Mississippi school prom off after lesbian's date request

• FatHobbit

  

  majorspark wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote: I agree that the school board is elected to make rules, but I don't think they have any business making rules about who a student can or can't date, or who they can or can't bring to prom. That's outside their authority in my opinion.

  In your opinion it is outside their authority. In others it is not outside their authority to decide what can be done on school property at a school sponsered event. Let the locals decide.
  
  It also strange to me that the same people will jump all over a child or parent who wants to say a prayer at a school event such as graduation. Is the student not expressing his or her own personal beliefs?

  Does anyone care if a child or parent wants to say a prayer? I think they only care when they want to lead others in prayer.
  

  majorspark wrote: The question is why do you care how other communities govern what goes on at their events. Perhaps we should just have one national school system and dispose of this nonsense and inequality once and for all.

  If you care so little, why are you posting about it? I do think something needs to be done about our school systems though. They are not the least bit equal from one district to the next.
• majorspark

  

  FatHobbit wrote: Does anyone care if a child or parent wants to say a prayer? I think they only care when they want to lead others in prayer.

  In some districts they do. I have seen some districts ban religious clubs, student prayer led voluntary prayer, etc. But that is their choice I don't care as long as some outside power does not come in and force it.
  

  FatHobbit wrote: If you care so little, why are you posting about it? I do think something needs to be done about our school systems though. They are not the least bit equal from one district to the next.

  As I said before the only school district I care about concerning these issues is the one I live in and my kids attend.
  
  I do care about other school districts being forced to bend to some outside power. Be it a federal judge, or thug lawyer making lawsuit threats. That is why I post on this thread.
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  Eric Taylor wrote: If they sent out a Memo on February 5th stating that the date must be of the opposite sex, does this girl really have any legal fight?

  Suppose they sent out a memo stating dates must be of the same race (it happened in a small town in Alabama less than a hundred miles away from this town just a couple of years ago)? Or you cannot bring a date that is not of the same faith (i.e., a Baptist could not bring a Jew) ? The ban on homosexual dates is based on the same religious viewpoint as the latter. Any of these events fifty years ago would have caused far more "distraction from the educational process".
  
  We here in Ohio don't really understand how tightly religion, race, and political power are intertwined in the small-town South - and this is really all about political power. If, as a school board member, you do not fight this issue tooth and nail, you will be roundly defeated in the next election, with a majority of the religious leaders in the area leading the charge. This area of MS/AL is extremely conservative even by Southern standards - it was the very last bastion of legal racial segregation in the country.:-/
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I hate to stereotype, but... It IS Missifreakingssippi!
  
  Kids go to proms in groups all the time. 3 - 7 girls (carload) go to proms together, same with guys.
  
  And, what about the Sadie Hawkins dances? Don't kids dress like the opposite sex in those?
  .........................
  
  As for the sexuality vs. religion at public schools.
  
  I tend to agree that one could be just as offensive to some as the others. TWO points about that:
  
  1. Seeing two women/men slow dancing together is not forcing my own self to be gay.
  2. Seeing/hearing somebody else pray to God is not forcing me to do it also.
• FairwoodKing

  When I was in school, girls danced with each other all the time because they couldn't find boys. If two boys tried dancing together, that would have caused a real stir.
• majorspark

  

  Cat Food Flambe' wrote: Suppose they sent out a memo stating dates must be of the same race (it happened in a small town in Alabama less than a hundred miles away from this town just a couple of years ago)? Or you cannot bring a date that is not of the same faith (i.e., a Baptist could not bring a Jew) ? The ban on homosexual dates is based on the same religious viewpoint as the latter. Any of these events fifty years ago would have caused far more "distraction from the educational process".

  What religion are you talking about? I am not aware of any major organized religious groups in this country that believe skin color, interracial dating, etc are sinful.
  

  Cat Food Flambe' wrote:
  We here in Ohio don't really understand how tightly religion, race, and political power are intertwined in the small-town South - and this is really all about political power. If, as a school board member, you do not fight this issue tooth and nail, you will be roundly defeated in the next election, with a majority of the religious leaders in the area leading the charge. This area of MS/AL is extremely conservative even by Southern standards - it was the very last bastion of legal racial segregation in the country.:-/

  Yep those ingrates in the South. What a bunch of bible thumping racist neanderthals they are. And of course you have no prejudice.
  
  In the school district I attended here in Ohio as late as the 80's we were not permitted to have dances on school property. They used the term Jr/Sr banquet in place of "Prom". Of course many students thought thiis sucked. That changed once I got into high school. But we did not need an order from a federal judge to change the rules. Nor did we need some ACLU thug lawyer to shake us down. The rule changes were dealt with locally over time.
  
