You're Here, You're Queer, And You Better Not Talk About It
	found on Houston Press written by n29_w95, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 19 Feb 12:51pm
		"Marla Dukler, a 17-year-old lesbian at Klein High School near Houston, wanted to start a club at her school called the Gay Straight Alliance to provide a forum for students to discuss discrimination and promote understanding," Senior Headline Writer n29_w95 tells us. "She and sixteen other students asked for the school's permission and managed to collect 200 student signatures on a petition in support of the club. Shortly after submitting her application to the school, the local school district inserted a new clause into its policy:

	"No club or organization shall be authorized which, by virtue of its purposes, goals or activities, promotes, encourages or condones, directly or indirectly, participation in any conduct by students that is classified as a criminal offense under Texas law, or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare (including but not limited to, sexual activity by minors)." (link added) "Also added was a new provision requiring parental permission to be a member of a group. In light of the new rules, the students drafted a constitution for their organization and reapplied, but they were told that their request was likely to be denied by the school board. Liz Johnson, assistant district superintendent for community relations, when asked how long it normally takes to get a club approved responded, 'Well, that depends. We had just put a new policy into place, and this is a club that requires careful consideration. So there's no time limitation. Not when children are concerned.' "Possibly also out of concern for the children, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on Marla's behalf." Of course, an amendment to a policy is downright welcoming compared to the actions of a Kentucky principal, who shut down all of the clubs at his school rather than allow a similar GSA club.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 158 commentsmost: 32 commentsbest: 14 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Way to go, TX and KY   by CelebratedMrK       at Wed 19 Feb 1:17pm score of 1.5 brilliant     "....classified as a criminal offense under Texas law, or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare" I can understand this law being applied to, say, a group of chemistry-loving high schoolers that want to start a club to explore the art and science of making explosives. But how exactly does the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA, ugh, lousy acronym) pose a risk to anyone? A priceless lesson in civics, politics, and liberty has been imparted to these kids. And the grown-ups wonder why kids are so cynical.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Wed 19 Feb 1:46pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 1     It is the criminal offense part. Sodomy is illegal in TX. "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Runaround   by Kos       at Wed 19 Feb 2:46pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 8     Which definition? From Webster Online: Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 Date: 13th century 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex If 1, then yeah...maybe technically illegal. If 2, beat them at their own game and have a "Lesbians and Friends of Lesbian Club." Texas: Welcome to the third world. - K o s   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 19 Feb 2:47pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 8     I wonder how much of the club's time would be taken up with promoting the idea of sodomy. I believe the stated purpose of the club was to discuss discrimination and promote understanding. I guess the students did learn a good deal about discrimination and lack of understanding without having to waste time attending club meetings. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Speaking of Laws in Texas   by Anonymouse Savant       at Wed 19 Feb 4:47pm score of 3 funny   in reply to comment 8     Just a few Texas tidbits from Dumblaws.com: -When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone. - It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing. - Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos. - It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel. - It is illegal to milk another person's cow. - A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed. Damn, there goes my plan to start a second-story buffalo shooting and borrowed-cow milking club. Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by Frizzle Fry       at Wed 19 Feb 9:29pm score of 1.5   in reply to comment 8     Sodomy is illegal in TX. But they're not trying to start a sodomy club or a gay sex club. They're trying to start a gay-straight alliance. Being gay isn't illegal in texas. My other car is a cdr   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   158.  Well, sure but   by philipmarlowe       at Thu 20 Feb 12:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     It's not the school butt-sex club. It's not promoting sex by minors. It's promoting understanding between people with different sexual desires. A celibate homosexual is still a homosexual, after all. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by CelebratedMrK       at Wed 19 Feb 4:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Well said, Mayorbob. Funny how life gives everyone a free education.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Speaking of Laws in Texas   by gordon shumway       at Wed 19 Feb 4:51pm score of 2.5 funny   in reply to comment 21     "- It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel." There's still a warrant out for me in Texas because of that law.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Civil Rights a criminal offense?   by evilhenchdyke       at Wed 19 Feb 11:27pm score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 22     Not funny. Not in Texas, not anywhere. Human rights are not a joke. Except, perhaps, under the current administration, whose leader is reputed to be a Texan. Hmmmm. Something to think about.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 6:59am score of 5 informative   in reply to comment 42     Actually, yes it is. "Gay" = sodomy in Texas. If you out yourself, you're assumed to be in violation of the law. This logic has been used countless times to prevent non-heterosexuals from getting government offices (or to remove them), against people in court (esp. custody cases), and so on. You don't actually have to be on record as to actually having committed the act. Plus while we're on the topic - this includes "oral sodomy" too. Texas is also the state where there's legal precedent that non-heterosexual lives are "worth less" than heterosexuals[*] (Hatfield, 1990). Are you all starting to understand why we're all so angry about your inaction to rectify this ongoing problem? Would you please try to make some headway - today? [*] along with prostitutes. The case involved the murder of a gay man by two 17 year olds tried as adults. Hatfield overturned their sentences and reduced them to 18 months because "I can't see putting someone behind bars for killing a queer." Although he did get some flak at the time, no real action was taken (he remained on the bench and the reduced sentences stuck). Oh - the reason for the killing was the "homosexual panic" defense, except that there wasn't actually any evidence that the victim tried to overpower both of his attackers - in fact, I believe they admitted that they went out in search of a fag to bash. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Speaking of Laws in Texas   by jenmac       at Thu 20 Feb 7:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Damn, there goes my plan to start a second-story buffalo shooting and borrowed-cow milking club. On the contrary. Consider this: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed. So all you need to do is write to the state of Texas 24 hours before you start your second-story buffalo shooting and borrowed-cow milking club and explain the nature of said club. Oh, sure, they may try to shut you down, but if you explain politely that you are indeed complying with Texas law, they'll probably back off. Problem solved! Now I've made my own head hurt. Is it sticky? Would it kill you? -- snut_rucket's son at the La Brea tar pits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by pesh2000       at Thu 20 Feb 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     I think story shows that being gay isn't technically illegal in Texas. And I am sure they are working on it. That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Speaking of Laws in Texas   by phong3d       at Thu 20 Feb 9:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Your mistake was not moving up a few floors. I've thinned out several herds from the penthouse suite - legally! "Pretentious? Moi?" - Shortest Joke Ever   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Speaking of Laws in Texas   by psinic       at Thu 20 Feb 10:49am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 21     I read the actual dildo law and it actually makes a twisted sort of logic. Basically, it's the same is the limits imposed on narcotics. If you are found to be in possession of over a certain amount of a narcotic substance it no longer just a charge of possession but additionally intent to sell. The dildo law states that if you have six or more doldos (or similar "obscene" materials) that it is your intent to promote the use of said dildos. So, in effect, you are being charge with intent to distribute those six dildos amongst the populace, and therefore promote more illegal behaviour. Thank god they have that law or all of Texas would be experiencing healthy sexual freedom. Don't do it. Be it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: Speaking of Laws in Texas   by Anonymouse Savant       at Thu 20 Feb 11:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 67     So all you need to do is write to the state of Texas 24 hours before you start your second-story buffalo shooting and borrowed-cow milking club and explain the nature of said club. Oh, sure, they may try to shut you down, but if you explain politely that you are indeed complying with Texas law, they'll probably back off. Problem solved! Actually, after thinking about this awhile I've got the solution -- We write the school board explaining that Gordon Shumway and my gay-straight second-story buffalo shooting club intends to break the law by promoting sodomy among high school studends and then we're legal. No laws broken therefore the school's argument is right out the second story window. BTW, Texas, I'm just putting you on notice right now that your laws have inspired my wife and me be "69" at some point in the foreseeable future in your great state. I think I'll bring along 7 dildoes. So there. Goddess, it feels good to go legit. Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   168.  Re: Well, sure but   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 20 Feb 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 158     Your argument is 100% correct if you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice. As far as I can tell, it isn't, but I have a feeling that there's more than a few people in Texas who believe that it is. In that case, this is a club promoting what hey believe to be a bad (some would say an evil) choice. I would guess that a BDSM club wouldn't go very far, as well. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   170.  Oops - several errors in my memory   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 2:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     Just to nitpick myself. 1) It was one man, two victims. 2) the judge's name was Jack Hampton, not Hatfield (The Honorable Jack Hampton, then Presiding Judge of the 283rd District Court of Dallas County) 3) it was in 1988, not 1990 4) the sentence was 30 years, down from life. 5) The actual quote was: "I don't much care for queers cruising the streets picking up teenage boys... I put prostitutes and gays at about the same level, and I'd be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute." He also remarked that he didn't care about the media quoting him as long as they spelled his name right (which of course I didn't :-). Additional: there was an investigation afterwards but they cleared him of any wrongdoing. However, he did lose the next election and no longer has a judicial career. Quote from the Southern Partisan (a neo-Confederate magazine), 4Q 1989: "For a while it looked as if the city limits of San Francisco extended all the way to Dallas, but in the end everything turned out all right. A Special Master's Report cleared Judge Jack Hampton of bias, and Texas is Texas after all. You may recall that Judge Hampton, in determining a murder sentence, had suggested that he'd taken into consideration the fact that the victims were homosexuals soliciting sex, and therefore like prostitutes. The local "gay rights" activists went into a mad tarantella, ... ". was acquitted of the charge of bias -- which led to more demonstrations, more foot Stampings, ... Indeed the local leadership has warned Judge Hampton that they will retaliate at the next election. What do you bet that Judge Hampton is returned to the bench by a whopping majority next time he runs?... What do you bet he ends up on the Texas Supreme Court?" Well, at least their predictions were wrong. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by espltd104       at Thu 20 Feb 11:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I'm not agreeing with what i'm going to say here but i'm just trying to think from both sides. The administration probably said that this club could pose a risk to students because it would be classified as a sex club. The club is based on human sexuality the administration might think that the club could be promoting homosexual sex. Like i said i don't agree with what i just said. You got to think from both sides to make sense of the insensible.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   177.  Re: Way to go, TX and KY   by My mum said so       at Thu 20 Feb 3:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     In regards to being "...classified as a criminal offense under Texas law, or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare", isn't it un-American to presume that any gay person is guilty of sodomy? I assumed the law was still innocent until proven guilty... and not the other way around. The article in the Houston Press states that "More than 200 kids signed a petition asking that the 3,600-student school allow a GSA to meet on campus to give gay kids and straight kids alike a chance to talk about homosexuality and discrimination in something other than mean-spirited jeers or shamed confidences. What's interesting is that the school is not only preventing the gay students from discussing discrimination, the straight kids are not allowed to discuss it either. Which apparently means that the school has no prurient interest in promoting a change in behavior from the group engaged in any present or future discrimination against gays. My dogma's at war with your karma...but that's world history for you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  How ' bout   by David Flores       at Wed 19 Feb 1:21pm score of 5 compelling     How 'bout if instead of invading Iraq to impose Democracy and respect for Human Rights, we invade Texas instead to impose Democracy and respect for Human Rights? As a bonus, I hear they've got oil in Texas too. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

68.  Re: How ' bout   by johndan       at Thu 20 Feb 7:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I'd mod this up, but it's already at five. Well said. - Johndan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Awwwwwww, SNAP!   by puppeteer       at Thu 20 Feb 7:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Yeah. :) If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably just a tool of the conspiracy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: How ' bout   by professional driver       at Thu 20 Feb 8:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     How 'bout if instead of invading Iraq to impose Democracy     Actually there is no plan whatsoever to instate a democratic government after the impending invasion.   I guess therein lies your answer.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: How ' bout   by CaptainLiberal       at Thu 20 Feb 11:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Fine by me, David, although you might give the tiny liberal contingent a head start or something. Oh, and make sure to bring plenty of guns, because we have 2 for every child over the age of four. And the oil isn't worth drilling, generally, which is why huge tracts of the state live in crushing poverty. Of course, if oil prices continue to stay this high, Texas will start to make out like a bandit. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Celebate Queers for Jesus   by MonkeyBoy       at Wed 19 Feb 1:26pm score of 1.5 clever     No club or organization shall be authorized which, by virtue of its purposes, goals or activities, promotes, encourages or condones, directly or indirectly, participation in any conduct by students that is classified as a criminal offense under Texas law, or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare (including but not limited to, sexual activity by minors). I've got it. Rename the club to "Celebate Queers for Jesus", and have them encourage understanding but discourage action. How could the school object to this?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  The name needs more edge   by Brian Jones       at Wed 19 Feb 5:37pm score of 2.5 funny   in reply to comment 3     Litigious Queers For Jesus. The administrators will be scared shitless. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Encouraging Behavior   by JET24       at Wed 19 Feb 1:39pm score of 3.5 clever     "No club or organization shall be authorized which, by virtue of its purposes, goals or activities, promotes, encourages or condones, directly or indirectly, participation in any conduct by students that is classified as a criminal offense under Texas law, or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare (including but not limited to, sexual activity by minors)." Well, I guess that means that football and cheerleading are right out as well. Religion don't mean a thing; it's just another way to be right. - Spoon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: Encouraging Behavior   by NelzTX       at Wed 19 Feb 4:49pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 4     "Health, safety or welfare"? Hmmmm, didn't I read about some football injuries last week. Maybe a death or two last year?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: Encouraging Behavior   by jare2003       at Thu 20 Feb 10:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     ...or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare (including but not limited to, sexual activity by minors)." Well, I guess that means that football and cheerleading are right out as well. Maybe you've been watching too much porn, but where I'm from, cheerleaders do cheerleading, not each other. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: Encouraging Behavior   by Anonymouse Savant       at Thu 20 Feb 11:35am score of 3 scholarly   in reply to comment 106     Maybe you've been watching too much porn, but where I'm from, cheerleaders do cheerleading, not each other. ;) Jesus, it must be really boring where you live. Where I live cheerleaders sometimes do other cheerleaders, football players sometimes do wrestlers, priests sometimes do parishoners and even alter boys (bad priests, if said alter boys are too young and/or non-consenting or unable to intelligently consent or deny consent), ex-presidents get done by interns and it's generally a messy, sticky, hormone-driven world were good and bad happens. Good = fair, mutually pleasurable stickiness. Bad = the other kind. The gender of the participants would be a non-issue in my ideal world. Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   190.  Re: Encouraging Behavior   by jare2003       at Fri 21 Feb 10:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 128     Cute response, my original reply was really more of a whimisical response to the wording of the original post, though.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  It seems "stupid move" is pretty much a given...   