news
Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled very specifically that her free-speech or First Amendment rights were violated by the county school board, when it effectively canceled the prom after Constance asked if she could bring her girlfriend and wear a tux.
The board reacted afterward by claiming a victory in not being ordered to host this year’s prom.
From reading Davidson’s ruling, it appears that if a new, open-to-all, parents-organized prom hadn’t been in the works, that original prom would be back in the school board’s lap.
Davidson, no flaming liberal, said this:
n According to clearly established case law, Constance’s First Amendment rights were violated by denying her request to bring her girlfriend as her prom date.
n The school board’s “rule” that girls must wear dresses and boys must wear tuxedos violated Constance’s First Amendment rights to express her views as an openly gay young woman.
n Her free-speech rights were on the verge of being irreparably harmed.
n Her wishes to bring her girlfriend and wear a tux had not disrupted the board’s ability to govern its education program.
And while the judge denied her request to force the school board to reassume its sponsorship of the prom, he left her case on the court’s trial docket for a subsequent trial.
In the face of Davidson’s clear message to the school board, these folks must be scrambling to settle with Constance to avoid more legal consequences.
What is remarkable about this story is that it occurred in 2010, not 1910 or 1970.
I still have photos of my sister, which I took for the 1970 Ole Miss Best Dressed contest, in which she is wearing the latest fashion in female formal wear – a fabulous champagne-colored, matte satin tux with an organza blouse under the jacket.
Thirty years ago, no one had a single negative comment about that outfit. And you’d think that attitude would exist today.
It was Constance’s choice of date that sent the trustees into a frenzy. It was Constance’s apparent intention to ask for permission that sent them into a legal tailspin.
Of course, she could have showed up at the prom with whomever she wished without asking permission. But she didn’t. She decided to go through channels.
Thirty years or 40 years ago, it wasn’t all that crazy to see a group of girls come to the prom together, if they didn’t have boyfriends or didn’t want boyfriends. One difference today is that Constance wasn’t secretive about herself.
The school board’s job is to be about the education of our young people, not as The Social Police.
Constance McMillen’s rights are all of our rights.
Thanks to Judge Davidson for reminding us.
Contact Patsy R. Brumfield at (662) 678-1596 or patsy.brumfield@djournal.com. Read her blog, From the Front Row, at NEMS360.com or her posts on Twitter and Facebook.
In my opinion free speech means words you say with your mouth. I don't think the way you dress should be covered by free speech. Attending an event with a same sex friend for the purpose of a date isn't speech either.
Our higher courts have gotten us into a big mess.
There aren't any persecuted Christians, true. I think they started acting like muslims are persecuted by not being allowed to wear burkas into the bank to show the Christian right how f-ing RIDICULOUS it is to pretend that they are being persecuted.
That is a laugh, national TV, national press, 30k, a job, etc. I wish my free speech rights paid off like that.
Yet they seem to employ only PC (persecute Christians) staff writers.
Patsy seems to bask in joy that a pervert might collect a big settlement from a school system to line the coffers of the ACLU parasites.
Seems the judge should have ruled that the school had to hold a prom, however, I think he wanted to avoid a situation where the two lezzies were the only attendants.
It is a shame that the journal staff for the most part seem to have no morals.