  To this day this district allows segregation at the elementary/middle school level based on religious affiliation. Those of this religious affiliation are not required to attend any educational grade higher than middle school. Do I personally think it should change? Yes. Do I want the changes made by a force outside the community? No.
  
  No one outside of this community truly understands the situation better than those that live and grew up here. Because of the way we fund public schools we depend on all voters to work together to meet the needs and belief system that encompasses our community. Levies must be passed to provide a quality education to our children. To get those levies passed it is essential to strike a balance that is accepted by the majority of voters.
  
  We have so many voters sending their children to private schools already. Outside intervention would only drive more there and damage the great education that many are provided with. Most in the community are happy with the balance we have provided. A good quality education and the facilities and staff to support it are available to anyone in the district who chooses to take advantage of them. Even though some of those helping to pay for this quality education will never allow their children to take full advantage of it.
• darbypitcher22

  

  I don't really see the big deal, except this girl is fucked either way. They'll be pissed at her for having the school cancel prom, and if somebody steps up and hosts an outside prom, she'll probably be excluded from that too because from what I've read that's a real conservative town.
  
  On the other hand, I think I'd just like to see what would have happened had they allowed her to show up. If I'm a student at that school I'll be telling the story 20 years later...
  
  "Hey remember that lesbian who brought her girlfriend to prom and CNN and all of the world's media showed up?"
• cbus4life

  When what is going on is outright discrimination, and the local school continues to allow it, then they lose the privilege of setting up this particular rule, and the federal or state government should step in and ensure that it will no longer happen.
  
  I'm all for a community creating rules and guidelines that fit their views, but it is not acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and whether they like it or not, they should be forced to quit acting in this manner.
• krambman

  

  cbus4life wrote:

  Eric Taylor wrote: If they sent out a Memo on February 5th stating that the date must be of the opposite sex, does this girl really have any legal fight?

  Yes. It is discrimination, plain and simple.
  
  I understand majorspark's point, but this case is pretty cut-and-dry. We no longer live in a society where this attitude is acceptable. She was discriminated against based on sexual orientation. That is wrong.
  
  I hope the girl and her parents fight it, take it as far as it needs to go, and demand equal rights in this regard.

  If that is discrimination then a freshman could sue a school for requiring that you have to be a junior or senior to attend a prom for age discrimination, or a student with a significant other who attends another school could sue if the school doesn't allow outside students to attend for discrimination. Honestly, the school probably made the best move. If they deny the girl, they face a lawsuit for the ACLU. If they allow this, then there would likely be an outcry from most of the rest of the parents in the community (this is Mississippi after all). So instead of denying her and facing the ACLU, or allowing her and facing angry community members and likely issues at the dance, they just cancel the whole thing, problem solved. This is the result that has the least negative consequences for the school. Prom is a privilege, not a right.
  
  "We no longer live in a society where this attitude is acceptable. She was discriminated against based on sexual orientation. That is wrong."
  
  You are wrong on this. We do not live in this society you think we do. In every state where the issue of gay marriage has been voted on by the public, it has been voted down, and usually by a large margin. Even progressive California couldn't get Prop 8 passed with multiple tries. We live in a society where the media says that being gay is okay, but where the vast majority of people don't actually feel that way. And she was not discriminated against because of sexual orientation. There was the potential that she would have been had they not let her bring her date, however, since the prom was canceled, there was no discrimination because no students will be attending the prom.
• Con_Alma

  cbus4life wrote: When what is going on is outright discrimination, and the local school continues to allow it, then they lose the privilege of setting up this particular rule, and the federal or state government should step in and ensure that it will no longer happen.
  
  

  Are you saying the school should be forced by the federal government to have prom?
• cbus4life

  The whole "no students got to go so she was not discriminated against" is such a BS argument.
  
  Technically, maybe true, but the fact that they clearly canceled it because of what she wanted to do is proof that she was discriminated against. An event was canceled because of, essentially, who she was.
  
  And, as to the whole "privilege vs. a right" thing. It doesn't have to be a basic right for one to be discriminated against.
  
  And the whole "freshman not being allowed to go" or a "student from another school not being able to go" on the same level as a student not being able to go because of sexual orientation is another BS argument, and simply deflects from the real issue, that her sexual orientation caused an event to be canceled.
  
  And, in some cases, the majority should not be able to discriminate against the minority. Just because the majority voted against gay marriage does not mean it is right to keep it from happening. Hell, in some states, they would have voted against desegregation and numerous other civil rights issues. Thank God we didn't let the majority rule in those cases.
  