by Brian Jones       at Wed 19 Feb 1:39pm score of 1.5 astute     ...so what I want to know is what's up with a school district having a paid position called assistant district superintendent for community relations. What the hell kind of useless PR flack position is that, and why weren't regular district officials able to handle the responsibilities of communicating with government, business and taxpayers? In the Houston area, I found a nearby school district (PDF) with a similar position in place -- and after reading the job description, I can't figure out for the life of me what this person is doing that isn't already part of what other administrators are supposed to be doing. Klein High School has about 3500 students, so that's about the size of a small town. I don't know any small towns with their own full-time PR office, do you? If I was a parent at Klein, paying for (at the least) a high-five-figure salary for what appears to be nothing more than a patronage hack job, plus the costs of her office and staff...that's what would piss me off. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: It seems "stupid move" is pretty much a   by kilmerboy       at Wed 19 Feb 9:50pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 5     a www.texasbest.com link Klein High School has about 3500 students, so that's about the size of a small town. I don't know any small towns with their own full-time PR office, do you? Well, according to the graph in the link I posted, Klein Independent School District has 31,446 students. That might be big enough to have an asst. PR flack... but maybe not, who knows. Klein High is just one of dozens of schools in that district. But Klein is rather small when you compare it to Houston ISD, which has 210,179 students. I bet they have a PR staff the size of an elementary school over there.b hard naar huis? hard voor thuis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   169.  31,446?! Jeez.   by Brian Jones       at Thu 20 Feb 2:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     I thought "Klein" was supposed to be German for "little". What the hell happened? Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Klein   by nickdrake       at Thu 20 Feb 8:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Useless info alert! Lyle Lovett was born in Klein. It's named after his family name. He was on a ranch in Klein in 2002 when an accident crushed one of his legs. I wonder what one great Texas troubadour thinks of the hub-bub in his family's town?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  It's For the Children   by crowley       at Wed 19 Feb 1:42pm score of 2 succinct     The people against this club will scream that it's perversion, it's immoral, and that they know what's best for the children, being good Christians. And people ask why I don't go to church.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: It's For the Children   by shadarr       at Wed 19 Feb 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Why don't you go to church? You are aware that their are churches other than Catholic and Methodist, aren't you? Some aren't even Christian!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: It's For the Children   by tdahnsn       at Thu 20 Feb 7:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     "You are aware that their are churches other than Catholic and Methodist, aren't you? Some aren't even Christian!" Yeah, but my pastor says all of the people who go to those churches are going to hell! Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: It's For the Children   by shadarr       at Thu 20 Feb 10:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 66     My son says your pastor gives lousy head.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Try another church   by renny0       at Thu 20 Feb 8:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     The people against this club will scream that it's perversion, it's immoral, and that they know what's best for the children, being good Christians. And people ask why I don't go to church. Maybe you should pick a different church. The Catholic church I go to is probably more liberal than some -- but the priests often talk about accepting everyone: heterosexuals, homosexuals, all races, criminals, etc. The church is pretty up front with telling us if we want to follow God, it is our job to follow his rules and love everyone as ourselves. Unfortunately, like most groups, Christians get judged by the vocal minority -- the "God hates fags" crowd. Even though I'm not suppose to judge or hate anyone, I will admit that the group I have the least sympathy for is the "God hates _____" whatever crowd.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Try another church   by crowley       at Thu 20 Feb 11:31am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 84     I could argue about the perception of mainstream Christians for a long time and go nowhere. I gave up on the religion I was born into because of people like that. I can't stand people having to tell me that they're Christian, as if they expect a pat on the head and a cookie. I'm tired of people who can't think without looking in the Bible first, and who say or do vicious, hateful things, and then justify it by going to church.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Try another church   by TreeHouseHero       at Thu 20 Feb 11:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 126     You are such a cynic! The church is changing. but the priests often talk about accepting everyone: heterosexuals, homosexuals, all races, criminals, etc. In case you didn't notice,Pedophiles have been recently ommited from the tolerance list.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Re: Try another church   by renny0       at Thu 20 Feb 12:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 126     I'm tired of people who can't think without looking in the Bible first, and who say or do vicious, hateful things, and then justify it by going to church. I agree with you there -- but I also wonder -- do you think these people would be better or worse without their religion? If they do truly believe in God, then I think their fear of hell is reigning in their cruelty. Can you imagine what these people would be like unleashed from their fear. A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, but with some people, I fear a lot more would be done without religion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Those discriminatin' Texans   by veratrine       at Wed 19 Feb 1:43pm score of 3 astute     Newsflash to Texas: you can be gay without having sex, just as you can be straight and not have sex. The club's goal was not to "promote, encourage, or condone" any illegal activity (ie same-sex relations). It was to promote understanding and discussion of discrimination. Much as the debating club might discuss gender issues or discrimination. So I say the new clause has no bearing on the question of whether or not the club should be formed. Of course, KY has already set the example: go all-or-nothing if you really want to keep your school free of understanding and discussion of discrimination. eggiwegs...I'd like to smash 'em!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  on the devil's payroll...   by coquito       at Wed 19 Feb 2:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     just to be argumentative, you could have a club that exists for the purpose of discussing drugs -- marijuana, acid, heroine -- without actually doing any of those drugs. you could discuss drugs in literature, the chemistry of drugs, prevention programs and their effectiveness. but do you really think that club is going to benefit from the argument that they aren't actually doing any of those drugs? no, of course not. i agree that this club should not be banned, but i also see how the school has a legitimate argument in that same sex sex is illegal in Texas, and therefore, having a school club concerned with the issues surrounding an illegal practice (and being gay is not something you can divorce from sexual activity) is probably a bad idea. the kind of bad idea that gets schools sued. instead of going up against the school on this one, all the parents, teachers, lawyers and talking heads would be better off going after the state instead. the benefits are greater right off the bat. In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Those discriminatin' Texans   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 19 Feb 5:13pm score of 0.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 7     Thinking all Texans discriminate against Gays is a lot like thinking all Gays just wanna have sex.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Those discriminatin' Texans   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 7:37am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 28     FYI - there's a wide gap between "wanting" sex and getting any... :-) Believe it or not (and I'm probably ruining a great stereotype here), gay men don't get laid every night of the week. As much as some of them might want to. (Actually, in the believe it or not category - the Fundies have been trying to put forth the statistic that the "average" gay man has sexual encounters with 1,500+ men every year. Now that works out to 4 every weekday and 5 on weekend days with a short vacation around the holidays (to rest up, I'm sure)! Come to find out their "sample" was based on interviewing hustlers in San Francisco - wonderful honesty in reporting there - apparently the commandment against lying doesn't apply when gays are concerned. This statistic is a running joke with my friends - we've thought about having a "quota party" on New Year's Eve to help people um, get over the hump if they're behind...) Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   181.  Quota Party   by TheMCP       at Thu 20 Feb 6:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 75     This statistic is a running joke with my friends - we've thought about having a "quota party" on New Year's Eve to help people um, get over the hump if they're behind.. Joking about it? I'm already selling t-shirts for it. :-D End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: Those discriminatin' Texans   by Irish       at Thu 20 Feb 10:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     "just as you can be straight and not have sex." Just because it's been awhile, you don't have to rub it in!