Alabama Prom: No Lesbians Allowed
Cynthia Stewart, a junior at Tharptown High School in Franklin County, Alabama, is a lesbian. She is also an active student who has been involved with the planning of her school’s prom, which is coming up in March. She came up with the idea for the prom’s theme and helped raise over $200 for it. Unfortunately for her, her principal told her that she would not be allowed to come to the prom with her girlfriend.
It is unclear how far the school will go to deny Stewart her rights. The school board refused to reconsider the initial decision when Stewart appealed to them. Next, they announced that the entire prom would be canceled as a last resort to keep Stewart from being able to come with her girlfriend. Stewart’s position is simple:
All I want is to be able to be myself and go to my prom with the person I love, just like any other student wants to do.
Stewart’s family went to the ACLU for help. They took up the case, writing a demand letter to the school and citing state and federal law supporting Stewart’s position.
The principal’s motivation in making this discriminatory decision is unclear as well. In a federal court case over similar events, Fricke v. Lynch, the principal explained the policy barring gay couples from prom as based on preventing possible disruption and violence. The court rejected that motivation as a valid defense of discrimination and free speech limitation, saying that “to rule otherwise would completely subvert free speech in the schools by granting other students a ‘heckler’s veto’, allowing them to decide through prohibited and violent methods what speech will be heard.”
A local news station reports that “he he didn’t want to run the risk of offending other students.” The local news also gathered several comments from parents and the public in response to this incident, including these:
Nobody has brought up the fact that being gay or lesbian is a sin. That is what’s wrong with our school system and the community in whole today, no one is speaking out against sin.
The issue in question is that the girl said she could not go to the prom, when in fact she was told she could come & wear a tux but she could not bring a female companion. I agree with that. The opportunity is there for her to go, but there should be rules not just for her but for all. I feel like she is doing this for attention and to get on TV news. If she really wanted to bring a girl with her, why not just propose to bring one as a friend instead of stirring up an issue about gay rights. Regardless of what some people think, I think being gay is wrong. It is not normal behavior, but it is her right as an American citizen to be that way, but don’t force it on others who do not agree with it.
I think they should be banned from going to the proms. All the people who “choose” to be that way are always saying that they are being discriminated, Well it also offends me that people are that way. God created a man and woman for a reason..not a man for man..or a woman for a woman. They should be banned and go have their own “gay prom” and leave everyone else out of it!
Other comments made the sad observation that Alabama is socially backwards in many ways. There have been a few other clashes over gay rights at high school proms in recent years. As gay and lesbian teenagers come out in increasing numbers, this issue will keep coming up. Some districts have dealt with the issue through segregated proms set up especially for gay and lesbian students. Others have stood up for gay rights.
The ACLU letter to the district gave them until November 20 to respond before they begin exploring legal options. The district is reported to be reconsidering Stewart’s request, but this could become a national flashpoint over gay rights if the school holds its ground and supports the principal’s original decision.
I doubt this will be a flash point of gay rights. Generally a such an occurrence would be at the intersection of two reasonable argument – something that if moved to a federal venue may hold water. The logic of banning gay couples is based on religious values that ‘gay is sin’. Marriage is the progressive flashpoint, this is something from 20 years ago.
I doubt it, too, because I think the district will cave. But there is a chance they won’t (it’s happened before) and then it could very easily become a flash point.
Flash points don’t have to have two sides that are reasonable. Was opposition to integrating Little Rock school districts reasonable? In retrospect, no. But the Little Rock Nine became a national issue.
The issue isn’t over the moral debate of homosexuality, but the debate over the rights the religious heterosexual majority to discriminate against the homosexual minority.
Wrongo, Manes, there is no discrimination in prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex. Any person is free to marry another of the opposite sex as long as they are of legal age and are not currently married to another. Those laws apply to everyone – how exactly is that discriminatory? I’ll save you the bloviating – it’s not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
The contrapositive of “Any person is free to (only) marry another of the opposite sex” is -No one is free to marry a person of the same sex-. Thus saying the previous is also saying the latter.
They discriminate because gay people are thus not allowed to wed.
” there is no discrimination in prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex. Any person is free to marry another of the opposite sex…”
How can one put those two phrases beside each other and not see something wrong?
There clearly is a discrimination as well as a distinction. Of course, we must then work out whether or not that discrimination is fair. I think Johnny Reb means that it IS fair. I think that it is not.
I don’t know what the theme she came up with for prom was, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t going to involve actual lesbian marriage.
That logic is about the same as a hypothetical law that makes Christianity the only religion whose organizations receive legal recognition. The justification could go something like this:
“Any person is free to practice Christianity. The law applies to everyone (Muslims, Jews, etc.) equally. It’s not discriminatory.”
Laughable.
There’s nothing that prohibits you from driving 100 mph on the interstate. It’s clearly stated that you can drive as fast as you want as long as it’s not over 70 mph.
Or the immortal words of Henry Ford: “You can have any color you want. As long as it’s black.”
I think is funny that people still think people choose to be gay. What a silly argument. Seriously? Have you ever known someone that was gay, esp in the south. Go meet someone who is in their teens or early 20s and see how hard that life can be. No one would choose that. There is nothing wrong with being gay, but its not always an easy road.
That’s always one of my points to people who are still struggling with the choice/nature issue. And it tends to make a pretty good impression, giving them food for thought for a while.
Can I go to the Lesbian Marriage themed prom? Wouldn’t they have to have it in Boston (woh-wah)?
Regardless of one’s opinion on the merits of the matter, I find it hard to believe that the subject in question thinks that the photo posted of her is going to help her cause in any manner.
There’s sort of an interesting point to be made there about gay double standards. If she and her girlfriend were breathtakingly sexy, I bet there would be all sorts of petitions going around to let them go to prom together.
Then there is the double standard of male/female homosexuality, too…
I’m not referring to one’s “sexyness.” Rather, I’m suggesting that not looking like a thug is a good first step to get people to at least listen to your argument.
Oh seriously, RP. Up yours. Who asked you anyway?
“Who asked you anyway?”
Likely the same person(s) who asked for your opinion on the matter.
Listen, skippy, I didn’t pipe up first with my unsolicited opinion on the physical attractiveness of the minor child in the picture above who had the temerity to ask for her civil rights to be respected. Who, you may be ignorant enough to not realize, is a lesbian, which is English for ‘not applying for positions with your company.’ But thanks for the object lesson for the other kids in what happens to women, not to mention underage women, who have the nerve to think that they can proceed unmolested through life without crap from the likes of you.
Jump to conclusions much?
Oh, and also, remind me next time anybody posts a picture of Nino Scalia or Richard Clarke or whomever here to get in there first with how utterly un-f-able I think they are. Because clearly it’s relevant.
I love that it took you a week to come up with that.
I have a day job. And a life that involves activities beyond spending time on blogs posting semi-anonymous comments.
People, please! Fighting on the Internet it like participating in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded.