Judge won't force Miss. district to hold prom

Yahoo News ^ | 23 March 2010 | SHELIA BYRD

[RabidBartender]

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Mississippi school district violated a lesbian student's rights by refusing to allow her to bring her girlfriend to the prom, but he said he would not force the school to hold the event.

[OldDeckHand]

"Why do you invariably evade when someone asks you a direct question?"

You didn't ask me a question, you issued a statement. I believe that statement was "you're full of it".

Considering my position is EXACTLY THE SAME as the presiding judge's, I'd say if anyone's full of it, it's you.

[steve86]

Any opinion issued by a conservative-appointed judge is automatically correct? Really?

[OldDeckHand]

"Any opinion issued by a conservative-appointed judge is automatically correct? Really?"

I don't believe I said that. If you wish to have an argument on that topic, I suggest you start with yourself, as you seem to be very capable of a straw man dance.

If you read the opinion, assuming you have just a rudimentary understanding of law, you'd know that there's nothing in this ruling that is REMOTELY divergent from established precedent and relevant law. The case law - as was cited in the order - is clear with respect to the law that the judge had to follow.

If you'd taken the time to read the appropriate citations, before you told me "you're full of it", you might understand that this. Again, assuming that such principles of jurisprudence are within your intellectual grasp.

Or, you can continue to fire from the hip, and embarrass yourself.

[bereanway]

And yet, some people wish to extend their religious beliefs to create a prohibition of two people of the same sex attending a school event as a couple. How about that?

Who said anything about the extension of religious beliefs in this situation. I certainly didn't. You're the one who interjected religion with the exclusion of non-Christians in a pointless hypothetical so I followed with an analogy where religious exclusion makes sense. Just as the exclusion of a homosexual couple at an explicitly heterosexual function makes sense irrespective of religion.

Are you familiar with any public schools serving Communion? I'm certainly not. I used the religious "test" in my hypothetical because the freedom to assemble and the freedom to express yourself happen to be found in the very same amendment as the freedom of religion. Again, how about that?

I doubt very much if the courts would like a public school serving communion so I'm guessing that's not happening anywhere. Your mixing apples and oranges. The intent and function of the prom has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with gender distinction. The intent of the plaintiff was to "communicate a message" which had clearly been communicated from 8th grade onward. She attempted to use a forum which clearly was inappropriate by its very design and history.

He didn't attempt anything, he succeeded. If you read the text of his order, including the cases he cited and you had a working knowledge of the constitution, you would understand that he did the only thing a District Court judge could do - he applied the law as it exists. Perhaps you would prefer that he ignore precedent and legislate from the bench?

Sadly, I can't argue the point that he's succeeded. He has gutted the intent and tradition of prom night by allowing it to be turned into an unnecessary, self-centered exhibition all for the sake of her ability to "express her identity". As if the poor child had no other options.

Prom is an "inappropriate venue" to bring the person you're dating? That's some tortured logic, I'll give you that. Would you prefer students bring their mothers and fathers rather than their dates?

ROTFL....You really have a problem understanding gender distinction and several millenia of western values concerning morality and ethics don't you? ANd no, the thought of her taking her mom and dad really hadn't crossed my mind. LOL

You want this woman to live with the confines of your religious beliefs. Precisely how is that a free republic?

Yeah, that it's inappropriate to make a mockery of a particular tradition in clear violation of millenia of traditional western thought is forcing this woman to live within the confines of my religious beliefs. Again, that's really really funny and just a bit dramatic. While in actuality she's intent on shoving her distorted views of sexulaity down everyone's throat in the most dramatic fashion possible. .

[OldDeckHand]

"Just as the exclusion of a homosexual couple at an explicitly heterosexual function makes sense irrespective of religion. "

To be clear, you believe that "prom" is an "explicitly heterosexual function"?

"He has gutted the intent and tradition of prom night by allowing it to be turned into an unnecessary, self-centered exhibition all for the sake of her ability to "express her identity"."

Nope. He followed the law. The only think a district judge could or should do. You, apparently, would have him ignore the law to conform to you're own personal religious beliefs.

Luckily, the Constitution does end with the sentence, "always applicable except in instances where it offends beranway.

[antceecee]

I think this is a ‘test’ case for the lesbo recruitment cause. Had the school just ignored her and short of arriving stark naked for the prom allowed her to attend with whomever... the wind would have been sucked from the sails of this definitely fabricated incident/story. The fact is that students are attending proms displaying perverse relationships and behavior all over this country and have been for many years.
Teens love to test the waters and challenge authority. This girl who is most likely experimenting with a lifestyle will now be permanently indoctrinated in same due to the introduction of monies given to her by Ellen De Generes.
Had everyone yawned and looked the other way, she would have gone to prom.... on to college...experimented some more and then maybe, hopefully come back to reality.

[IronJack]

Brown has become the touchstone for “public accommodation” law. It has been used to force open the doors to not just public institutions such as schools and parks but private enterprises that serve the public at large. And it has (predictably) been extended to force landlords, for example, to rent to homosexuals, regardless of the religious beliefs of the landlords.

