On 3/12/10 3:26 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

The policy in force requires dates to be of the opposite sex. Instead of
creating a public media circus, the girl and her herd of ACLU lawyers should
have sought to have the opposite sex policy changed or dropped.
If they had, the school sponsored prom would have gone on with probably only
a few raised eyebrows.

I think the committee acted appropriately. They sought to avoid any
demonstrations or problems at a school sponsored event. They suggested
that perhaps a private organization sponsor the prom instead.

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.

Eisboch





In *most* cases, laws that are in existence only to discriminate based
upon race, gender, whatever, should be considered unConstitutional and
just plain ignored. It is not the state's business to determine who a
teen can or cannot take to a celebratory event like a prom. In Virginia
not so long ago, it was "illegal" for blacks and whites to marry each
other. That law was unConstitutional and mostly ignored up until the day
it was tossed in the trash.

Sometimes, when trying to get unjust, unConstitutional laws dumped, it
is necessary to create "a public media circus." There's nothing wrong
with demonstrations, especially if the demonstators are polite.

Of course, Mississippi has an colorful history in how it treats
demonstrators. It used to shoot them.



--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.