news
Constance McMillen, an 18-year-old senior at Itawamba County Agricultural High School, is photographed in Fulton, Miss., Thursday, March 11, 2010, a day after her high school announced the cancellation of the April 2 prom. (AP Photo/Matthew Sharpe)
The National Center for Lesbian Rights has invited Constance McMillen and Ceara Sturgis, a Mississippi student who fought to wear a tuxedo in a yearbook photo, to its 33rd anniversary celebration on May 1.
The event is often referred to as the "lesbian prom," said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell. Nearly 2,000 people are expected to attend the celebration in San Francisco, Kendell said.
"With everything Constance has been through at her school over the past few weeks, we're grateful for any chance to remind her that while her school violated her rights, she's appreciated and respected all over the country for her fight to be treated equally," Kendell wrote in a blog posted Thursday.
McMillen, 18, is a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Miss.
She and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged her school district's rule that banned same-sex prom dates and a stipulation that only male students be allowed to wear tuxedos to the event. In response, the school district canceled its April 2 prom and later announced parents would sponsor another dance in its place.
The ACLU believes the parent-sponsored dance that McMillen attended on Friday was a ruse because only seven students showed up. McMillen says the rest of her peers partied at another location.
Kendell said the NCLR plans to pay for McMillen's travel and give her "a weekend she'll never forget. It will make all these other proms and fake-proms fade into distant memory." The organization is also paying for Sturgis.
Kristy Bennett, legal director for the ACLU Mississippi, confirmed McMillen will attend the NCLR event. Bennett said Sturgis is also expected to go.
The ACLU sent a demand letter to the Copiah County School District on Sturgis' behalf last year after her picture was banned in the high school yearbook because she posed in a tuxedo.
Sturgis didn't file a lawsuit, but McMillen did in U.S. District Court in Aberdeen. No trial date has been set in McMillen's case.
Sorry about that.
The "You" in the 3rd paragraph should have been "eredy."
The school's cancelation of the prom was a punitive and retaliatory action. That has nothing to do with neutrality. Thankfully, Judge Davidson already recognized that. Too bad the knunckle-draggers like straightnonsense are afraid to recognize it.
As far as Yahoo ever one has tons of posts, UFC fight results garnish 1000s. So I'm done with U.
There are multiple "sexual crimes", so I don't know the details of the cases of the losers that you speak of. But it wasn't "statutory rape" unless it fell into the descriptions in the statute.
You specifically mentioned "statutory rape", which would not apply in this case. Nor would "sexual battery", as long as it was consensual or met the other criteria outlined in the statute.
The "age of consent" in Mississippi is 14, which is too young in my opinion. But Mississippi is backwards in pretty much every other category, so why not age of consent, huh?
Sandlot1959: I wasn't saying that the comments here made her famous, I was saying that the actions of the adults (school officials, parents, etc.), not hers, is what resulted in her 15 minutes. Had they let the kids bring whoever they wanted and dress as they wanted, this would have never even made the news.
As for comments on stories, there were thousands of comment on the Yahoo! story from all over the world with the vast majority of them about how bigoted and backwards Mississippi is.
the subject, kind of like you research it to go dating. Why do dirty ol men get arrested for trying to meet girls off the Internet in the Lee sex stings. I don't really see how comments commenting on comments should count towards her "poularity".
And since you love the words idiots. Hey idiot, you like acronyms. Here's one why don't you g FYSNYDAH. Don't forget the pull your C&B while you FYM in the A. So STFU yourself you dumb F. BtwFU.
Many Fed Courts have ruled in high school matters. I'll go to the 9th Circuit where a student sued because they were not allowed to play a religious themed piece at graduation. No Free Speech violation based on schools decision to remain neutral like Itawamba Co did.
The 5th Circuit has all but eliminated the old narrowly defined Tinker Case that the ACLU relies on here. I'll post a comment from the 1st Amendment Center which quotes the 5th Circuit stance:
School administrators in the 5th Circuit thus now may apply zero-tolerance rules to any speech about violence against students. The threat of violence need not be credible, imminent or even possible. It need not be widely disseminated or even disseminated at all at school. Any speech about violence against students, even if clearly fiction or fantasy, is without First Amendment protection in that circuit.