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Pity the school :-D   by gonzocanuck       at Wed 19 Feb 2:00pm score of 1.5 astute     if they had let the club go on, some parent probably would have sued them. now that they did not allow the club, they're still getting sued. they can't win :-D You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Screename2000       at Wed 19 Feb 2:06pm score of 2.5 succinct   in reply to comment 9     Yes, but allowing the club would have at least let them win the lawsuit against them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Remo1       at Wed 19 Feb 3:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     A very astute comment, gonzocanuck. And they wonder why,if I ever have a child, my kid is going to be home or private schooled. This is insane. Technically, students have no rights to ANY clubs. A school without clubs, would, in my opinion, be a bad school. But it would be better to have no clubs then to have any decision you make regarding them open to lawsuit.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 8:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I'm genuinely curious: when you home school your kid, how do you intend to expose him (no pun intended) to people completely unlike yourself? Since this topic revolves around orientation, let's use the gay community in your area as an example. For what it's worth, if I were a parent, I would also home school - actually what I'd REALLY want to do is form a small community of home school kids with parents taking on different topics [so I'd get science and maybe music]. My reason isn't the oft-quoted one of isolating kids from the world, in fact one of the things I'd WANT to do is take the time to go on trips[*] in order to expose my kid to things he/she wouldn't see in an ordinary classroom. For me the appeal of home schooling is learning by achievement rather than "well, he/she's 11 so that's the Grade 6 curriculum" system we have in the US. But I realize that this is typically NOT the reason most people home school their kids, but something would have to be in place to make sure that my kids would interact with other kids who were different than they are. I suppose with home schooling that might mean religious fundamentalists, but tolerance cuts both ways, and that's an important lesson for kids to learn early. [*] lots of local cultural ones: art, music, theatre, etc. and hopefully one or two trips away per year, complete with learning a little of other languages and understanding other cultures before the trip to enhance the experience. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   174.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Remo1       at Thu 20 Feb 3:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 80     I'm genuinely curious: when you home school your kid, how do you intend to expose him (no pun intended) to people completely unlike yourself? Completely unlike myself? There is no such human. We all breathe oxygen. More to the point, I'd do things like what you said you'd do. While "diversity" in terms of appearance/ethnicity isn't an end in itsself, diversity of thought is. My kid would be exposed intellectually to all sorts of view-points and encouraged to read and think on his/her own. Of course the reason I would withdraw from public school isn't to protect my child from people who are like me. It would be to protect my childs` mind from a dysfunctional educational system in which those in charge seem to be more concerned with covering their asses, and experimenting with their favorite pet theories then teaching my kid anything of use. Mind you, I'm not blaming teachers nor even the administrators for the whole mess of public education. Much of the problem is political. Right now, I'm convinced public education in the US has to be totally redone from the ground up if its to be worth saving.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   175.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Remo1       at Thu 20 Feb 3:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 174     ACKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!! "...from people who are like me. " I meant people who are UNLIKE me. Remo, blushing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by dangerous richard       at Wed 19 Feb 7:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     they may not be able to win, but they could at least do what's right. why is sodomy illegal in texas? because religion says it is. your religion? my religion? why should your religion pass law that rules my life in the land of the free? if i want to hump a giraffe or paint myself blue and screw a toaster, that's my bidness. if god didn't want me humping a giraffe he would have made sure our parts didn't fit. look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by empressrenee       at Wed 19 Feb 11:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     I am not sure why sodomy laws were first written but I know the major reason they are on our books now. It is not so the law can break into your house and stop you from pleasuring your man/woman. It is so in cases of rape and child abuse another charge can be added. I have now done 4 sexual acts with a child under 17 since I've been at this law office and in every case there was a sodomy charge added. Because yes there is even a sodomy charge in the military. This carries a very stiff penalty (no pun intended) so it makes a great addition to any charge sheet. Please thinks before automatically assuming religion has something to do with it. Yes, in this case the law is working against us. But never in a million years would I want it taken off the books. You would feel the same when you had to console a crying child who just got off the stand.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Arcane Gazebo       at Wed 19 Feb 11:37pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 47     Firstly: I have now done 4 sexual acts with a child under 17 since I've been at this law office When using the preview function, in addition to checking your spelling you might consider whether you have chosen an unambiguous phrasing. Secondly: If the penalties for child rape are not stiff enough, wouldn't a more direct solution be to increase these penalties and scrap the sodomy laws? Then there's no danger that the law could also be used unjustly to persecute consenting adults. It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by parodie       at Thu 20 Feb 6:50am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 47     So, to console the child, we introduce a law which makes at least 1/10th of the population's intimate relationships illegal? That's absurd. One then ends up with a law that only gets enforced when it suits the people doing the charging (you point this out quite nicely) - but incidentally, if the police want to make someone's life hell, they can do it for their commiting actions that are a recognized right in other places. Why not make breathing illegal? That way, we can only enforce it when it suits us (because it would be an ABSURD law), and we always have an extra charge to press... Kinda reminds me of marijuana possession laws - rarely enforced, except if the police wanna make your life unpleasant.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 8:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     There are laws against rape. If you "need" a sodomy law on the books in order to prosecute a child rape case, then you're a crappy lawyer. Please find another job - we're MUCH better off without you. Oh and BTW, sodomy laws ARE used so that people can break into your home and arrest you for pleasing your man/woman. I refer you to Bowers v. Hardwick 1986 --- a man was arrested in his own home having oral sex with another man. He served time. I'm surprised you don't know about this case - it even went before the SCOTUS. And what do sodomy laws in the military and their comparative penalties (which are absurd and without merit) have to do with either child rape or the formation of GSAs? For someone who works in a law office... wait - maybe you're the janitor - that would explain your lack of knowledge of relevant cases and complete inability to form a coherent argument. Never mind. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: Pity the school :-D   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 20 Feb 8:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Shall we bring back witchcraft as a crime so we can burn paedophiles at the stake, as well? Sure we'll also torture and burn some harmless Wiccans, but think of the children. Thinking like this is more dangerous than paedophilia. If harsher sentences are required for child rape, then raise the damn penalties for the crime. I don't think that many people would vote against 40 years for the first offense without parole. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  What are you saying?   by Kilroy77       at Wed 19 Feb 2:28pm score of 1.5 brilliant     That Texas isn't a bastion of understanding and acceptance? There is a new tourism ad for Texas that states, Texas, it's like a whole other country. As this article illustrates, that's not necessarily a good thing. WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: What are you saying?   by waldeaux       at Wed 19 Feb 3:57pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 12     Texas, it's like a whole other country. But unfortunately, too much like the rest of the US when it comes to this issue. Apparently in my home town no faculty member will step up and be the advisor to the GSA. Several support the idea of having one, but anyone who does immediately is sued by a lunatic for aiding and abetting the corruption of a minor and sodomy (which is still on the books in Massachusetts[*]). Massachusetts has the distinction of having some of the most anti-gay (and clueless) Democrats in the universe. Within 2-3 years we will probably have the most far-reaching anti-gay laws passed under the auspices of preventing "marriage-like" rights for non-heterosexuals. Unfortunately, they're written so broadly that almost anything can be construed as a violation (public and private sector). It's amazing to see how much things have stagnated and retreated in the last 10 years. [*] Officially the sodomy law no longer "enforced" except that people still get arrested for it, but after they're processed and the info is released to the media, the charges are dropped before it goes in front of a judge. Ah, progress. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   157.  Re: What are you saying?   by Ozymandias       at Thu 20 Feb 12:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Huh? Doesn't Barney Frank represent Massachusetts? He's the most famous gay democrat I can think of.