  The federal government or at the very least the state government needs to intervene in these sorts of cases.
• cbus4life

  Con_Alma wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: When what is going on is outright discrimination, and the local school continues to allow it, then they lose the privilege of setting up this particular rule, and the federal or state government should step in and ensure that it will no longer happen.
  
  

  Are you saying the school should be forced by the federal government to have prom?

  No, i'm not saying that.
  
  ALLL I AM SAYING is that it was wrong of the school to cancel prom simply because of the fact that a lesbian student was going to attend with her date.
  
  Twist it all you want, talk about how "no one was discriminated against because no one got to go to prom," but the fact remains that unfair actions took place against the student because of her sexual orientation.
  
  I don't know why people don't get that. She was treated differently because of her sexual orientation, and whether or not they canceled prom and no one got to go is beside the point.
  
  Fucking BS that we keep coming back to that and it is only deflecting from the issue that a student was treated unfairly and WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST because of her sexual orientation.
  
  Prom was canceled because she is a lesbian. All the students know that. She now has the feeling that she isn't welcome, that she can't be who she is, and treatment of her by other students is only going to get worse.
  
  Allow her to attend, she would have only been two people amongst a crowd of many. Yes, she would have caused a little bit of a stir, but it would have been forgotten, all the students would have had a great time, and the school board would have set a wonderful example for being accepting and promoting a culture of tolerance.
  
  Instead, they fucked it all up.
• Con_Alma

  I am clear on your position except for what you would like to see the State or Federal Government do. Can you expand on that?
• Al Bundy

  cbus4life wrote:
  
  And the whole "freshman not being allowed to go" or a "student from another school not being able to go" on the same level as a student not being able to go because of sexual orientation is another BS argument, and simply deflects from the real issue, that her sexual orientation caused an event to be canceled.
  

  They didn't say she couldn't go. They said she had to follow the same rules as everyone else. We all have rules that we have to follow every day. We may not like or agree with the rules that an institution sets up, but we have to follow them if we want to be part of activities followed by that institution.
  
  The school probably did the right thing in cancelling the prom. The school doesn't have an obligation to provide social activities to the students. The function of the school is provide education.
• cbus4life

  Con_Alma wrote: I am clear on your position except for what you would like to see the State or Federal Government do. Can you expand on that?

  I'm not sure, to be completely honest.
  
  I mean, i understand majorspark's point about the local community making the decisions and the like.
  
  But, i think we're at the point where these sorts of decisions based on sexual orientation, regardless of the way that the majority seems to be voting, should be handled differently.
  
  I don't know, i really don't know, what the federal government can do, exactly, but do know that the local communities should not be able to OK, essentially, discrimination based on sexual orientation. If there was ever a place for the federal or state government to exercise some power and keep this from happening.
  
  But, thank you for the calm response, i'm having a hard time maintaining a calm composure, because i just can't wrap my head around this view of homosexuals held by this community and others.
  
  Just frustrated as hell.
• majorspark

  

  cbus4life wrote: And the whole "freshman not being allowed to go" or a "student from another school not being able to go" on the same level as a student not being able to go because of sexual orientation is another BS argument, and simply deflects from the real issue, that her sexual orientation caused an event to be canceled.

  
  

  cbus4life wrote: And, in some cases, the majority should not be able to discriminate against the minority. Just because the majority voted against gay marriage does not mean it is right to keep it from happening. Hell, in some states, they would have voted against desegregation and numerous other civil rights issues. Thank God we didn't let the majority rule in those cases.

  You see the contradiction between you two statements. On the one hand a poster brings in an example of age disrimination. You say it deflects from the arguement because it is not on the same level. Then you bring racial discrimination into it. Is this a deflection as well? Racial discrimination is not on the same level as discriminatin based on sexual orientation.
  

  cbus4life wrote: The federal government or at the very least the state government needs to intervene in these sorts of cases.

  Federal law (the defense of marriage act) discriminates via sexual orientaion. So unless the feds want to be hypocritical I would not count on that. They don't have the power to do so. The state of Mississippi does however. But seeing they have a state constitutional ban on gay marriage I would not count on them coming to the rescue either.
• cbus4life

  Al Bundy wrote:

  cbus4life wrote:
  
  And the whole "freshman not being allowed to go" or a "student from another school not being able to go" on the same level as a student not being able to go because of sexual orientation is another BS argument, and simply deflects from the real issue, that her sexual orientation caused an event to be canceled.
  

  They didn't say she couldn't go. They said she had to follow the same rules as everyone else. We all have rules that we have to follow every day. We may not like or agree with the rules that an institution sets up, but we have to follow them if we want to be part of activities followed by that institution.
  
  The school probably did the right thing in cancelling the prom. The school doesn't have an obligation to provide social activities to the students. The function of the school is provide education.

