We hate you so much we won’t even let you dance with your friends

Constance McMillen is a gay high school student at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Mississippi. She was going to go to her prom with her girlfriend, but the school objected. The ACLU quickly got involved.

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

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Oxford to force the school district to sponsor the prom and allow McMillen to bring whom she chooses and wear what she wants.

This is an astounding level of bigotry. Rather than allow a student to go to a prom with her date of the same sex, the school district actually believes it is better to ruin everyone’s biggest senior moment next to graduation.

Of course, they aren’t going to take the blame.

A school board statement said it wouldn’t host the event in Fulton, “due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events” but never mentioned McMillen or her girlfriend, who also is a student at the school.

There is often a tremendous amount of arrogance floating around the egos of those who have petty control over others, but this really takes the cake. [D]istractions to the educational process? What are these people on? Did they consume large quantities of alcohol before writing this? Was it all hard stuff?

The fact is – and this is the silver lining – the district recognizes that they will lose any lawsuit against them which challenges a ban on same sex dating. They do not have the right to ban any such thing. Upon recognition of this obvious fact, they have sought to maintain getting their childish little way by dirty means: it’s high school; everyone knows what is happening with everyone else. When they tried to blame the victim for their ineptitude and lack of concern for equality, they knew exactly what they were doing.

…the 18-year-old lesbian high school senior reluctantly returned to campus to some unfriendly looks, she said.

“Somebody said, ‘Thanks for ruining my senior year.'” McMillen said.

There was never any doubt this would happen. The district ‘leaders’ went ahead and ruined a significant moment in the lives of an entire high school class and then had the gall to blame an innocent student. They know the law disagrees with their stance. They know McMillen has a right to attend her prom with her girlfriend. They just don’t know why they’re morally wrong.

The school district had said it hoped a privately sponsored prom could be held. McMillen said if that happens, she’s sure she’ll be excluded.

“It’s a small town in Mississippi, and it’s run by an older generation with money. Most of them are more conservative and they don’t agree with it,” she said.

Okay, they topped themselves. I thought just canceling the prom was bigoted enough. Now the school is actually encouraging others to set up a private event. Why would a private event not be the same supposed distraction? Why does location matter? Why doesn’t the school want to host an event they can monitor with security for the students?

Fulton Mayor Paul Walker said he supports the school district’s decision and knew of no private efforts to host the prom.

“I think the community as a whole is probably in support of the school district,” Walker said of the town of about 4,000.

Oh. I guess if a lot of people agree, then it must be okay. It’s not like the school district is on its way to an assured legal defeat due to its bigotry or anything.

But wait! There’s more. As always, the arbitrary religious figure must be paraded out.

Southside Baptist Church Pastor Bobby Crenshaw said he’s seen the South portrayed as “backwards” on Web sites discussing the issue, “but a lot more people here have biblically based values.”

“But”? “But“?

I can have fan pages, too

If Andreas Moritz can have a fan page where he acts against the interests of healthy human bodies, then I can have one which is actually for the sake of goodness and good things.

And while you join the fan page for For the Sake of Science, don’t forget two things. First, join the anti-Andy group. Second, if Moritz is only going to allow sanitized comments on his fan page, be sure to at least make him work at it by leaving comments that let everyone know what a dangerous quack he is.

Kelly Glossip

Every so often I will get a comment on a post from a person I’ve specifically discussed or who is specifically involved in the topic at hand. Sometimes those posts are inane. Other times they are worthwhile and concise. Then there are the times when they deserve to be highlighted for the sake of their sincerity, meaning, and even application to bigger social issues (even if that application has no bearing on what the commenter would say one way or the other).

So Dennis is shown gratitude for giving his life while he was working for the state of Missouri by leaving his entire debt onto his life partner. It just doesn’t seem like the state appreciated his life. This simply makes me sad; because he loved his job and loved helping others. Yet to show their gratitude for his life; the person that Dennis loved more than anyone (and yes I have the documentation to prove it, he kept a journal in his handwriting) he often states that I was his one and only and the person of his dreams. I’m thankful for Dennis giving his life for the safety of others, for that I will pay off his debt on my own. Because I unconditionally loved him and that is what love is.–May the Peace of the Lord be always with you and your family.

Written by Kelly Glossip, this was in response to my post about Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard. Engelhard was a Missouri patrolman who died in a traffic accident while on duty last Christmas. Under Missouri’s anti-equality laws, his partner, Glossip, is not entitled to any of the benefits upon death that would be awarded to married couples. Missouri has failed to make any steps forward in granting protections to such couples, instead forcing them to feel like they mean nothing, both socially and morally, not to mention economically and as productive members of society; of these four examples of forced demonization and degradation, the moral matter is the most important. However, given the nature of the concern over the loss of benefits upon death in the original article, the economic impact cannot be ignored. Glossip and Engelhard shared a home. Whether they jointly owned or not it is unclear (and Glossip need not clarify, both because my point can be made without further information and for his own privacy), but if the two are homeowners, it’s entirely plausible that the loss of one of them could result in the loss of a home. For those who make the disingenuous economic arguments against same-sex marriage (“What’s the benefit to the prosperity of the government?!?!”), this is one convincing reason to abandon such inane stances.

Of course, it has never been about the triviality of economic welfare.

Teddy Roosevelt was not a progressive

Of course Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t a progressive.

Who, you ask, said this? Why, none other than Glenn Beck. Even though I was in my car by myself, I literally lol’d this one. What made it all the greater was that he said this immediately after discussing Roosevelt’s actions toward land conservation. It is for this stuff that I will subject myself to the inanity that is conservative talk radio. It’s pure gold.

Honestly, does Beck just never realize how dumb the words are that come out of his mouth? Christ. Roosevelt was in the Progressive Party of 1912.

To give some context, a resident of Maine had called in to complain about the setting aside of land for preservation in the northern part of the state. This led to a discussion on Ted Turner and all the land he owns in Montana. Beck first argued that government ownership of land is bad because it restricts individual property ownership. Then, and apparently without irony, he argued that Turner’s ownership is bad because he has the land in a trust, meaning that it is locked up effectively for generations. In other words, too much public land ownership is bad because it harms property rights for individuals, but too much private land ownership is bad because then we can’t all use it. Glenn Beck apparently favors a capitalist, communist, free market, socialist, progressive, conservative, libertarian, utilitarian, incoherent moron of a policy in terms of how Americans should own property. Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t a progressive.