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   187.  Re: What are you saying?   by a2evie       at Fri 21 Feb 8:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Actually, Massachusetts is the nation's leader in establishing Gay/Straight Alliances at a large majority of its high schools over the past 5 years-- my husband is the advisor of one, and there is nothing more awesome than the annual state-wide GSA Youth Pride March in Boston. There is also a Governor's Commission on Safe Schools, created (by a Republican governor, shockingly enough) specifically to address threats toward/suicide risk of gay and lesbian students. You're right that there have been some first-class asinine anti-gay laws proposed in the state over the last few years, and they have a good chance of getting support from the idiot adult population. But at the risk of being a little too Whitney Houston for my own good, I at least feel like gay, lesbian, curious, and supportive straight youth in Massachusetts are starting to get support that their counterparts in other states aren't. So I'm just waiting for these kids to grow up and run for office. damn that golden monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   162.  Re: What are you saying?   by kilmerboy       at Thu 20 Feb 1:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 157     Huh? Doesn't Barney Frank represent Massachusetts? He's the most famous gay democrat I can think of. Oh yes, and all other democrats in Massachusetts are carbon copies of Barney Frank. Didn't you know? hard naar huis? hard voor thuis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   171.  Re: What are you saying?   by Ozymandias       at Thu 20 Feb 2:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 162     Yeah but Barney Frank has represented MA in congress for the last 20 years. It does not make sense to me that MA would have significant numbers of the most anti-gay democrats in the US, but would have elected a gay representative for the last 20 years. I guess Frank is not a senator, so he does not represent the entire state. I just thought it was strange that the grandparent post said MA democrats were anti-gay when MA has such a prominent gay democrat.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   178.  Re: What are you saying?   by kilmerboy       at Thu 20 Feb 4:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 171     Well, the grandparent post said "MA has the distinction of having some of the most anti-gay democrats." That is not a blanket accusation that MA has the most anti-gay democrats in the US, or that the state is dominated by anti-gay democrats. It simply says that MA has a vocal contingent of anti-gay Democrats. I am confused by your reasoning. You seem to be implying that because there is one openly gay Democrat from MA in the US Congress, that it is illogical for anyone else in MA to be anti-gay. I think that's an oversimplification -- "guilt by association," if you will. MA is a populous state; not everyone who lives there is from liberal Boston, so it makes perfect sense to me that in rural enclaves (or maybe not so rural?) there might be anti-gay Congresspeople. hard naar huis? hard voor thuis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: What are you saying?   by monkey.pie.baker       at Thu 20 Feb 9:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Texas, it's like a whole other country. Unfortunately, the "whole other country" Texas is like happens to be Iran. The good are so harsh to the clever / The clever so rude to the good! -- Elizabeth Wordsworth   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: What are you saying?   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 20 Feb 9:23am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 90     Unfortunately, the "whole other country" Texas is like happens to be Iran. No. There are signs of liberalization in Iran. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Saint_Waldo       at Wed 19 Feb 2:36pm score of 3 informative     I went to Klein Forest High School, and my drivers ed class was in the Klein HS parking lot. My girlfriend junior and senior year went to Klein. Just for background, this was a school district that regulated whether boys can wear earrings. It did not regulate length of hair like all of the neighboring districts. There was always a pretty "out" crowd at both the schools, but there was also hate based violence, it was Texas after all. Mostly it came from the sports crowd, making it almost but not quite tacitly sanctioned. That's the main reason I don't hold much hope for the effort. We spent a whole day in Texas history class (required to graduate, I'm serious) on illegal sex acts, doesn't that sound fun? She may be aware and actualized, but she's in the very belly of ignorance and institutional vindictiveness. Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Jeff The Unhip       at Wed 19 Feb 3:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Just for background, this was a school district that regulated whether boys can wear earrings. It did not regulate length of hair like all of the neighboring districts. Something all the punks and square-chic indie-heads who Hate Long-Haired Rock Stars would do well to keep in mind. ...Texas history class (required to graduate, I'm serious)... I had Georgia history in 8th grade, for a full year (and 2nd, for that matter, for a quarter, I think). Teaching state history at some point seems perfectly appropriate to me. She may be aware and actualized, but she's in the very belly of ignorance and institutional vindictiveness. Hey, it's gotta happen someday. She's braver than me, that's for sure.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Blue Dot       at Wed 19 Feb 4:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Teaching state history at some point seems perfectly appropriate to me. I think you're missing the whole part about a lecture on illegal sex acts barred by state law.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Saint_Waldo       at Wed 19 Feb 4:52pm score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 20     I think you're missing the whole part about a lecture on illegal sex acts barred by state law. Thank you. Can I get a witness? Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by chasing       at Wed 19 Feb 5:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     What's wrong with the lecture? The acts are barred by the state, aren't they? Why, then, should we think the State wouldn't want the law known? The problem of course arises, then, that not all laws are brought up, so why just these? But then again, I grew up in Texas, I had to take that same class, and not only were no such laws ever mentioned, but my school (hell, the entire town), didn't really care if you were gay or not. Not supported. But didn't care - either way. Texas is a big place. It holds a lot of people, and a lot of ideas. And I think, really, it's not as different from the rest of the States as either it, or the States, would like to think.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Jeff The Unhip       at Thu 20 Feb 7:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Oh, I understand. But your phrasing led me to comment anyway. When "(required to graduate, I'm serious)" comes right after a reference to learning state history in school, that seems to me worth a comment in itself. Whatever!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by kilmerboy       at Wed 19 Feb 9:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I don't know what kind of curriculum you were following in your Texas high school, but the state mandates the teaching of Texas history in the SEVENTH grade. Not in high school. And it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that illegal sex acts would be mentioned at all, at any grade level, especially in Texas History (why not in World History, or in U.S. History? Huh?) I think you're full of shit, Saint Waldo. Or at least, Klein High isn't accredited by the Texas State Board of Education. hard naar huis? hard voor thuis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Saint_Waldo       at Thu 20 Feb 11:35am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 44     Actually, you are correct in spirit, just like my comment was valid in spirit. I never said it was Klein Forest High School that lectured me on state sexual criminal law. It was actually my 7th grade Texas History course at Sharpstown Middle School (part of H.I.S.D.) that had an all day unit on specifically the sexual criminal code. This is, I must point out, in stark contrast to the TOTAL ABSENCE of any unit on any other type of criminal code, e.g. B&E, assault, EPA comliance, etc. That fact that protesting or in any way not participating in this unit would affect your grade, and due to the fact that the course is required curriculum to pass the grade, and by extension, to graduate, ever, period, I don't think it was too misleading to bring it up to establish context of the educational system we're discussing. I may be full of shit, kilmerboy, but that has very little to do with K.I.S.D.'s accredation, or whether they had us cover what statutory rape was in 7th grade. I was there, I went through the H.I.S.D and K.I.S.D systems, and they did teach that unit. Unless you went through those courses, your opinion of my veracity doesn't mean a thing, at least not to me. Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   139.  Jeez, St_Waldo...   by n29_w95       at Thu 20 Feb 12:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 127     When did you graduate high school? In my 7th grade health/sex-ed class they weren't even allowed to discuss genitalia by using an illustration. The teacher-cum-gym-coach just said, "Ok, see those cut-away pictures on pages 38 & 39? I'm not allowed to talk about them, so look them over and figure it out for yourself." You had to do sexual criminal law?!? ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   147.  Re: Jeez, St_Waldo...   