I don’t know if y’all have seen this one, but over the past couple of days a story has come out about a certain high school senior in Mississippi. Seems this student likes to date girls and wants to wear a tux to prom.
The problem? The student’s name is Constance rather than Conrad.
Yes, Constance is a lesbian, and rather than just showing up at her prom wearing a tux with her girlfriend on her arm, she checked with the school to make sure she would be allowed to attend when she did. (There is a bit of debate over what she should have done here, and I’ve heard from both sides. Personally, I think she probably did the smart thing at this point in the story.)
The school refused, and when she threatened a lawsuit, the school cancelled prom altogether.
Up to this point, I’m with Constance all the way. She should have been allowed to attend that prom wearing the formal wear of her choice and accompanied by the person of her choice. The school had NO right to dictate otherwise. In a public education environment (ie, government school), ALL viewpoints MUST be held as equally valid. After all, viewpoints are opinions, and everyone has their own opinions about things. I don’t buy the whole “social chaos” argument, as that has been used for generations to do nothing more than tyrannically oppress those outside the majority. (And is currently being used in the ongoing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate, but that is a whole other discussion.)
But here’s where I side with the school:
Rather than organizing her own prom, as people have done for the past 50 years in similar situations, Constance is now suing the school to force them to hold the prom.
In so doing, she crossed the line from defending her personal rights (association, religion, etc) into attacking the rights of others (association).
Both Constance and her school are now in the wrong. At least the school made the right choice of either accepting everyone or canceling the event for everyone, rather than only excluding “certain groups”. (I disagree with the ACLU position here, as canceling for everyone ALSO meets the Constitutional requirement of equal protection.) Constance, once a person I would have championed without reservation, has now acted in such a way that I have to qualify my support with the note about her own actions restricting freedom.
But yet again, this brings up the true point: If we separated schools from government, none of this would happen. She could be at a private school more accepting of her sexual orientation, and the homophobes at her school could be at a private school where they can continue their cult. No government involvement in either decision, so no room for anyone on the outside (such as a blogger in SWGA) to decry any aspect of what happens.
homophobe A PC word invented to demonize as abnormal, those who harbor a view in disagreement with homosexuality.
FWIW though Jeff. I agree with what your post. The school should not have made a big deal. It probably would be relatively unnoticed. But Constance attempting to force the school to have a prom is “forcing her morality” on others, while she is accusing them of forcing their morality on her. You can’t dictate morality. But that cuts both ways.
BTW, dismissive PC terms like “homophobe” are a pet peeve of mine. Sorry. Don’t didn’t mean to be a grammaphobe.
“I agree with what your post.” should be: “I agree with your post.”
I’m correcting myself. Maybe I am a grammaphobe.
If the PC fits…
How stupid is the board of education here? Are you sure this isn’t DCSS?
…and the homophobes at her school could be at a private school where they can continue their cult. …
So you think people who disapprove of homosexuality are… cultists?
Yes
There’s nothing to “disagree” with. A person is either homosexual or not, and you either judge them for it or you don’t.
Jesus Christ EMBRACED the lowest of the low of his day. The Modern Church (TM) shuns them and mocks them.
…and the homophobes at her school could be at a private school where they can continue their cult. …
So you think people who disapprove of homosexuality are… cultists?
Please reply… I’ve been anticipating your response all weekend!
Robin:
I replied in the comment just above your latest one:
You judge them before you know them. You “pre-judge” them. You are PREJUDICED against them.
Christ came to “seek and to save that which is lost”. He SPECIFICALLY went to the people (taxpayers, whores, people with medical problems, fishermen, etc) that the equivalent to the Modern Church (TM) in his day – the Pharisees and other religious elitists – shunned.
If you are a true follower of Christ, you act in His model. The Modern Church (TM) does not, and is therefore a CULT.
disagree = judgmental?
Others may follow whatever path they desire. I have gay friends and have never said or felt the urge to “shun or mock” them. But if I choose not to celebrate or promote homosexuality for myself or my family, I am a judgmental cultist homophobe?
Who is being judgmental here?
Being hetero isn’t always easy.
“Being hetero isn’t always easy.”
Go a day without mentioning your family, your significant other, plans for the future, dreams, etc or when cornered, lie about it to avoid confrontation.
Then get back to me.
Not everyone you think is your enemy – is your enemy.
This site sounds less and less Libertarian every day.
Please elaborate?
It just seems to be a lot more radical and a lot less tolerant lately — not everyone, but some. Insulting and labeling people who disapprove of homosexuality, nasty attacks on candidates and fellow Lee/Dougherty Countians, even though we’re all ultimately fighting for the same result… I thought Libertarianism was supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance, and “you live your life and I’ll live mine”… I don’t see much of that here anymore.
Libertarian as a philosophy abhors discrimination. I think they’re being pretty consistent.
Grift hits that pretty much on the head. Discrimination of any kind is a problem for me, as is preference for one group over another as a means to “make up” for past discrimination.
I’m all about you living your life and I’ll live mine. But when some step up and talk about telling me how to live mine, then we’ve got a problem regardless of whether I actually agree about them from a moral standpoint. Now, I don’t recall attacking anyone in particular except for specific acts, which I don’t apologize for. If you’re talking about anything else I personally have done, then please let me know.
If this is in reference to Jeff’s post, he’ll need to address those. I don’t speak for him after all.
Robin:
The only Lee Countian I’ve gone after with any level of it being personal is Mike Sabot, and that is because he tried to use this site – MY creation – to spread lies that were borderline defamation. He is an absolutely insane liar who cannot be trusted at ALL, and I do not apologize for saying that. Other Lee Countians have come into my crosshairs on various issues, and I have no problem at all calling them out when I think they’re wrong – just like I have no problem at all praising them when I think they are in the right.
My attacks on candidates so far have only come when a candidate shows themselves to be wrong on something, and John Oxendine and Ray McBerry have EARNED every single bad thing anyone can ever possibly say about them. One is absolutely corrupt, the other even more insane than the first is corrupt.
Ray McBerry is fighting for an “independent Southern republic” based on his own extremely fundamentalist cult, and apparently Mike Sabot is right there with him. They are NOT “ultimately fighting for the same” thing I am, as I am seeking to reform America into the beacon of Liberty for ALL that she was always meant to be. They are angry, bitter old men who have given up hope in this Grand Experiment working out, and America is one dream I will NEVER give up on.
Libertarianism IS all about tolerance, acceptance, and “you live your life and I’ll live mine”. But it also means defending against those who would violate those principles, no matter WHICH side of the battle field they claim to be on.
BTW: I’ll have a post up on my personal site (http://personal.jefferysexton.com) within the next day or two explaining the cult comment. You’re still not going to like it though, so be forewarned there.