Constance McMillen Photo: AP
Posted on 04/07/2010 7:56:09 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Disappointment as US high school students snub 'lesbian-friendly prom'
Senior prom fell far short of the rite of passage Constance McMillen was hoping for when she began a legal battle to challenge a ban on same-sex dates.
Published: 7:00AM BST 07 Apr 2010
Constance McMillen Photo: AP
The 18-year-old lesbian student said that she was one of only seven students to show up at a private party chaperoned by school officials. She said the rest of her peers went to another private event where she wasn't invited.
"It was not the prom I imagined," she said. "It really hurts my feelings. These are still people who I've gone through school with, even teachers who loved me before this all started. I've never been a bad student and I don't feel like I deserve to be put through this."
Her case drew a national spotlight after she and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged an Itawamba County School District rule that banned same-sex prom dates and a requirement that only male students wear tuxedos. Proms are parties held for students, generally in their senior year in high school.
The ACLU sent a demand letter to Superintendent Teresa McNeece in February, saying the rules against same-sex prom dates and girls wearing tuxedos violated Miss McMillen's constitutional rights. The district responded by withdrawing its sponsorship and cancelling the April 2 event.
In an apparent compromise, school district officials said parents would organise a private event with school chaperones that Miss McMillen could attend.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
This is discrimination based on behavior of which I am a strong proponent. Based on one of the letters from the students, the behavior they didn't like was “its all about me.......”
There is an element of liberalism in your statement that all people had to be invited and treated equally. Freedom to associate trumps. You are starting to wander off the reservation.................
These were the liberal kids who showed up, thinking the whole school would join them there in embracing her activism.
Again where is the proof that the other kids weren’t invited?
This girl caused a lot of problems for the other seniors. A lot of people bent over backwards to accommodate this spoiled attention seeking brat and she failed to follow the rules on more than one occasion.
The first private parent sponsored prom was canceled because this girl failed to purchase the required tickets to attend before the deadline. Those parents were afraid of being sued so they canceled the first alternate private prom. There were a few parents who then went on to plan a second prom for this girl who didn’t even arrive until an hour and a half after it started. Perhaps the kids that did attend the official high school prom are the children of the few parents who went out of their way to placate this selfish attention seeking brat.
You forget that this event was also the other students senior prom that they had looked forward to for a long time too. The KIDS had just had enough of her attention seeking drama crap and wanted to have their senior prom drama free.
In this country we are still allowed the right to freely associate with whomever we want. Considering how things are going you better be thankful that there are still a group of young adults who are able to think for themselves and then take a stand against being forced to cow tow to the ACLU.
>> to label UNchristian anyone who doesn’t invite the entirety of any group to any function is beyond judgmental.
I didn’t label anyone “unChristian”, and certainly didn’t issue judgment on whether people are “Christian enough”. I said I thought the response was wrong given my understanding of Christ’s ministry.
>> so you are comfortable being seen as saying, “well it’s ok for the REST OF YOU HEATHENS to behave like that but I, for one, in all of my Christian sanctimony, would never raise MY children to behave thusly.”
Good grief. Come off it. I never claimed sanctimony or “holier-than-thou”ness. I never called anyone a “heathen” or inferred it in the least. I never decried the way anyone else was raising their kids — though how I am raising mine was referred to a time or two (i.e. “remind me not to let my kids associate with your kids” — Post 49).
I simply stated what I believe the appropriate response to the situation is/was given a Christian moral foundation. I even admitted outright that I’ve been wrong before, and did not rule out the possibility that I was wrong here.
Believe it or not Christians can disagree about the right course, or even the Biblical course, without believing that their opinion is necessarily the final word of God, without claiming personally holiness or sanctimony, and without necessarily believing those that disagree are unChristian.
SnakeDoc
One last ministering gesture, no matter how futile it may be foreseen to be. That’s how Snakey has been pressed into putting it.
What part of private do you not comprehend? The right of free association was at play here. The girl sued stating that her right of free expression was discriminated against and won. So the students who had enough of her crap used their first amendment right of free association when they had a PRIVATE party.
if i understand Snakedoc properly, you are free to associate with whomever you want, LEGALLY, but, MORALLY, you are not a proper CHRISTIAN if you exclude anyone from a given group. Because failure to invite someone=ostracization=mean=Unchristian.
Note that Snakey talks about how he’d want his children to act, yet you can’t talk about how you’d want your children to interact with those.
>Let’s see, you go to court to force your will on your classmates, and then get all hurt when they throw their own private party and don’t invite you?
Typical lib.