by Saint_Waldo       at Thu 20 Feb 12:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 139     7th grade was in 1984-85 for me. I graduated HS in 1990. They didn't have diagrams, just blocks of text from the code. It covered the forms of rape and assault, and also defined sodomy as anything but the missionary position. You read that right, I was in a classroom in Texas in 1985 discussing the term "missionary position". Again, I only brought it up to show that the system in Texas is set up to reinforce socially accepted norms (even discriminatory ones) as enacted by law in the curriculum of some of its courses, and that the practice predates this thread's topic by at least a decade if not centuries. Maybe not all of them did, and maybe none do now as much anymore. I'm sure my class was soft pedaled on the anti-homo front compared to the classes 10 years before me; I can only hope that current classes are getting less than what I saw dished out. Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   161.  Re: Jeez, St_Waldo...   by kilmerboy       at Thu 20 Feb 1:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 147     Well, I can assure you that that is no longer done. I can't speak for what went on in 1985, but when I was in the 7th grade in 1991, all we talked about in Texas History was the Alamo and the conquistadores. Not once did we ever cover criminal sex codes, or discuss sexual positions. I know hundreds of people from all over Texas who went to school during that period, and I can guarantee you that none of them discussed what you did in 1985, or I am positive I would have heard about it. I also find it curious that I lived in Texas for 22 years and half of my family comes from the Houston area, and didn't hear about this "module" of sex code discussions from any of my cousins, who were in middle school around 1985. hard naar huis? hard voor thuis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   173.  Re: Jeez, St_Waldo...   by Kurtz       at Thu 20 Feb 2:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 147     Just for follow-up, I had 7th grade the same year you did; there was definitely no mention in my class and I've never heard of such a thing from contemporaries. I'm thinking this was probably the result of an overzealous school district you attended, not the Texas system, similar to pledging allegiance to Texas (another monumentally stupid idea, I think). --What Would Azathoth Do?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   185.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by CaptainLiberal       at Fri 21 Feb 8:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 127     Saint Waldo, cheer up. Your 7th grade teacher could have been like mine, up here in North Texas. She had Jack Chic tracts in a box on her shelf, and when you finished your reading assignment early, she'd hand you one and assign a "tract report" on it. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   143.  Re: Yep, That Sure Sounds Like My School District   by Kurtz       at Thu 20 Feb 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I'm going to have to back up kilmerboy here. Texas history is taught in the 7th grade and there are no state history classes taught in high school. Wherever you learned about these laws, I highly doubt it was in Texas history class. --What Would Azathoth Do?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Sheer ignorance   by Queen Domestica       at Wed 19 Feb 4:50pm score of 1.5 astute     I don't see what the big deal is..Our local High school has a GSA (Gay Student Alliance)group..Two girls were voted "Cutest Couple" in the school yearbook. I think that learning to accept the fact that people are different races, cultures, and sexual preferences should be part of high school learning. This is the real world and whether you like it or not we all need to live peacefully together. Why not educate our young people instead of letting the fear of the unknown breed ignorance and hatred.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Re: Sheer ignorance   by conundrum       at Wed 19 Feb 5:31pm score of 1 brilliant   in reply to comment 24     "Why not educate our young people instead of letting the fear of the unknown breed ignorance and hatred." I think because fear of the unknown, ignorance, and hatred are all prerequisites for willfull participation in or defeated acquiescence to living with half-assed justifications for a bigoted, idiotic system of massive exploitation that we call corporate capitalism. If our young people were truly educated to think for themselves and consider a broad range of perspectives, they'd be more likely to reject corporate environments in favor of going into business for themselves. Since it's harder to rake money off the top of smaller enterprises as an overpaid executive, this flies in the face of the hideously wealthy's best interests. Also, smaller businesses are less apt to fund bloated political campaigns or lobby for legislation that would allow them to destroy the planet in a systematic fashion. This is a bummer for people who've made careers of misleading the public under the false pretense of helping the economy. Perhaps what students need to do is realize that the schools aren't in charge of their lives. They can meet at recess/lunch without school sanction as a club and talk about whatever the hell they want to. These same students could get together over the weekend for similar purposes. Or start websites to communicate with other students nationally. Or submit assigned essays on "taboo" topics and flood classrooms with discussion of the very issues the administration is attempting to censor. Is it time for students to take back responsibility for learning, to learn in spite of the schools, to teach the schools a thing or two? This could be an opportunity. You don't know what you don't know.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 19 Feb 5:42pm score of 1 interesting   in reply to comment 24     Ah, I see. And where is it written that "we all need to live peacefully together," and "highschool learning should teach people to accept different races, cultures, and sexual preferences"? In the great and holy book of Political Correctness? How is that book somehow more obviously right than, say, the Bible or the Koran or the Gita? Try, for a moment, to stand in someone else's shoes. Imagine that you believe that God has established certain moral laws and that these laws forbid same-sex relations. Believing this, you might see yourself as morally obligated to work to prevent people from slipping into damnation through ignorance (in your perception) or willful wickedness. In fact, how could you not? You would not be doing it through ignorance or hatred but through dedication to God, love of his works, and perhaps compassion for your erring fellow man (or woman). Okay, back to reality (this is, after all, the real world). Are you really willing to live by the dictum: 'we all need to live peacefully together'? Do you want to live peacefully with the bigoted, the racist, the homophobic, or do you just want them to either shut up or become like you so everyone can be peaceful together? I thought so. This kind of tepid simplistic tolerance (or intolerance, the other side of the coin) is currently popular but lacks much, in my opinion, as a reasoned, philosophical basis for social relations.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by Arcane Gazebo       at Wed 19 Feb 5:50pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 32     In the great and holy book of Political Correctness? How is that book somehow more obviously right than, say, the Bible or the Koran or the Gita? I haven't seen the particular book of which you speak, but one easy way for a book to be more obviously right than the Bible is for it not to be self-contradictory. It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by byrne       at Wed 19 Feb 6:32pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 32     Hi, anonymous idiot. Welcome to Plastic. You might find that more people engage you in discussion or give your opinions serious consideration if you were to register. Like good sex, it's easy, free and anonymous. That said, you've presented a unique point of view. Thing is, I can't get behind the "walk a mile in their shoes" argument because hey -- what about people who believe that God is speaking to them through the fire hydrants and telling them that his laws require weekly human sacrifice? They wouldn't be killing through ignorance and hatred, but through dedication to God. Doesn't make it right. Okay, back to reality (this is, after all, the real world). Are you really willing to live by the dictum: 'we all need to live peacefully together'? Do you want to live peacefully with the bigoted, the racist, the homophobic, or do you just want them to either shut up or become like you so everyone can be peaceful together? Both. I want them to shut up about their bigotry, racism and homophobia, which would go a long way toward everyone being peaceful together. They don't have to become like me; they can decorate their dining rooms with swastikas and conduct unspeakable experiments on Cock Ring Ken for all I care, provided they keep it to themselves. Sorry if that's tepid; it seems more reasonable than demanding racists and bigots change their minds, and more rational than advocating they all be rounded up and shot. And I suppose it's simplistic too -- at least, it's simple -- but I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Why is "Be Not an Ass" such a horrible philosophical basis for social relations? what if grasshoppers had machineguns? I'll tell you what: the birds wouldn't fuck with them. - zyxwvutsr   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   164.  