Parents will always have a right to have a prom that anyone may or may not attend, and at the same time have a dance that they can invite anyone they wish to. School officials will also always have a right to have a prom that anyone may or may not attend, while parents sponsor a dance that they can invite anyone they wish to. In this case the school system gave both to the parents to allow all decisions to be made by the parents so as to absolve themselves of any possible liability. Something that we have to remember is that the taxpayers have to pay to fight the case. I think the right decision was made. What if the girl had brought her girlfriend in a tux and a fight resulted? Why ruin the prom for these kids? As Christians, we are told to witness to homosexuals along with everyone else. What we arent obligated to do is to accept their lifestyle. How could allowing these two girls to attend not be seen by God as an acceptance of their lifestyle? People would have to look the other way to avoid a confrontation. From a legal standpoint, is sexual orientation in the laws as far as discrimation goes? I thought gays were trying to get it into the law. Is it in the constitution? The best course for this country to take is to allow the laws to represent God and His Son. Otherwise, we are straying from the path God wants us to take and we dont exactly get rewarded for it. We are not rewarded for allowing anyone here who wants to come here. This country would be better off if the borders were closed. If any of this attitude is unconstitutional then the constitution needs to be changed. Too radical? Christ was radical. He said to give up all and follow Him. The bible says that God will not tolerate man's sin forever. After so many years of doing things that God tells us not to do, including acceptance of homosexuality, we get cut off. Thanks.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see any exclusion for Gay folk ... or for people who make you "uncomfortable."

You might not have to "accept" my "lifestyle" (whatever that is). You might not have to like the fact that your god made me a man who is drawn to other men sexually. But, Clay, at least according to the Consitution, you have to "accept" me as a fellow citizen and, if it came to it, a fellow prom-goer.

That is until you install your Christian Taliban constitution. Then, I guess, you'll stone me.

Clay - No one is saying you have to accept anything. What the law says is you can't discriminate against people. Christ was radical liberal Clay. He ate & associated with sinners against the Jewish law at that time. He advocated forgiveness and loving everyone including those who despise you. I have trouble reconciling that with your comments about rewriting the constitution and closing the border. I also don't remember Christ ever advocating using the civil authority to force the message of salvation into civil law.

With some minor cavils, I agree with what ravensfan has said Clay. Moreover, if you weren't so consumed with finding the sin in others and in trumpeting your own godliness, you might just find out that even we sinners have something to contribute to the glory of creation.

BankStreet, I've been following along for months, and you contribute a well-thought out voice of reason and inclusion. I wish more folks contributed like you.

I don't think this is news until it goes to trial. Of course the defendants deny everything. That's what defendants do. Regardless of whether it was a conspiracy by the Itawamba County School District or a cruel ploy by her classmates it was a disgraceful act.

Those who conspired to hurt her will be condemned to live with their own small minds.

Clay asks: “What if the girl had brought her girlfriend in a tux and a fight resulted?”

The answer is very simple Clay. You arrest the perpetrators for assault and battery just as you do when

“any clown
Decides that now's the time to fight
For some ideal he thinks is right
And if a million more agree
There ain't no Great Society
As it applies to you and me
Our country isn't free
And the law refuses to see....”
(Frank Zappa)

Than you for your kind words, marf.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I have been guilty of "snark," from time to time, but I do try to be ... adult.

No one is ever going to be convinced by something he or she reads on a blog, especially if one holds a belief strongly -- and this is, by definition, a blog peopled by folks with strongly held views. I see my purpose here as presenting a non-theistic perspective (only tangentially, and as relevant, a perspective of a Gay man). That perspective is based on reason, and not emotion (or, you should pardon the expression, mythology). Reason -- at least as I see it -- requires a modicum of respect for an alternative view.

Thanks for hearing me.

I disagree. I believe in stopping fights before they start, especially with one prom in a lifetime for the kids. I believe that homosexuals are trying to get sexual orientation into the laws and it isnt, nor is it in the constitution. I also agree that Christ accepts all of us. It is clear though that He will not accept all into His kingdom. The bible makes it clear that God will not strive with man forever. To not emphasize this is to do an injustice to all, including homosexuals. Thanks for your comments.

