Skip to content

How Dare You Take Away My Constitutional Right To Have a Prom?

March 11, 2010
tags: ACLU, Itawamba Agricultural High School
by Brett

Don’t you know its right there after life, liberty and property in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU, fresh of a series of lawsuits targeting Desoto county, has moved east to Itawamba county.

The ACLU, when they are not busy supporting terrorists, have been on a jihad against any Christian symbols and traditional values that make up the backbone the nation was founded upon. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again- the ACLU will not sleep until every inch of this country resembles San Francisco.

And through wealthy liberal donors and even our taxpayer dollars, they are able to pressure localities into abiding by their threats rather then spend money defending themselves.

This brings us to Itawamba High School. The ACLU had threatened the school with a lawsuit if they didn’t allow Constance McMillen, a lesbian, to bring another female to prom. The school said, fine, the prom is off and encouraged students and parents to create a private, non school-sponsored prom.

Apparently that infuriated the NAMBLA fans, and they have now filed a lawsuit to force the school into having a prom- and allow the lesbians to show up. Because, as you know, all students have a Constitutional right to a school-sponsored prom.

As long as groups like the ACLU are around, and have the money to back up their talk, the country is in trouble.

38 Comments
  1. Mississippi Elitist permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:16 pm

    This is yet another example of the fact that liberals do not want equality for all they just want to control all. I love what the school system did by calling it off all together. That makes the ACLU the bad guy. We need to figure out more ways to do this and beat them at there own game.

  2. Amber permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:30 pm

    According to Fox News McMillen is back at school. She said one student told her “thanks for ruining my senior year.” I think parents sponsoring the Prom is a great idea. The more involved parents are the better. As a former public school teacher in a Mississippi high school the Proms are inappropriate in every area. Students and teachers dress in bad taste. The music is disgusting. Some of the students dates are in there twentys. Yuk! Then you have drug and alcohol abuse. I like what this school did.

  3. Deb permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:33 pm

    The school acted in a spiteful way when told of the illegality of their discriminatory policies. They could’ve let the girls go to the prom and all would have ended well.

    School boards like this may prevail in the near term, but it’s fairly obvious that bigotry against gays is losing traction across this country, and will eventually even lose ground in backwaters like this Mississippi town some day.

  4. beetroot permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:34 pm

    Too bad about that pesky Constitution and the free speech (and expression) it guarantees.

    But I’m sure the school is delighted to have made national news by picking on some kid just because she’s gay.

  5. John K. permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:40 pm

    This isn’t about the right to have a Prom; it’s about the right of a student to be treated fairly by the government (the school). She is clearly being targeted for her sexual orientation, and the cancellation of the Prom was an action directly targeted at her by the school. I admit, I don’t know if the ACLU will win this one, but the school deserves to have to play it out in Court and put the town through the embarrassment and publicity that comes along with it. All the school had to do was act right and allow her to attend the Prom with the person she wanted to, also a student at the school, and to wear attire that would be completely appropriate for other students to wear. The school is the one looking for trouble here, not this girl. The school is ruining the students’ senior year, not this girl. And the school is trying to turn other students against this girl by cancelling the Prom. That is why there is a good chance this suit will succeed, and the school will not only be embarrassed, but may well pay out through the nose over this. Let it be so.

  6. RandomThoughts permalink
    March 11, 2010 6:40 pm

    I know this will not be popular on this site but our First Amendment is only as strong as the extent to which we extend its protections to those groups/people who we do not agree with.

    The school can have in place rules which effect all but it cannot single out a particular student or group of students and not offend the first amendment. The school could have said for the prom you can dance but no public displays of affection – if anyone is kissing you are kicked out, and that would have been fine. But for a school to tell people who they can take to the prom and what they must wear – that is allowing the government to intrude way to deeply into our private lives.

    Second, you mockingly refer to a constitutional right to a prom. No one would ever read that into the constitution, but the courts have forbid action which has a “chilling effect” on free speech. This is obviously what the school has sought to do. The student merely wishes to take her girlfriend to the prom and the school responds by saying fine we won’t have a prom. The obvious “chilling effect” is if the student relents and says fine I’ll take my friend Steve instead, then the prom is back on.

    What the Itawamba High School did was wrong, and I say that not because I support the ACLU or because I am a supporter of gay rights organizations. I say that because the constitution protects free speech and the more we take that freedom away from others, the closer we get to losing it for ourselves.

  7. March 11, 2010 6:58 pm

    I don’t disagree with the fact that the school couldn’t ban gays from a school-sponsored prom. I don’t like that fact, but I understand it exists. That said, a school has a right to host or not host a prom, regardless of the ACLU. There are plenty of private, non-school sponsored proms in Mississippi. Is the ACLU going to target them to?

    • John K. permalink
      March 11, 2010 7:03 pm

      Brett: If the school’s actions were clearly simply to target a lesbian student for her sexual orientation, then the school’s actions are a violation of that student’s civil rights. If private groups set up a Prom on their own, those groups can’t be successfully sued, but if the school is involved in them, the school can and should be sued. If a private group of citizens chooses to hold a Prom in this case, they can’t be sued or stopped, but the school still can be sued for the reason it cancelled the Prom. Just like teachers without tenure can be fired for “any” reason, but they can’t be fired because they are Black or Jewish. It’s not about the school’s right to have or not have a Prom, but the reasons it chooses to have or not have one. In this case, the reason is abundantly clear, and the school has a very good chance of losing this one (albeit, not as good a chance as if it has kept the Prom on and persisted in its opposite-sex, gender stereotype attire only policy).

      • March 11, 2010 10:26 pm

        How dare they keep to the evil evil idea that men and women are different! There is no proof of any difference between males and females at all!

        /sarcasm

        • March 12, 2010 6:35 pm

          that’s not what this is about. she’s not claiming to be a man, nor aspiring to be.

          however, if you’re going to argue that this is a matter of men and women being somehow mandated to live in certain ways or fill certain roles based on their sex, you’re really getting onto shaky ground. first off, sex isn’t as simple as XY males and XX females. there are a significant number of people with chromosomes or sex characteristics that do not fit simply male or female. but even ignoring that, sex roles differ throughout the world, throughout this country, between cultures, and so on. you can make arguments that men and women have certain inborn tendancies or qualities, but you can’t force those on people.

          now whether the government can force the school to hold prom, that’s another matter.

  8. Chris permalink
    March 11, 2010 7:03 pm

    Look at the bright side…there not busy defending terrorists when there messing with this.

  9. Republican Dawg permalink
    March 11, 2010 7:14 pm

    Life, liberty, and the right to have a prom. It just rolls off your tongue. If school boards in New York or Boston or wherever want to have students take whoever they want wearing whatever they want (in today’s day, its usually what there not wearing), then so be it. The ACLU can stay away from Mississippi and Ill stay away from them.

  10. jason permalink
    March 11, 2010 7:20 pm

    The “traditional values that make up the backbone the nation was founded upon” (btw, have you considered an editor?) are individual freedom and self-determination… values you (and the school board) clearly oppose. When you villify those who are different, or those (like the ACLU, of which I am a proud member) who stand up for those who are different, you are villifying America.

  11. JackCUDA permalink
    March 11, 2010 10:01 pm

    Itawamba’s specific actions in this case may be open to sanction but the victory here will be a pyrrhic one. Soon, by design and policy, no public high school in Mississippi will sponsor and/or host any social events such as dances, proms, balls and the like if doing so forces schools, districts and school boards to accept same sex teen couples and the de facto supervision of the ACLU. Social events are not critical to the educational mission and the budgets for same, however limited, will be conveniently shifted elsewhere. If a school district can cut elective courses from the curriculum they won’t flinch at cutting social events to escape the yoke of the gay lobby and their agents.

    Congrats to the ACLU. You are the best marketing campaign Mississippi’s private schools could ever hope for and your services are provided for free.

  12. Tea Party Leader II permalink
    March 11, 2010 10:14 pm

    Can’t believe that the ACLU doesn’t have anything better to do than get involved in “right to Prom”! Let’s get real.

  13. david permalink
    March 11, 2010 11:49 pm

    Gay students don’t have a right to the prom, but they do have a right to be treated equally as everyone else. If the school wants to cancel the prom to avoid ONE couple from attending, that’s just plain stupid. the school is acting petty and childish. I mean, seriously? The school is acting like a brat. But whatever. I guess no prom for anyone.

  14. Mississippi Elitist permalink
    March 12, 2010 12:05 am

    Our differences on this matter are based in our own philosophical senses of liberty. I believe for liberty to ring true morality should supersede tyranny for the government of the United States to work as the Founding Fathers intended.

    Lets define:
    Morality-In its “descriptive” sense, morality refers to PERSONAL or CULTURAL VALUES, CODES OF CONDUCT or SOCIAL MORES that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.

    Tyranny-In modern usage, the word “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or HER OWN INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF A SMALL OLIGARCHY over the BEST INTEREST of the GENERAL POPULATION.

    Bottom line is Homosexuality does reflect the cultural values, code of conduct, or social mores of the Itawamba county school district. If it did this would have never come up.
    This should not open the door for the ACLU to come swooping in and play the role of the tyrant by forcing his or HER OWN INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF A SMALL OLIGARCHY over the BEST INTEREST of the GENERAL POPULATION.
    If you dont like the ruling of the school district then you have the freedom to move to a school district where homosexuality does reflect the CULTURAL VALUES and CODES OF CONDUCT and SOCIAL MORES that you all seem to hold so dear. Dont try to move the “backwaters like this Mississippi town” into the muck where you are.
    Stop trying to play the role of the victim when you are the tyrant.

  15. Constitutional Adherent permalink
    March 12, 2010 2:15 am

    Mississippi Elitist… why don’t you read the constitution. It says nothing of the morality (I mean spite) that you spew.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 8:14 am

      Constitutional Adherent actually it is in the preamble I will all caps it for you because you obviously missed it.
      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
      You can jump up and down all day about morality not being in the constitution oh but it is. Lets just say that a student walks into a classroom and begins to use profanity in every sentence. Should that student be allowed to continue to sit in the class? After all is this not there right to free speech? Are we spiteful bigots who hate the constitution if we want that student sent to the office for misconduct?
      Well no, because the student has a right to free speech. Plus the school, parents, and other students have a right to expect a certian decorum from the people in the classroom. The student would be given an opportunity to meet these expectations. If the expectations could not be met then that would lead to the detintion or suspension of the student. The punishment would be constitutional because even though we are given the right to free speech there is a certian moral expectation attached to that right.

  16. Steve Taylor permalink
    March 12, 2010 7:11 am

    The ACLU embraces the homosexual agenda which was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.

    These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.1 The six points were:

    1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
    2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
    3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
    4. Make gays look good.
    5. Make the victimizers look bad.
    6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause).

    And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth.

    “In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

    The reason the ACLU is infiltrating through coercion places like our school proms is to normalize abnormal and deviant behavior and to introduce an atmosphere of indoctrination of our youth to the homosexual agenda. Pray for our country, as we reject God and the moral foundations our forefathers embraced, our children, society and nation slip into ruin and degradation and eventual collapse.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 7:45 am

      Well said Steve Taylor.
      I have always wondered why people are considered to be gay supporters must be labeled “bigots” “haters” “spiteful” ect…. and not just think that homosexuality is just wrong. I am going to look up the article you have written about it seems interesting.
      Please let me clarify something to some of the other posters, I do hate sin but I do not hate the sinner. I myself have and do sin and I hate that sin just as much but I do not hate myself just the sin I commit.

