Lesbian teen back at Miss. school after prom flap

JACKSON, Miss. – An 18-year-old Mississippi lesbian student whose school district canceled her senior prom rather than allow her to escort her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo said she got some unfriendly looks from classmates when she reluctantly returned to campus Thursday.

Constance McMillen said she didn't want to go back the day after the Itawamba County school board's decision, but her father told her she needed to face her classmates, teachers and school officials.

"My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am," McMillen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "The fact that this will help people later on, that's what's helping me to go on."

The district announced Wednesday it wouldn't host the April 2 prom. The decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union told officials a policy banning same-sex prom dates violated students' rights. The ACLU said the district not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her free expression rights.

McMillen said she felt some hostility toward her on the Itawamba County Agricultural High School campus.

The school board issued a statement announcing it wouldn't host the event in Fulton, "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."

The statement didn't mention McMillen or the ACLU. When asked by the AP if McMillen's demand led to the cancellation, school board attorney Michele Floyd said she could only reference the statement.

“It appears that you are a bit confused over who is the ultimate judge...”

Actually, it was you who attempted to outline for me what was an “abomination” and what was not.

“Why do you defend the homosexual lifestyle like you do?”

I have never defended the homosexual lifestyle, but I will defend any American who wishes to lead their private life, as long as it is legal, as they wish.

The other ones are attorneys, engineers, teachers, programmers etc and all contribute to the society and their community.

However, I am against gay marriage, but I understand that they current the current gay marriage bans may soon fall in the SCOTUS based on the Equal Protection Clause.

I knew girls who went to the Prom in a group. Is this the equivalent of polygamy?

Thanks for the question. After seeing your username, I had to see if Robert Plant was still alive, or like so many other rock n rollers, OD'ed. It appears that his sexual exploits and intense partying lifestyle got to him, as in 1975 his hedonistic lifestyle came to a reality when a terrible automobile accident that seriously injured him and his wife caused him to re-think his entire world view. (Take after your mentor MRP2009, "re-think your world view").

To answer your question: while polygamy is undoubtedly on the minds of the radical gay lesbian bisexual transgender movement once they've sliiiiithered into the institution of marriage (why wouldn't it be, anonymous sex with HUNDREDS of different partners is part of their "identity"), I would hardly call a group of teenagers going to a social event a "polygamous act".

I have never defended the homosexual lifestyle, but I will defend any American who wishes to lead their private life, as long as it is legal, as they wish.

And yes, I do have friends, relatives and associates that are gay and lesbian and most of them are fine upstanding citizens. In fact, my brother-in-law who is a pedetrartraic surgeon and happens to be gay, spent a month a Haiti saving lives. The other ones are attorneys, engineers, teachers, programmers etc and all contribute to the society and their community.

You just did (in ALL aspects of society).

So tell me, if your brother-in-law happened to be a drug addict, would you support the drug culture? How about he if had an adulterous affair with one or numerous women, would you support adultery? How about incest? If he had a "consensual" incestuous affair with his grown daughter, would you support incest?

However, I am against gay marriage, but I understand that they current the current gay marriage bans may soon fall in the SCOTUS based on the Equal Protection Clause.

Oh boy, do you EVER have my respect now! (sarrrrrrrcasssm).

Newsflash: Homosexuality, including homosexual marriage, was banned long ago: it's called "The God Clause".

So, it is your view that gays cannot be contributing members of society?

Oh, they "contribute" plenty: death, disease, misery, ATHEISM.

If that is the case, I imagine that you would want to banish my gay brother in law from society and take his place at his hospital and venture off to disaster zones when lives need to be saved.

Let's just hope that your brother-in-law didn't give blood while over in Haiti. Being that homosexual males are 50 (FIFTY) times more likely to be HIV infected than any other group, he'd end up ending more lives than he'd be saving. As a matter of fact, males that have sex with males are PROHIBITED from giving blood by all world blood donating organizations because of the AIDS/HIV threat involved.

If you really wanted to do your brother-in-law (and more importantly society) a favor, you'd show him that his chosen lifestyle is not only immoral in the eyes of God, but harmful to society (homosexuality is "a lifestyle that every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral and destructive from a spiritual and emotional -- and certainly a physical standpoint.").

It's called "tough love".

And could you please cite the God Clause is the Constitution?

We both know that the Constitution was (mistakenly) written as a secular document for a Christian nation. In the Constitution there is no mention of God; in practically every other writings of the Founding Fathers, they acknowledge Him as the Supreme Ruler of our great Christian nation:

"With the exception of Rhode Island, every early American colony incorporated the entire Decalogue into its own civil code of laws. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.” Also in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted “all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24. 3, 4; 2 Chron. II. 3; 2 Kings. II. 17.”

Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty.

The civil laws enacted to uphold the Fourth Commandment are so common that to list them all would fill many volumes. We don’t have to go any further than the United States Constitution in Article I, Sec. 7, par. 2: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.” The President is given ten days to make his decision about a congressionally approved Bill, but not calculated in those ten days is Sunday.

Commandments five through ten have variously been incorporated into our legal codes. A1934 Louisiana appeals court cited the fifth commandment as the basis of civil policy between parents and children.

The implications of the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal,” finds various applications.

The ninth commandment prohibits “bearing false witness.” Laws against perjury in America go back to the colonial era and are still enforced today.

While there are no civil sanctions attached to the Tenth Commandment, you can see how it influences the other nine. John Adams, our nation’s second President, said it well: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Would you like me to quote which states had sodomy laws (as mentioned, "The God Clause" finds sodomy to be an "abomination") up until somewhat recently? (all of them).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.