  Except that this rule was discriminatory. I mean, that's like saying that, in the 1950's, it was ok for a black man or woman to be denied entrance to a diner because that was the rule of that diner.
  
  It is discrimination based on who you are. The rule states that you must bring a member of the opposite sex. But, of course a lesbian student isn't going to bring a male date. Therefore, she is denied the ability to attend and bring someone she cares about because of sexual orientation. While other, straight couples are allowed to attend, she is not is not able to attend as a part of a couple.
  
  We're getting into technicalities which are ignoring the large issue that she has been treated differently because of her sexual orientation.
  
  Anyone that thinks this wasn't about her being a lesbian and them not being ok with that and thinking it is immoral are kidding themselves. And that alone is wrong.
  
  Sorry, getting way more into this then i should be, guess i just feel like it should be a simple "the school district was wrong," and move on.
• cbus4life

  majorspark wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: And the whole "freshman not being allowed to go" or a "student from another school not being able to go" on the same level as a student not being able to go because of sexual orientation is another BS argument, and simply deflects from the real issue, that her sexual orientation caused an event to be canceled.

  
  

  cbus4life wrote: And, in some cases, the majority should not be able to discriminate against the minority. Just because the majority voted against gay marriage does not mean it is right to keep it from happening. Hell, in some states, they would have voted against desegregation and numerous other civil rights issues. Thank God we didn't let the majority rule in those cases.

  You see the contradiction between you two statements. On the one hand a poster brings in an example of age disrimination. You say it deflects from the arguement because it is not on the same level. Then you bring racial discrimination into it. Is this a deflection as well? Racial discrimination is not on the same level as discriminatin based on sexual orientation.
  

  cbus4life wrote: The federal government or at the very least the state government needs to intervene in these sorts of cases.

  Federal law (the defense of marriage act) discriminates via sexual orientaion. So unless the feds want to be hypocritical I would not count on that. They don't have the power to do so. The state of Mississippi does however. But seeing they have a state constitutional ban on gay marriage I would not count on them coming to the rescue either.

  Fair enough, understand your points. Guess i did a poor job of trying to make the point that age discrimination, in the high school setting, is not the same as discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, i appreciate pointing that out.
• ts1227

  

  Offers are coming in from all around to host a replacement for this school's prom.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-12-no-prom-mississippi_N.htm
  
  One they mentioned in here is a hotel owner from Louisiana offering to bus the students to one of his properties that is close to the school and have the prom, all of it for free.
  
  The school, realizing they are beyond fucked, hasn't said a word.
• cbus4life

  ts1227 wrote: Offers are coming in from all around to host a replacement for this school's prom.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-12-no-prom-mississippi_N.htm
  
  One they mentioned in here is a hotel owner from Louisiana offering to bus the students to one of his properties that is close to the school and have the prom, all of it for free.
  
  The school, realizing they are beyond fucked, hasn't said a word.

  Very cool.
• tk421

  

  cbus4life wrote:

  ts1227 wrote: Offers are coming in from all around to host a replacement for this school's prom.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-12-no-prom-mississippi_N.htm
  
  One they mentioned in here is a hotel owner from Louisiana offering to bus the students to one of his properties that is close to the school and have the prom, all of it for free.
  
  The school, realizing they are beyond fucked, hasn't said a word.

  Very cool.

  What is sad is that town probably agrees with the school. They'd rather cancel the dance than let a lesbian couple in. I'm so glad I don't live in a southern small town.
• Con_Alma

  ts1227 wrote: Offers are coming in from all around to host a replacement for this school's prom.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-12-no-prom-mississippi_N.htm
  
  One they mentioned in here is a hotel owner from Louisiana offering to bus the students to one of his properties that is close to the school and have the prom, all of it for free.
  
  The school, realizing they are beyond fucked, hasn't said a word.

  How is the school "beyond fucked"??
  
  The schools has nothing to do with the someone elses dance or what they call it. Nothing has changed that I can tell regarding the reason or the decision the school has made. There's really no reason for them to comment.
• ts1227

  

  Their image/perception is quite tarnished.
  
  They are keeping their foot in their mouth so as to not dig the hole any deeper.
• Con_Alma

  There image is no more tarnished by a hotel offering to host the school than if a hotel had not. That announcement and offering hardly put the school in a "beyond fucked" position.
• majorspark

  

  ts1227 wrote: Their image/perception is quite tarnished.
  
  They are keeping their foot in their mouth so as to not dig the hole any deeper.

  The only image they are worried about tarnishing is the one they have with the voters in their district. Doubt they care what people like you or I think.
  
  I see the ACLU thug lawyers are suing them in an attempt to force them to hold a social event. They should have stayed out of it in the first place.