**
BINGO!!
you have fairly categorically stated on this thread that the failure to include every last one of them is APPALLING and WRONG and MEAN, not really Christian. you have miscast the facts to fit with that judgment, despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly that you have no proof of the assumptions you were making. i don’t want to rag on you, but you have dug in on this and while you didn’t SAY any of the things i imputed to you, all of those things were insinuated by what you did say. just pointing out to you how it comes across. the clear inference to be drawn from your statements is that those of us who disagree with your stand are less Christian than you.
ask about the parents.
who were these six parents?
one was the “date” so that leaves five.
did any of those five has single parent homsosexuals raising them?
two were disabled, so it is the same as the above question PLUS did their guardian(s) have any communication with the other parents.
either way the ACLU would have to sue every child, every parent AND establish a government action.
Obama wants single payer mandatory. Will the homosexuals want mandatory single prom?
It appears that way.
Is that you, sinkspur? ;-)
If you've been a member since September 1997 (actually, Jim didn't mark our FR handles as "registered" till December 1997), you would know that this is a classic Leftist political op.
And, as usual, the WRONG question is being asked and answered. As we saw with Clinton "it's just about sex" - not about the felonies of perjury, obstruction & witness tampering.
With Ms. McMillen, the subject is being changed to "ostracism" by "wrong-thinking students, parents, and school board officials".
However, it IS just about sex, this time. To wit: What did the ACLU & the LGBT alliance know, and when did they know it?
Who was tapping McMillen in the eighth grade, when she was a MAJOR minor?
It speaks volumes that you don't seem to be interested in the answer to that question...
“OK — we know why they didn’t invite this particular girl. What about the other six?”
You are right. We do not know about the other six. I do not believe that ALL the special needs students were not invited to the private “drama free” prom. Some children who are “special needs” you would not want your children - Christian or not - to socialize with.
Believe it or not, one special need student had an IEP which recognized he would masterbate in class. Teachers had to manage the classroom with this problem in mind. Another behavior student had an explosive temper when told, “no”. Want him asking your daughter to dance. Oh yeah, explosive temper was part of his “qualifying condition” and in the IEP which did not allow expulsion. If he decked the brains out of someone, he remained on campus. He would be placed out of the mainstream classroom where the conflict took place and put out in the behavior unit for that period.
Proms are Juniors and Seniors. It appears to me if only eight students were not at the private prom, it was not a matter of not inviting only the popular kids. I seriously doubt that ALL special needs children were eliminated from the private prom - just those who created drama.
BUMP to comment 21
>> This is discrimination based on behavior of which I am a strong proponent. Based on one of the letters from the students, the behavior they didn’t like was “its all about me.......”
I agree with you in that regard. Discrimination based on behavior is absolutely fine — Biblically and morally. However, if she obeyed the rules of the party, I see no reason she couldn’t have attended. The party was for the entire senior class (except a few). If she refused to obey those rules — i.e. her behavior departed from the acceptable (like showing up in her underwear ... to borrow your example) — they would’ve been fine in ejecting her from the party.
>> There is an element of liberalism in your statement that all people had to be invited and treated equally. Freedom to associate trumps.
Freedom of association is a legal concept ... this is a moral discussion. There is a distinction. I have no legal objection to their behavior — they are free to associate with whomever.
As an example ... I believe that people have the legal right to exclude people of another race from private gatherings. I also believe that exclusion based solely on race is a moral wrong. (I do not believe race and homosexuality are comparable ... this is just an example of how legality and morality are not synonymous in discussions of the freedom of association).
Freedom of association only trumps in legal arguments.
I believe Constance’s behavior to be morally deplorable (both with regard to her sexual choices and her selfish handling of the situation). I do not believe she had the right to be invited. I do not believe she has cause to complain for not being invited. I believe wholeheartedly that she brought much of this on herself.
I also believe that graciousness would’ve been a better choice for those that threw the private party — they should’ve invited her to participate provided she obeyed the rules of the party.
>> You are starting to wander off the reservation
I wasn’t aware there was a reservation I was required to stay on. I didn’t sign up for that. I am an individual with my own thoughts. Groupthink isn’t a good thing.
SnakeDoc
goes with my theory that there is a age hack somehow for FR site code.
I think it is apparent that Constance was disliked because she was a jerk. I had nothing to do with her recreational sex behavior. (note how they constantly point out she is 18)
There is no constitutional obligation to suffer fools gladly.
The earliest handle I can recall is “ThePatriot1776”. Actually ... on second check, it may be September 1998. I’ll have to change that.
I don’t know “sinkspur”.
>> Who was tapping McMillen in the eighth grade, when she was a MAJOR minor? It speaks volumes that you don’t seem to be interested in the answer to that question...
How should I know who was having sex with her in the 8th grade? Not sure what “volumes” that speaks. I’ve never denied that she’s a moral sinkhole.
SnakeDoc
>> There is no constitutional obligation to suffer fools gladly.
Granted. No Constitutional argument was asserted.
SnakeDoc
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.