Broad reach for a precedent based entirely on the specious axiom that “separate is inherently unequal.”

[IronJack]

If “my own values” don’t apply to public institutions, then why do the values of lesbians apply there? In a public venue where the values of a minority confront the values of a majority, why do the minority values triumph? Using a utilitarian argument, wouldn’t the greater good be served by respecting the majority at the nominal expense of the minority? If you’re going to offend someone, why not make it the least egregious offense against the smallest number?

[MrRobertPlant2009]

And how many senior boys will graduate virgins because of this?

Will no one please think of the children?

[MrRobertPlant2009]

I’m sorry. But the idea that something is too immoral for senior prom is just laughable to me. My prom was 1992, and I knew couples who had booked hotel rooms for the night. I was a good kid; I only had a tiny flask in my tux.

I also want to know if it is okay for cubby band chicks to go to the prom together as they have done for generations.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I am disappointed that you have decided that the truth of your opinion is self-evident and doesn't require argument. The idea that I would need "three extra years to devout (sic) to law school" is an evasion, since, manifestly, there are trained lawyers on both sides of the question, and it is not, as you acknowledged, a matter of settled law.

Even with a USSC decision, many people would not consider it "settled." Free people, including ---one would hope ---FReepers, would not then conclude that it is Holy Writ and beyond debate. If all questions of culture, custom and gender are to be settled by the Federal courts, we are, in this Year of Our Ford, much closer to the end than I had thought.

[MBB1984]

Obviously, we have different standards. I, and I believe the Christian majority of north Mississippi, would view a flagrant act of transvestism far more disruptive and offensive than ladies’ trousers or moderately risque attire.

[wardaddy]

I didn’t even bother to look.

Matt constantly tells me to quit trying to change the minds of social moderates-libs here.

greetings

ps: I’m sure the founders had dyke dates at proms in mind when they wrote the Constitution which gave most rights only to folks (men) who made literal contributions to the maintenance of the government they were implementing.

[trisham]

Even with a USSC decision, many people would not consider it "settled." Free people, including ---one would hope ---FReepers, would not then conclude that it is Holy Writ and beyond debate. If all questions of culture, custom and gender are to be settled by the Federal courts, we are, in this Year of Our Ford, much closer to the end than I had thought.

***************************

You got that right.

[OldDeckHand]

"I am disappointed that you have decided that the truth of your opinion is self-evident and doesn't require argument"

I am disappointed that you have taken a moment to read the decision. It's not my opnion, it's the judges. Let's be clear about that.

As for "his evidence", the evidence is found in the citations present in the judges order. If you read the order, you will find that the judge ruled the only way he could.

District Court judges are appointed to follow the law, not make. You, apparently, would have this jurist ignore stare decisis, and rule as he please. You would find solidarity in that activist perspective with the wingnuts on the left.

The judge was bound by the principle of stare decisis. He was also obligated to follow the binding precedent established by his own 5th Circuit, as well as any lateral district court decisions contained within that circuit. The judge cites a number of cases, some identical to this one and in his own Circuit, that held for the plaintiff.

If you want "evidence" of the legal justification for the judge's order, I'd start with the order itself.

[OldDeckHand]

"Broad reach for a precedent based entirely on the specious axiom that “separate is inherently unequal.”"

Or, so would argue the Klan.

Men are judged by the company they keep. Just saying.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Newsflash: Highschoolers like to test the boundaries! A kid that hasn't tried the Pink Triangle gambit is is probably just a little substandard, TeenRebel-wise. (Oh goodness, leafing through my back pages..)

Your idea of deflating the Looming Lesbian Confrontation by giving it a "ho-hum" might have worked. True. But if you do that, expect the challenges going further and further every year.

• How else can we express our transgressive groove? Regalia that signifies pimp'n'ho? Bondage/discipline? Sadomasochism?
• How low can the boys' pants be? Halfway down the buttocks? Down to the public hair?
• How low can the necklines be? A thrilling micron of nipple? The Full Jackson?
• How much frottage on the dance floor? Just short of penetration?

As I say, a yawn might have been just right. But on the other hand, drawing a line and holding it may be the best way to discourage tedious ---repeated --- incessant --- even expensive, lawyer-sponsored --- adolescent gaming.

[MEGoody]

"The court finds this expression and communication falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment," Davidson said.

Quite possibly. But that does not mean the school system has to sponsor an event for her to "express" herself. If she is so adamant that a prom is the only place she can do it, then she should pay for and host it herself.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, don't misunderstand me. I was expecting your argument. The court's argument is obviously unpersuasive to many, which is why this is what we around here call a "controversy."

If the judge's determination can't be disputed, there's no point in having a forum at Free Republic. We could just post the Rulings, bow our heads to the Rulers, and declare ourselves content to be Ruled.

Mine at #117.

Now I'm out for the day. Ta!

[OldDeckHand]

"I was expecting your argument."

My argument is that district court jurists should follow the established law, not make it. The established law was clear to anyone with even a remedial understanding of the case.