You are correct, Clay. Gay folk have no special section in the Constitution (no "special rights). Nor do blondes, car mechanics, retired school teachers, and Christians. If you read the 14th Amendment (again), you will see that all are equal and none is to have his/her rights abridged. Those rights include the right of free association. You are free to NOT associate with me; you are not free to keep me isolated, invisible, and silent. Seems like that covers the issue of the "sham prom."

Clay, who exactly would be the ones picking the fights? Surely not Christians, who know Christ told them that those who live by the sword die by it. So then, who? The lesbians? No reason for them to fight -- they are there to dance and celebrate their prom.
I'm guessing the ones you imagine starting a fight are fired up with hate and not love. Is that the fight you're imagining?

Clay, this case has nothing to do with whether or not the prom should be gay inclusive. The federal court had already decided on March 23 in favor of Ms. McMillen on the issue of discrimination. Though a compromise was reached. Their decision was predicated that the parents would sponsor a prom that would be open to all students and that “the Court cannot go into the business of planning and overseeing a prom.”

The case now before the court concerns the issue of whether members of the Itawamba County School District conspired to stage the sham prom. Clearly if it was the school board are at fault then there will be deeper pockets to sue than if it was a group of parents. It is not an issue if it was wrong Clay. It is an issue of who wronged her.

Since all of the bad actors were clowns we can't tell who's to blame in a line-up. We have to wipe off the grease paint first!

We can never cover what God wants with any discussion of anyone's rights, laws or courts. It doesnt work. If we follow God then the laws not only would not matter but wouldnt be necessary. So the right direction to take is to look at God's word and attempt to follow it. Thanks.

So, Clay...

Can we get a straight (you should pardon the expression) answer out of you? Would the school board in this case have been justified in creating a "sham" prom for the purpose of isolating this Lesbian couple from the "real" prom?

Apparently not. I'm hardly surprised.

For Clay, issues of fairness, kindness, and basic decency toward children are trumped by strict adherence to his notions of divine judgment.

If the school board wanted to create a prom in addition to what some of the parents decided to do they are absolutely justified in doing it. Otherwise, there would have been no official prom. It is up to the students to decide where they want to go. Obviously the bulk of them decided that they did not want to share the dance with a lesbian couple. We have every right to decide this, and parents have a right to decide this for their kids, just as they have a right to decide to go to the dance with the lesbian couple there. It was their choice. Should the school board call off any prom that most of the students decide not to go to for one reason or another? If many students decide to boycott the prom for any reason, should the school board call it off? Doesnt that take the prom away for the students who still want to attend? How many students have to decide not to attend before the board should decide to call it off? What we should do is to not get angry when people decide that they dont want to associate with us, majority or minority of them. Christians get discriminated against all the time. What witnesses would we be if we allow it to get us angry? Thanks.

Clay,

Read the story again. The "official" prom was the one that the Lesbian couple attended. Its existence was never in jeopardy. It is alleged that the Superintendent, his attorney, and a number of parents created an alternative prom, specifically to exclude (and delude) this one couple.

Maybe they should create a "whites-only" alternative prom. Wouldn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, would we? Oh...except maybe those Black kids at the "offical" prom, but hey....

And what I said was if anyone wants to create a dance to avoid conflict with a couple whom others dont want to be with they have that right to do it. I dont think that it would be right for racial purposes but ok in this case. Why? Because God doesnt want us to refuse to hang with people because of their race, but specifically condemns homosexuality. Sure we are supposed to love and witness to homosexuals, but we do not have to associate with them to the extent that we are seen as giving approval of their behavior. It is no different if parents didnt want their kids going to a prom where alcohol was being served to minors or one where drugs were being used with no one doing anything about it. If God doesnt want us to do these things, we have a right not to attend, regardless of what any law says.

Clay - The issue here is did Superintendent Teresa McNeece and Attorney Michele Floyd conspire with parents to organize a competing prom. That is not the same a group of parents holding create a dance avoid conflict with a couple whom others don’t want to be with. If that is what happened here then the ACLU has a case and should win.