  17. RandomThoughts permalink
    March 12, 2010 9:58 am

    MS Elitist:

    I’ll play along with your philosophy that you believe in that “you believe for liberty to ring true morality should supersede tyranny for the government.”

    Here’s my problem. You define tyranny as a person who places her own interest over the best interest of the general problem. You define morality as values, codes of conduct, and social mores that distinguish between right and wrong. But your bottom line is that “homosexuality does not does reflect the cultural values, code of conduct, or social mores of the Itawamba county school district.”

    Under your flawed theory of liberty, NO ONE IS FREE. Under your theory everyone’s freedom is reliant upon the prevailing cultural values of a particular local. If my freedom relies upon what you believe in I am not free and I do not enjoy liberty.

    Moreover, under your warped theory of liberty people living in different locales would posses verying degrees of liberty and freedom. Essentially you advocate well gays can go to the prom somewhere else but not in “backwaters like this Mississippi town.” That’s just wrong.

    Just look back fifty years ago and you can see the danger of your theory. Fifty years ago the prevailing “cultural values” of Itawamba county (and most of the South) was that blacks were an inferior race. Based upon your same “bottom line” Jim Crow laws and seperate but equal would be acceptable just because thats the cultural values of Itawamba county. Thus, your theory makes the liberty of all blacks reliant upon the “cultural values” prevailing in society.

    Your theory elevates the majority’s beliefs to morality status – something which is very dangerous. What if social mores and cultural values change (after all they do which is why I would never define morality upon something as fickle as “cultural values”)? Is my liberty now effected because my neighbors believe in something different?

    While our system of government is a democratic republic certain safeguards were put in our constitution to prevent precisely what you are advocating. Tyranny of the majority.

    Using your own definitions of morality and tyrant I would say the principal is the tyrant. She is placing her own interest (not having gays at her prom) over the best interest of the general population (adhering to the constitutional protections of freedom of speech and freedom of association). And hopefully for the good of the general population she looses.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 11:08 am

      So you are comparing being black to being gay?
      The race issue was never a moral issue, it was an inferiority issue.
      I will agree to disagree with you on this issue because I am not going to change your mind nor are you going to change mine. I guess that makes us both closed minded.
      I would like to hear your take on the profanity question if you have time.

      • RandomThoughts permalink
        March 12, 2010 11:51 am

        I wouldn’t say we are close minded we just disagree on what constitutes liberty and freedom.

        I am not comparing being black to being gay. I am saying the same “cultural values” the you use as support for discriminating against this lesbian were used to discriminate against blacks years ago, and both are wrong and examples of tyranny of the majority.

        As for profanity in school I view that issue as completely different. The USSC has instructed that schools are allowed to control profanity inside the classroom but even that has been found subject to some limitations. So I do not take issue with a school disciplining a child for using 4 letter words.

        But here you have a school board (a governmental body) denying an individual citizen their fundamental right to be involved in a relationship with whoever they choose. There is simply no comparison between a gay couple going to their prom (so long as they are not being disruptive, unruly or breaking any rules) and an unruly child using 4 letter words in the class room.

        • Mississippi Elitist permalink
          March 12, 2010 12:37 pm

          I think our fundamental difference is in that I believe homosexuality unlike race is a product of choice and environment therefore it is much like profanity and open to legislation. Race on the otherhand is genetic and must not be legislated. I feel this is why or founding fathers took the time to include “congress shall make no law as to the freedom of religion”. Otherwise it would fall into this product and chioce catagory as well.
          Am I right that you belive the genetic scenario?
          Note: I think you know I am not attacking your views I am just discussing our differences. I feel you know that but some others are very emotional about this topic.

          • RandomThoughts permalink
            March 12, 2010 1:18 pm

            I know you are not attacking my views personally, we are just discussing our differences.