Perhaps even more troubling about the ruling in Ponce is the ease with which it could be extended to other speech. Under Ponce, the First Amendment does not protect any speech that advocates or threatens a harm at least as serious as illegal drug use. Those harms presumably could include activities such as bullying, teenage sex, alcohol and tobacco use or driving under the influence of alcohol.
That said, McMillen has raised issues of threats, percieved or real.
The 5th Circuit has consistently held neutrality to be key. The School's actions did just that. No prom...neutral to all.
Patently frivolous ACLU lawsuit. Get the private money MS McMillen. Itawamba Co needs it.
Of course all this will be short lived. Much money and publicity will come trying to show the school.
Take it while you can get it girl. Get plenty of it. There are folks waiting to get it from you..hahahahaha
"You idiots made her famous ... Deal with it. "
The bozos here can't seem to get their heads around the fact that it was their actions, not hers, that gave her all the publicity!!
The one in the past couple of days had over 300 comments when I last looked at it this morning.
So, before you start correcting people on things, you would be wise to do your homework. Perhaps you'd look like slightly less of an idiot if you did research BEFORE you comment as June suggested.
eredy: You should research your Mississippi law before you start pontificating about statutory rage charges, etc.
Please explain to me how Ms. McMillen could be charged with statutory rape in the State of Mississippi when the statute states the victim has to be "uner fourteen years of age".
Here's the statute since you didn't bother to read it before you commented:
"SEC. 97-3-65. Rape; carnal knowledge of child under fourteen years of age.
(1) Every person eighteen (18) years of age or older who shall be convicted of rape by carnally and unlawfully knowing a child under the age of fourteen (14) years, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary; provided, however, any person thirteen (13) years of age or over but under eighteen (18) years of age convicted of such crime shall be sentenced to such term of imprisonment as the court, in its discretion, may determine. In all cases where the child is under the age of fourteen (14) years it shall not be necessary to prove penetration of the child's private parts where it is shown the private parts of the child have been lacerated or torn in the attempt to have carnal knowledge of the child.
(2) Every person who shall forcibly ravish any person of the age of fourteen (14) years or upward, or who shall have been convicted of having carnal knowledge of any person above the age of fourteen (14) years without such person's consent, by administering to such person any substance or liquid which shall produce such stupor or such imbecility of mind or weakness of body as to prevent effectual resistance, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for life in the State Penitentiary if the jury by its verdict so prescribes; and in cases where the jury fails to fix the penalty at life imprisonment the court shall fix the penalty at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for any term as the court, in its discretion, may determine.
(3) This section shall apply whether the perpetrator is married to the victim or not.
(4) The Department of Public Safety shall collect all data relating to spousal rape violations and convictions under this section. Such information shall include the name and age of all victims and violators of spousal rape under this section. The information collected under this subsection shall be subject to all confidentiality requirements imposed by law for criminal records. The Department of Public Safety shall provide such data excluding the identification of victims and unconvicted violators to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate on January 1, 1994, and each year thereafter for a period of three (3) years.
SOURCES: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 12, Title 3 (22); 1857, ch. 64, art. 218; 1871, Sec. 2672; 1880, Sec. 2942; 1892, Sec. 1281; 1906, Sec. 1358; Hemingway's 1917, Sec. 1092; 1930, Sec. 1122; 1942, Sec. 2358; Laws, 1908, ch. 171; 1974, ch. 576, Sec. 8; 1977, ch. 458, Sec. 7; 1985, ch. 389, Sec. 3; 1993, ch. 497, Sec. 1, eff from and after passage (approved March 27, 1993)."
Nor does it seem she could be charged with "sexual battery":
"SEC. 97-3-95. Sexual battery.
(1) A person is guilty of sexual battery if he or she engages in sexual penetration with:
(a) Another person without his or her consent;
(b) A mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless person; or
(c) A child under the age of fourteen (14) years.
(2) A person is guilty of sexual battery if he or she engages in sexual penetration with a child of fourteen (14) but less than eighteen (18) years if the person is in a position of trust or authority over the child including without limitation the child's teacher, counselor, physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, minister, priest, physical therapist, chiropractor, legal guardian, parent, stepparent, aunt, uncle, scout leader or coach.
SOURCES: Laws, 1980, ch. 450, Sec. 1; 1983, ch. 429, Sec. 3; 1985, ch. 389, Sec. 6; 1993, ch. 512, Sec. 2, eff from and after July 1, 1993."
So, if you don't want to look stupid, perhaps you should either do your homework before you post or just STFU!!