Yes, Clay you (or your kids)have a right not to attend a prom at which you might have to confront reality, but I'm not sure you can (legally, ethically, morally) expect your County Superintendent to arrange an alternative prom for your comfort .... while leaving the paraiah couple to slow dance elsewhere.

If you (or your kids) can't handle basic human kindness and fellowship for one evening, then -- yes -- you are entirely free to stay home ... or even have a party with your equally narrow-minded friends. Just don't expect the Superintendent to set up your private shindig.

And, Clay, how many short years have passed since Genesis 9:20 might well have been employed to justify a separate prom for white kids, along with justifying a lot of ugly things Christians now either ignore or pretend to forget? Your god (and especially you Christians) work in mysterious ways, your wonders to perform.

If the superintendent and the attorney helped parents to set up the dance, they have every right to do so. If the school prom was still held the aclu probably wont win the case. In my opinion, the regular prom should have been the only dance held but officials should have kept the lesbian couple out of the prom if they didnt have guys for dates and if they werent dressed like women. I hope that clears up how people should feel about this case. If people dont feel that way, it hurts all of us. People think that Carrie Prejean has no right to say that she thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It goes to show how far we have gotten away from what God desires us to do. Thanks.

"U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled in March that the district had violated McMillen's rights, but he didn't force the district to reinstate the prom. District officials had told the judge that McMillen was free to attend a parent-sponsored prom."
Clay - The school officials do not have the right get involved based on original case. The court already ruled the regular prom couldn't discriminate against the lesbian couple. What you fail to or refuse to understand is that the US is a secular nation comprised of people of various faiths and even no faith. The government and its institutions represents us all not just Christians. If the school officials did what they are accused of they basically lied to the judge.

Clay, my question to you goes beyond issues of rights and court rulings. Do you really believe that what the Superintendent did was moral? That is (and I know I'm leading you here), don't you think that what she (and Attorney Floyd) did was cruel? Does your notion of your god's judgment really permit two young women (girls, really) to be so ostracized and made to look and feel so foolish and outcast by people in authority, indeed by people officially charged with their welfare?

Some time ago, in another context, it was suggested that I, as an unbeliever, had no moral "framework," that without religion, I was devoid of a sense of right and wrong. I know what the Superintendent and Attorney did was wrong. Surely you do, as well.

I am giving you a chance here to demonstrate that your Christianity is as much about love as it is about judgment.

What these two should have done is to stand up and say that since God doesnt support homosexuality, they werent going to allow this to happen at the prom and that these two werent going to be allowed in. They could have also had a preacher there to witness to these two. That would have been the proper thing to do. Unfortunately, the law doesnt allow for this and they wanted to hold onto their jobs to pay their bills and feed their families while at the same time avoiding a fight at the prom. Maybe it wasnt the best decision, but they are still employed. Many times people put
themselves ahead of others, including the two girls. If they had really cared about the mess it was creating and wanted to avoid conflict, they would have refrained from going to begin with. Most guys who go to gay bars have no desire at all to go to a straight bar and create conflict. They are happy with who they are with and where they are. If the two girls had felt the same, this all wouldnt have happened.

Clay, would you be so kind as to point out for us the bible verses that tell us to "witness" to lesbians and where it says a girl should not wear a tuxedo?

Clay,

Last time I checked, god didn't support divorce, public prayers, or war. But somehow I think you'd be just fine with re-married folk, a loud invocation, and the Junior ROTC at the prom. Am I right?

Clay the mess was created by religious zealots like you who lack compassion or empathy. Why would any Christians cause a fight at the prom? We are supposed to turn the other cheek. Maybe all those zealots like you should have acted more like Christ who said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You seem to be casting a lot of stones and I kind of doubt you are with out sin.

The problem was caused by two people who arent religious who think that what they want takes precedence over the majority who also arent religious. Of course the bible says to spread the word and to turn the other cheek. It also says that we are not supposed to accept disobedient behavior to the extent that we appear as approving of it. Thats why God wanted Lot to get out of Sodom. He didnt say to stay and have a few drinks of wine first.