            Here is my problem your opinion stems from your belief that homosexuality is a product of “choice and environment.” I am not completely sold on this position, while I know there are some people who without-a-doubt choose the lifestyle. There are ongoing scientific studies into whether there is a genetic component to homosexuality, when many homosexuals themselves say they did not choose their lifestyle. So for now I keep an open mind as to whether some homosexuals are born that way.

            The crux of the problem, however, is not whether homosexuality is chosen or genetic in this scenario. I will assume your scenario is true that homosexuality is chosen. I still do not see how to condone the government discriminating against a person who is engaged in lawful conduct and merely wanting to take their partner to a dance.

            Your definition of liberty makes such government intrusions upon free citizens acceptable because you define liberty based upon what other people in your community believe. However, for me liberty and freedom are universal ideals which we are all entitled to.

            Recently the Supreme Court has said this which I agree with wholeheartedly:

            “…for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code.” Lawrence v. Texas.

            While you may believe homosexuality is immoral, it is not the place of the Ittawamaba School Board to dictate what it perceives as moral and immoral behavior to law abiding citizens.

          • Mississippi Elitist permalink
            March 12, 2010 1:30 pm

            I am no porn expert but my idea with
            the community issue stems from the legal/illegal control and distribution of pornography. Before the internet pornographers always had to make clear that porn was illegal to mail porn to certian states and areas because of the laws in said areas. Also it is illegal, at least for now, to posses porn that includes a minor in it how is this justified. No one compains because most people agreed that porn was and is disgusting. I just feel this stance on homosexuality is just as slippery a slope as my stance on liberty. Look at who has gotten envolved noe NAMBLA Man Boy Love.

  18. RandomThoughts permalink
    March 12, 2010 10:01 am

    Another thing, don’t forget who “the government” is in this situation. The government is the school which has imposed its beliefs upon one of the students. The ACLU is fighting the government’s tyrant.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 10:52 am

      No the school board is made up of people from that county those people are elected to represent the views of that county and make decisions in accordance with those views.
      The ACLU is the right arm of the liberal agenda and the liberals make up the majority of the national government. Thus making the ACLU the right arm of the Federal Government and the school board the arm of the people of Itt. county.

  19. Tea Party Leader II permalink
    March 12, 2010 11:03 am

    Some people feel that the constitution is a working document. It is not. Taking the strict definition of the word Liberty (freedom, independance, immunity, privilege)there is no morality in that definition, implied or otherwise. If it was meant to be it would have been put there. There was a reason for that. I believe that our founding fathers meant God to be part of our country’s decision making process but they were smart enough to realize morality is a very fluid word. Our schools are government institutions and as long as they are taking tax dollars they should be held to the laws and that includes laws regarding discrimination.

    The representatives that we have elected are the ones who are making these laws. We have sat idly by while they work against the constitution and set up guidelines that are directly in contradiction to it. This case shows how much control government can have over our lives. The people we send to represent us in Washington and Jackson are the ones who will make these decisions for us. I want to yell Wake up!!

    This young person’s life is now forever changed. I see her life being made so miserable that she will have to leave that area. Some people will say good – we don’t want her here. Preachers will have plenty to say to their church members this Sunday, throwing the first stones. The handling of this case by the press and the school is outrageous.

    Do we really need Proms and social events in our schools? Do they really help develop social skills? Maybe everyone would benefit more from interactional learning exercises on tolerence, indifference, and personal rights. Parents do need to be more involved in not only what homework their kids are bringing home but what is happening inside the walls of our schools. Maybe instead of paying school taxes, parents should be paying school tuitions for private schools or educating their children at home. With no tax dollars involved you can totally control what your children are learning. The only bad thing about that is that the real world has gays, lesbians, divorce, hatred, terrorists, and on and on. Will our children be ready to deal with those things?

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 11:29 am

      There we go Tea Party Leader II now we are starting to peel that onion. I knew sothing would get you to show your colors. The Tea Party is for putting God back in government. I believe thay start every meeting with prayer. If possible that prayer that prayer is led by one of those pesky preachers that will have “plenty to say to there church this weekend”.
      I just wonder if those who follow you in the Tea Party know you are a liberal?
      I apologize for calling you a Ross supporter in the past because I have now seen the err of my ways. Ross is for putting God back into our gov. you are not.