Re: channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by waldeaux       at Thu 20 Feb 1:21pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 32     Try, for a moment, to stand in someone else's shoes. Imagine that you believe that God has established certain moral laws and that these laws forbid same-sex relations. So what? What I believe shouldn't impact another person - my beliefs are my own, and I don't want another person's beliefs to impinge upon me. Try, for a moment, to remember that you live in a country whose ideals state plainly that all are created equal. Now reconcile this with the problem at hand: a group of people want to form a club at a PUBLIC school open to people of a multitude of faiths. The existence of the club does not demand you be a member. Your standing at the school is not affected by your (non-)membership. You do not need to go to any of the events sponsored by the club. By the same ideals of this wonderful government, you even have the right to speak out against the club, using another freedom of religion as the basis for doing so. You can choose to go to a church-run school whose ideals match your own. You can (gasp) choose to recognize that others do not believe as you do and work out a compromise whereupon everyone's needs are met and no one's jurisdictions are trampled (basically "live and let live" - for example if every school were allowed a GSA, I would have an easier time supporting a Bible study group or a Koran study group). You have many choices and freedoms and (in this case) no restrictions regarding yourself. But instead, what your hypothetical situation advocates is an abridgement of the rights of others - that YOU[*] should decide what people may congregate and how, that only YOUR tax dollars matter as to who should be supported, and that YOUR religious beliefs take precedence over others (primarily the people who want to start the organization). You desire the "right" to dictate what others may or may not do, regardless of their beliefs. For you the freedoms of association, speech, and religion would be a hindrance and a liability because you cannot tolerate that others are not aligned with your worldview. That's what I get when I step into those shoes. But it always brings me back to the core ideals of our country: what part of "inalienable" is so difficult to comprehend? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what it's all about. The GSA stands for all three in the minds and hearts of those students. Yet many seek to deny that to them, but I'm sure that were they to become the recipient of such treatment would howl with the oppression. Sorry, what you want me to envision goes against what this country stands for, and I won't cede that to you without a fight. Like it or not, I'm an American too. I'm happy to stand equally with you and stand up for your rights, but refuse to be silenced or treated unequally. I can respect that you might not share my religious beliefs. I can tolerate that you do not think your God accepts me. But since I am not a member of your congregation, I should not (and will not) be bound by your rules or beliefs. On the civic side of things, I demand nothing more or less than whatever you permit for yourself. Political correctness isn't required or even desired - I wouldn't want you to be anyone than who you are. But I have no time or patience for putting up with shenanigans that prevent equal access and opportunity. Do we have a deal? [*] well, depending on how hypothetical we're talking, maybe not "you" personally, but the person who eyes we're supposed to be looking through... Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   193.  Re: channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by Sportschix       at Fri 21 Feb 4:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     I guess I fall into the category of wearing one shoe from each pair ... a Christian lesbian who believes the Bible is full of good things and not-so-good things. I wouldn't want to sell my daughter into slavery or tell my cousin she should have never married again after divorcing a man who physically and verbally abused her. We can't just pick out parts of verses and make them work in our favor. The big thing is to remember that we are supposed to treat others as we want to be treated. So, I guess if you mean do I want to live my life without worry of verbal onslaughts or physical violence, then yes, I would like everyone to live peacefully together. Is that a crime? If we were all living peacefully together, it would erase the bigoted, racist, homophobe. We are allowed to dream in this country. I, for one, dream a line from Garth ... "when there's only one race and that's mankind."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   196.  Re: channelling my Puritan ancestors:   by n29_w95       at Sat 22 Feb 3:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 193     We are allowed to dream in this country. I, for one, dream a line from Garth ... "when there's only one race and that's mankind." The "I got friends in low places" guy said that? ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Sheer ignorance   by Substandard       at Wed 19 Feb 7:00pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 24     I know a lot of Texas heterosexual men who would vote for two girls as being the cutest couple. In their heads they would be voting for the two girls and themselves as the cutest triple. If a tree falls on a mime in the woods does he make a sound?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Sheer ignorance   by eduardo       at Thu 20 Feb 7:20am score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 24     Were they actually cute? J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Don't mess with Texas...or we'll shut you down.   by StofCircumstance       at Wed 19 Feb 5:57pm score of 0.5 obnoxious     Texas....my favorite thing to bash, right after the current Administration... In a state where mothers literally kill to get their daughters onto a cheerleading squad, we're worried about pseudo-intelligent discourse? I realize I've been fighting a losing battle on this one, but homosexuality is not contagious. Tolerance, however, is. What worries me more than anything else in this story is that the school district passed their "addition" in the wake of the club's formation. What worries me even more, is that they had someone with a brain write it. Many in this thread have made much about the fact that the act of sodomy is different than the discussion of the act. Very astute, but not astute enough. The regulation clearly states: No club or organization shall be authorized which, by virtue of its purposes, goal or activities, promotes, encourages or condones, directly or indirectly, participation in any conduct by students that is classified as a criminal offense under Texas law... That's right! They cannot even discuss sodomizers in the school, which is a less-than-kind word for homosexuals in this context. Therefore, the school is not acting inconsistently with its own policies. As to whether those policies violate the law, the answer is currently an unfortunate: NO. Texas is free to make laws barring sodomy, as have many other states in the past. Congress has repeatedly refused to guarantee the rights of homosexuals as a class of people as well. Homosexuals were purposefully left out of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and it's successors.)Therefore, there is no violation of Federal law, either. Congress has left the matter up to the several States, and they have spoken. The best we can say is that Marla and her friends might want to move out of Texas after graduation. Or, they can remain there and be subject to stupid legislation. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  OK...   by MrFadedGlory       at Wed 19 Feb 10:27pm score of 4 astute     ...So, let me get this straight...In Texas, you can be tried as an adult if you are 16 or 17 and capable of understanding the impact of your actions, whether they be theft or murder or what ever... ...But you are prohibited from joining or starting a club at school to sit, talk, and maybe meet someone nice whom you can share the pain of adolescence with? I know I'll sound like a broken record or an anti gun nut (which I ain't), but why are people more concerned with 17 year olds fucking than we are with people killing each other? No doubt the ruling will be terribly effective at stopping teens externalising their sexual feelings...I mean no one ever had sex at high school for fear of breaking a rule or disappointing their parents. ::Faded aka, Michael (Plastic)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  Lawrence v. Texas   by Long Tall Wally       at Thu 20 Feb 7:25am score of 2 informative     There is a case coming before the Supreme Court right now concerning Texas' sodomy law, one that may have nationwide implications. If the sodomy law is struck down, that won't completely defuse Klein High School's argument against the proposd GSA club, but it'll definitely knock a dent in it. "You can never go fast enough." --The Driver, 'Two-Lane Blacktop'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

97.  School Board Law conflicts with Federal Law   by LostBoyJim       at Thu 20 Feb 9:26am score of 1     Back in the eights the Senator Orin Hatch of Utah pushed through a law that basically says: "If you allow any clubs, you must all ALL clubs." The purpose of this law was to allow religious groups to meet on school grounds without getting attacked by the ACLU. This is especially important in Utah, where the LDS church does a lot with schools. In the mid-90s, Utah had it's own crisis with the GSAs. When one formed, the only solution was to shut down ALL CLUBS everywhere in the state (much like Houston is doing now). This included things like the "Meat Club" and various RPG clubs. Oh, and religious clubs too :). Eventually the state backed down and now all clubs exists, with small GSAs here and there. Now the point is, I don't think a local school board can contravene federal law concerning school clubs. Specifically, it cannot regulate content of clubs. Now, they may have a leg up because they of the "illegal" clause, but then, one could argue that gay virgins aren't sodomites. I don't know how that will play out in court. Even the rather conserative Texas Supreme Court is going to have to think about this. And since this is in direct violation of federal law, not state law, the ACLU may be able to move it to federal court, where it has a much better chance of being overturned. This will be especially true if Lawrence v. Texas , the current challenge to the Texas anti-sodomy law, is overturned by SCOTUS. This would mean that the texas gay anti-sodomy law is not constitutional, and thus the club would not be in violation. jim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

103.  The purest form of ignorance   by ksu93       at Thu 20 Feb 10:13am score of 1     ...or that poses a risk to their health, safety or welfare... Let's just cut to the chase. The sole purpose of this clause is to prevent a gay student group from being formed because people in them there parts don't like the idea of gay sexual activity. This is absolutely ridiculous because it assumes that being gay is inseparable from having sex with a member of ones own gender. Does that mean that being straight means you have sex with members of the opposite sex? That's news to me, because I always knew I was straight long before I finally convinced a woman to have sex with me (and it took a lot longer than I'd like to admit). In other words, this entire policy is based on the basest form of ignorance and bigotry. To these fools, "gay" means anal sex - nothing more, nothing less. And if you think about it, the fact that so many people harbor such sentiments illustrates perfectly why gay students need a group of their own. One of their stated purposes is "to discuss discrimination and promote understanding" about this issue. Sounds like the administration could benefit from sitting in on a meeting or two. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