As the biblical story of Lot comes to a close, Clay, we find Lot holed up in a cave in the mountains. Here our holy man was in a drunken stupor having sex with his daughters. Somehow I miss how Lot becomes your model of sexual morality. That said, the angels that appeared at Sodom might be analogous to Constance and her girlfriend. Similarly they seemed strange to the brutish and cruel people of the town. Similarly the townsfolk sought to abuse them.

From where do you get the idea that Constance and her girlfriend are not religious people? I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

The problem was caused by religious Clay they are the ones who wanted to exclude them. God said avoid sin and sinners not deny them. That puts the onus on you to avoid them. God also didn't say interfer in what the people of Sodom did either. he took care of that.

I havent heard religion mentioned on any side of this debate by people involved. Maybe the people who didnt want to associate with these girls were religious, maybe not. It doesnt seem likely that someone who wanted to proudly show the class their sin was very religious. Anon you said that God said to avoid sin and sinners, not deny them. That seems to be exactly what happened. They werent denied the opportunity to go to the prom, and most others avoided them. And just because Lot sinned doesnt mean that God didnt disapprove of what was going on in Sodom. Two wrongs never make a right. Thanks.

Clay, you keep accusing these girls of sin. What sin is it that you are so sure that they have committed?

Is it because Constance wears slacks??

There is nothing about girls wearing slacks or tuxedo's in my bible. Nor is there anything about lesbians. You are the one making these accusations Clay. Now support your accusations.

There is plenty in the bible about God's disapproval of homosexuality. To attempt to hold it down to slacks or female homosexuality and believe it may be ok is ridiculous.

Clay - I kind of doubt any secual acts heterosexual or homosexual were going to occur at the prom. Are you suggesting it was ok to exclude her because of something she may have done or could do in the future? Maybe you should let God be the judge.

Clay,

The New Testament rails about cruelty, greed, financial inequity, violence, and war ... and yet you seem fixated on sexual sin. Why is this?

And why do you so easily dismiss the fact that scripture omits any condemnation of sexual love between women ... when you so confidently cite scriptural justification for other sexual "sins"? Is it that you are operating with your own "interpretation" of the Word? If that is so, what keeps others from interpreting as well?

Clay are saying that those who opposed it were not religious? I kind of doubt they were atheist myself. She was denied and had the sue to get the prom reinstated only to have the school and parents pull a fast one and stage a second prom to do what they tried to do exclude her. They even gloated and bragged about it. I never mentioned Lot sinning. I said that God didn't tell Lot to do anything about it. He handled it.

BankStreet is right Clay. Your fundamentalist view of the bible depends on a handful of phrases that refer to m2m sex. But now you claim you need no scripture to condemn these two teenagers. Through some magical formula we're supposed to extrapolate that God meant to include lesbians as well.

That's just plain silly Clay. The bible is always clear about about gender and gender roles. You are confusing your own, personal, disapproval of lesbian schoolgirls with the opinion of God. That's arrogant.

I mentioned homosexuality because thats what this post is about. I dont think that these girls were going to commit some act. I have said several times here that the bible teaches us to not accept behavior that He forbids. These people didnt want to be associated with it. I doubt that it was because of their religious attitudes. For some perhaps yes. In any case they did what scripture tells us to do. I am not supposed to hang out in a gay bar unless I am trying to witness. Yes the girls should be loved and witnessed to, but by allowing them to do what they wanted to do you are putting a stamp of approval on what God says not to do. After how he created Adam and Eve and says that a man shall be joined to his wife and then for someone to say that female homosexuality is ok because He didnt mention two women is nothing but an excuse to do what God tells us not to. These comments are showing lack of faith and are silly. God doesnt tell us not to watch "South Park" either, but it doesnt praise God. He tells us that it is either Godly or it is of the world. There is no inbetween. Thanks.

So can't crossdressing young girls worship God Clay?

Joan of Arc did! Would you tell nineteen year old Joan that she couldn't wear her suit of armor to a party?

How is this thread about homosexuality Clay?

It is about some very cruel adults playing a nasty trick on a girl because of her choice of clothes. Nobody ever said she couldn't go to the party because she was a lesbian. The issue was always her choice of clothes. You focus on her orientation because you don't like gay people.

Come on down to the Hippo Clay and I'll help you get over yourself.