  20. Tea Party Leader II permalink
    March 12, 2010 11:43 am

    Perhaps the difference is in who or what you believe is God. Mine is loving, forgiving, tollerent, caring, helping, kind and on and on. It is his decision who is a sinner and what is a sin. Morality however is decided by men and women who believe that God gave them that right. I believe he did not.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 12:09 pm

      I don’t want to turn this into a sermon but:
      Its the “on and on” that is so important here.
      My God is so loving and caring and helping and kind that he gave His only Son to die on a cross to pay the penelty for my sins because ALL have sinned. Blood had to be shed because God DOES NOT tollerate sin EVER. There is no remmision of sin without the shedding of blood so I thank Jesus for shedding His blood. When he defeated that sin by raising himself from the dead three days later He then offered me forgiveness of my sin. To recieve that forgivness I must give my life, beacuse He laid His down, to Him and allow Him to live through me. See I must conform to Him not Him to me. He will meet you where you are but you have to be willing to turn to Him and away from sin. His life living through me is what defines my morality. I learned that from my Bible. If you do not see this somewhat the same then you need to spell your god with a lower case “g”. God is NOT all things to all people as He said to Moses “I Am that I Am” that means He never changes we must.
      “Morality however is decided by men and women who believe that God gave them that right. I believe he did not.” So we agree homosexuality is immoral because God said homosexuality is an abomination.

  21. Tea Party Leader II permalink
    March 12, 2010 1:37 pm

    If your daughter or son were gay what would you do. Beat them with a stick? I could quote forever about forgiveness and come up with as many quotes from the bible to dispute what you said as you can come up more to dispute mine.

    The fact remains that if you are a governnment institution. receiving tax money, you must protect the rights of all. This whole situation has become a major issue because it was not handled properly by people who have allowed their own personal beliefs to enter into this decision.

    These are the downsides to living in a free country. Less government interference in the education of your children is the answer and I am sorry but that means private schools. Remove the taxes that we pay for education and allow us to pay for tuition. Then you can teach whatever you want, discriminate against whomever you choose and see what kind of a generation you turn out! I fear for my children and grandchildren.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 1:57 pm

      If any of my sons or granchildren told me that they were gay I would love them just the same. I would make clear to them that what they were doing was and is wrong. I never said I did not feel impathy for this girl.
      I challenge you to open THE Holy Bible and find one point wrong, just one. If you think one of my points is wrong opening the Bible will do you some good because its been way to long for you.
      As for your other point about removing taxes that I pay that go tward public school I could not agree more. I would give that money to my children so they can afford to send my grandchildren to private school.
      God bless America as we continue to spit in His face.

  22. Tea Party Leader II permalink
    March 12, 2010 2:15 pm

    “Opening the bible would do you some good because it has been way too long for you” That is not an issue that is a personal comment my friend that you know nothing about.

    I am glad that we agree on the tax issue as it may be the only solution but that does open up a whole new can of worms.

    • Mississippi Elitist permalink
      March 12, 2010 2:37 pm

      Well said, I believe the personal commitment comment may be applied to the entire issue.

  23. Emjay permalink
    March 12, 2010 8:23 pm

    I really hope the South secedes.

    I constantly fail to comprehend how any individual’s rights apparently matter less than the archaic, conservative delusion of “family values”. It’s romanticized, oppressive, and unrealistic-Get over it. That said, if a girl wishes to take another girl to the prom, who exactly is that hurting? Other than the uninformed, closed-minded notion that relationships are solely for procreation or the possibly more absurd idea that the United States is a “Christian” nation? Nobody at all. Take care of your own stuff. If it’s not hurting anybody, why oppose it?

    The school should be completely ashamed. What a repulsive display of plain bigotry.

Comments are closed.