never reasonable. I wonder what this attorney would say if a school board had a policy that prohibited students from where crosses around their necks or t-shirts advertising their churches or their love of God and Jesus - I'm sure he'd be first in line to bring a lawsuit.
factsarefacts at March 14, 2010 3:09 PM
Someone was saying something about over-indulged, non-voting children.
Clue, dude. She's 18. She can now vote, just like I did, as a senior in high school.
But she doesn't have the same legal rights as the school board?
Jim P. at March 14, 2010 6:12 PM
Regarding the idea that people "need" havens for one reason or another, check out the 1998 book "And Don't Call Me a Racist! : A Treasury of Quotes On the Past, Present, and Future of the Color Line in America" by editor Ella Mazel. One person (on page 108, sorry, I don't have it here) is quoted as pointing out that when black kids sit together, people ask "why?" but when white kids sit together, that's called "normal." The person goes on to say (not verbatim) "If self-segregation is wrong, it also must be remembered that, alas, students of color didn't invent it."
Something I wrote elsewhere:
I do feel sorry for kids born into the Klan and other such groups. How easy can it be to realize that you have to choose between having the
whole world hate you for supporting what you've always been taught is fair and just, or having *only* your relatives hate you/ disown you
when you can't stand the seclusion any more?
It reminds me of the "All in the Family" 1978 episode "Two's a Crowd," where Archie insists, with heartfelt emotion, that fathers can tell
you nothing wrong. Even the worst fathers, apparently (such as his own racist father), so long as they stay home, feed their kids, and don't cheat on their wives. You can see the whole episode in three parts on Youtube - the relevant part is in the last third, naturally.
Also, think of the now-17-year-old singing Nazi twins, Lamb and Lynx Gaede, aka Prussian Blue......
I've always wondered what would happen if (pity it never will) such kids suddenly got kidnapped and dropped into multi-racial communities
where, of course, everyone is a stranger to them and they don't know if anyone shares their views. That is, kids from racist groups often seem to have a creepily strong sense of etiquette (as Al Franken observed in his visit to Bob Jones University in his book L&tLLWTT), but it's hard to imagine even such kids keeping their mouths shut forever.
Final note: Racism doesn't have to be taught through words, unfortunately. I wish I could find the source for this anecdote - it was a short, post-1990(?) kids' book on racism: A white Southern woman, probably born in the 1950s, said her mother was an impeccable lady and also "quite a racist." However, the mother never said an unkind word about any person due to that person's skin color, because "she was too much of a lady for that." Even so, every time the mother and her
daughter went shopping and had to talk to a black cashier or sales employee, the mother used a tone of voice as if she were talking to a silly preschooler. So, wrote the daughter, "she taught me to be a racist without a single word being exchanged between us on the subject!"
lenona at March 15, 2010 8:54 AM
factsarefacts: (1) Sorry Patrick, I made the same argument about the prom's discriminatory rules that you had just made. I didn't mean to be duplicative.
No biggie. It's just interesting to me that so many on this thread seem to think that gays should just be quiet and accept their second-class status. One wonders how they'd feel if the positions were reversed. Say it was a gay function of some kind. You guys wouldn't mind showing up with a same sex date, would you? Just for the sake of appearances, mind you.
Patrick at March 15, 2010 5:47 PM
I absolutely couldn't understand the fuss the school board made about this. Then again, it's Mississippi. At my high school prom humminy-humminy years ago, a few girls went with each other (although I think most were not lesbians; they just didn't happen to have boyfriends). And a couple of girls wore tuxes. Girls danced with girls. No one seemed to think anything about it, not even the most fervent born-again Christians at the school (and we had a bunch). It was a big so-what. It's not like they're going to have sex on the gym floor -- why on earth does anyone care?
I've always thought it was ridiculous that people were supposed to go to the prom in pairs like Noah's ark in the first place. If you happen have an significant other, great. But if you don't, why on earth should you be all Marcia Brady trying to get a date? What is this, 1961?
Gail at March 21, 2010 5:05 PM
Leave a comment