163.  Re: The purest form of ignorance   by Kurtz       at Thu 20 Feb 1:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 103     The sole purpose of this clause is to prevent a gay student group from being formed because people in them there parts don't like the idea of gay sexual activity. Not necessarily. While I'm sure there are some anti-gay nuts in the bunch, you're talking about suburban high school parents; they freak out at the slightest thought of their kids having anything remotely to do with sex. You're lucky if they allow sex education at all in the school, damn lucky if that sex ed amounts to more than abstinence-only. Even when educators are allowed to talk about sex in school, they're not allowed to talk about it (to pimp an old story of mine). Yeah, some jerk put the "criminal offense" stuff in the new clause intentionally, I'm sure, but who can argue against steering kids away from criminal activity? The real issue is that the sodomy law shouldn't be there in the first place. Again, I'm sure there were some anti-gay idiots involved along the way, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the whole affair anti-gay as much as typical high-school-parent-hysterical-reaction-to-their-children-might-want-to-talk-about-something-that-might-be-sexual. Something akin to "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." --What Would Azathoth Do?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

115.  Clubs that focus on sexuality probably not HS safe   by RebolMan       at Thu 20 Feb 10:57am score of 1     Just a thought - While I think the mainstreaming, and equality of peoples whose sexual orientation is homosexual, is important, I'm not sure that a high school club is necessarily the appropriate forum. In general I would think that most high schools would be against a "Straight Dating Alliance" or anything else that condones sexuality in the 12 to 18 age bracket. Sex-ed is a hard enough concession to get... Maybe that's prudish of me. But, somehow I thought clubs were supposed to be extensions of school related interests, or hobbies. But, it's been a long time since someone didn't have a social agenda to push in high school.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

188.  Re: Clubs that focus on sexuality probably not HS   by a2evie       at Fri 21 Feb 9:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 115     How about a club that condones healthy emotional development? Lest we forget that there is a hell of a lot more involved if you are a gay teenager than wondering how to introduce yourself to the cute boy in the next row. Gay and lesbian teenagers, or those who wonder whether they might be, unfortunately have a hell of a lot of intolerant society, self-acceptance, family-approval issues and many more I can't even list to work through along with the quaint little problems of teenage dating and sex. GSAs are about education and emotional support, some of which deals with sexuality but much of which deals with giving teenagers an invaluable service to make them feel good about who they are. They don't give tips on how to hold your gay partner's hand under the desk where the teacher can't see. damn that golden monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   195.  Re: Clubs that focus on sexuality probably not HS   by DomoSun       at Sat 22 Feb 2:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 115     While I think the mainstreaming, and equality of peoples whose sexual orientation is homosexual, is important, I'm not sure that a high school club is necessarily the appropriate forum. Maybe it's not appropriate in that you can't separate the sex from homosexual, but I still think that such a club is necessary. I would think that most high schools would be against a "Straight Dating Alliance" Maybe they would be against a "Straight Dating" club, but part of the reason such a club would be so ludicrous is in that we don't need a club like that. Every day at school is "Straight Dating Day." And if that's not enough, then you have the Prom. A closed mouth gathers no foot.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

134.  Just do it!   by sulli       at Thu 20 Feb 11:50am score of 1     Kids these days are way too respectful of authority. If the school won't sponsor the club - fuck 'em! Hold it after hours, off school grounds, and do a little samizdat-pamphleteering to promote it. Who cares about official recognition? Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

149.  sux for fat kids who might be gay and dress funny   by lopati       at Thu 20 Feb 12:28pm score of 2 informative     from the wsj today: Leaders of an antibully movement complain they are being undercut by religious and conservative groups that oppose efforts to stop one of the most pervasive forms of bullying -- the harassing of students who are, or are perceived to be, gay. EASY TARGETS Results from a 2002 survey of 760 12- to 17- year-olds asking who gets bullied "all of the time:" Disabled kids 6% Black kids 4% White kids 3% Asian kids 3% Latino kids 2% Fat kids 11% Kids who dress differently 12% Kids who are gay or thought to be gay 24% Source: National Mental Health Association so it looks like having tackled race and disability, kids are now on to weight, clothes and sexuality...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

152.  ....   by viperaph       at Thu 20 Feb 12:33pm score of 0.5 incoherent     Doesn't anyone think about the fact that the purpose of said club is to educate people about the fact that there aren't really any differences (other than what plumbing turns you on) between the lifestyles? Well, isn't the need to have a club that exists for the purpose of making that statement kind of revealing itself to be hypocritical at least on some level. The simple need of a club of this form shows that there are in fact differences. Personally, I really don't care what people do in their private time, but when they make it public, they open it up to the scrutiny of all others. And it isn't just homosexuals that get punished in schools. I was holding hands, I repeat holding hands nothing else, with my girlfriend and walking down the hall and a teacher came damn close to writing me up for excessive pda (public display of affection). Luckily, the VP was nearby and I got her to convince the teacher that it wasn't in fact against school rules (she was going to make me find it in the rules that it was allowed, however students at my school aren't actually given a copy of the school rules). Okay, the point of that is that schools are intolerant. The reason, many people are intolerant. Get over it! It's not going to change any time soon. You might think that it's making progress, but it really isn't that much. Also, if you're going to bitch about tolerance, you need to be tolerant yourself. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. I can't remember who said it (so whoever can mention it first, brownie points for you) but the quote goes: "I'll fight all my life against what he is saying, but I'll also fight all my life that he is allowed to say it." (or something like that, I have a horrible memory). I might not agree with some neo-nazi marching down the street claiming that jews and the black man are the cause of all of our nations problems. But you know what, he has the right to do so. And I wouldn't begrudge him that right, I just wouldn't listen. If people could just stop worrying so damn much about what other people are doing and worry more about their own lives, then this world would be a much better place. Stop trying to change people to make them how you want, just accept it and move on. oh, just for information's sake, I'm a dead center moderate (I swing from ultra conservative to ultra liberal depending on the issue) who thinks that our entire judicial system needs an overhaul but I know it won't happen so I try to just ignore the sheer stupidity in most of it. I'm also an agnostic and I had to deal with my own share of discrimination based upon that fact when I lived in Florida and was in high school, so I know what discrimination for your own beliefs or lifestyle is like (maybe not to the extent that many know, but still some nonetheless). Whatever, I guess I proved myself a hypocrite by making this post in the first place (oops) but I just couldn't stand the constant self-righteous liberals who are really just as bad as the staunchest conservatives. You condemn their lifestyle as they condemn yours, deal. Viperaph "Soma....all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol, none of their defects."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

176.  The Bright Side   by MrTripps       at Thu 20 Feb 3:57pm score of 1.5 intriguing     One reason TX still has those stupid laws on the books is because many (straight) people don't think they hurt anyone. It's against the law to carry wire cutters too (goes back to cattle rustling days), but since it is never enforced there is no point in getting rid of it. The more anti-gay laws are actually used the greater the chance momentum will build to abolish them. I think the girls should just start a web site. Surely no one has thought of a site dedicated to teenage lesbians. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

194.  Is is just Texans and Texas?   by mythologynut       at Sat 22 Feb 7:50am score of 1     Some of the comments I have seen could be textbook examples of the cognitive foundations for racism and stereotypes. The "US vs THEM" mentality is the same cognitive bullshit that breeds hatred. To reduce a set of people to "them" is the first step. There are crappy laws all over the US, some enforced and some not. I can find no fault in the accuracy of examples presented, but by reducing "Texas" or "Texans" as THEM is being no better than the people you are writing about in the School system. Pot calling Kettle Black. it's just a theory of mine - D Dennett   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]