Some pretty damning factual findings in this federal district court of opinion, issued after a bench trial. The court ultimately concluded that the school board violated the First Amendment, and that the speech at issue did not cause any substantial disruption nor was reasonably seen as likely to cause such disruption, a result that seems quite right under the facts and the relevant First Amendment cases (Tinker, Fraser, and Morse). Here are excerpts:
This case arose from events involving a homosexual student at Ponce de Leon High School on Friday, September 7, 2007. The twelfth-grade student, Jane Doe, reported to a teacher’s aide that she had been taunted by a group of approximately five middle school students because of her sexual orientation. The middle school students allegedly told Jane that “dykes,” such as herself, were “nasty,” “gross,” and “sick.” The teacher’s aide reported the incident to Principal David Davis.
At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher’s aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, “Yes.” Davis then asked, “Are you a lesbian?” Jane again answered, “Yes.” Davis counseled Jane that it was not “right” to be homosexual. He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents’ telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to “stay away” from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis’s office in tears.
Jane was not present at school the following day because her sister had surgery. However, Davis’s rebuke of Jane on the basis of her sexual orientation became known to the student body. A false rumor circulated that Jane was absent from school because Davis had suspended her for being homosexual. Numerous students expressed their support for Jane by writing “GP” or “Gay Pride” on their bodies, wearing t-shirts with messages supportive of gay rights, yelling “Gay Pride” in the hallways, circulating petitions to demonstrate support for gay rights, and creating signs with messages supporting homosexuals....
Davis began investigating what had come to be known as the “Gay Pride” movement at the school. He interviewed approximately thirty students, interrogated them about their sexual orientations, and questioned them about their involvement in the planned walk-out of the assembly and their activities in relation to the movement. During those meetings, Davis instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing “Gay Pride” or “GP” on their arms and notebooks. He required students to wash “GP” or “Gay Pride” from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.
In light of Davis’s prohibition of messages relating to the support and acceptance of homosexuals, Gillman sought clarification from the School Board about its own position on the matter. On November 2, 2007, Gillman and her cousin (who had previously been suspended by Davis), through legal counsel, sent a letter to the attorney for the School Board. The letter requested guidance on which phrases and symbols students could display at school without being disciplined. Specifically, Gillman sought permission from the School Board to display rainbows, pink triangles, and the following slogans: “Equal, Not Special Rights,” “Gay? Fine By Me,” “Gay Pride” or “GP,” “I Support My Gay Friends,” “I Support Gays,” “God Loves Me Just the Way I Am,” “I’m Straight, But I Vote Pro- Gay,” “I Support Equal Marriage Rights,” “Pro-Gay Marriage,” “Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice. Religion, However, Is.”
By letter dated November 12, 2007, the School Board responded that none of the phrases, symbols, or images contained in the letter dated November 2, 2007, could be displayed by students at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board justified its censorship on the ground that the expressions indicated membership in an “illegal organization” prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive to the educational process. The letter cited students’ plan to walk out of the school assembly on September 12, as an example of the disruptive effect of the messages....
Although the School Board conceded in its answers to interrogatories and at trial that the messages and symbols at issue are not vulgar, lewd, obscene, plainly offensive, or sexually suggestive, Davis attempted to justify the ban on speech, in part, by contending that rainbow stickers and the phrases “Equal, Not Special Rights,” “Gay? Fine By Me,” “Gay Pride” or “GP,” “I Support My Gay Friends,” “I Support Gays,” “God Loves Me Just the Way I Am,” “I’m Straight, But I Vote Pro-Gay,” and “I Support Equal Marriage Rights,” are sexually suggestive and immediately conjure images in children’s minds of people engaging in sexual acts.
Notwithstanding his obvious mis-characterization of the speech as sexual in nature, other evidence clearly suggests that the ban on speech was not motivated by Davis’s purported concerns about the sexual connotations of the speech. For example, during September 2007, a female student complained that a male student had dared another male student to offer her five dollars to “get in her pants.” Davis testified that he agreed that the conversation between the students was “far more sexually explicit” than the banned speech. Yet, Davis conceded that he did not warn the students not to discuss “heterosexual issues” at Ponce de Leon, nor did he investigate or even speak to the male students about the female student’s complaint. Davis also stated that he would not prohibit a male student from telling a female student that she is “cute” or that he wants to “date her,” but that he would ban “I Vote Pro-Gay.”
Nor were school officials concerned about students’ expressions of other political views at Ponce de Leon. While rainbows are banned at Ponce de Leon, Superintendent Griffin testified that swastikas are not. While “Equal, Not Special Rights,” and “God Loves Me Just the Way I Am” are prohibited, Davis and Superintendent Griffin stated that the Confederate flag is not. It is therefore apparent that the ban on speech at Ponce de Leon was motivated, not by school officials’ angst about political expressions at school, but by the hostility of school officials toward the particular message sought to be conveyed....
There’s a lot of bad behavior by the principal and the school board here, but the part that most struck me was that the principal “lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.”
I should also note that if the principal’s argument is that pro-gay-rights speech is “sexually suggestive” and thus freely punishable by the school, then all speech that mentions homosexuality — for instance, arguments that the law ought not allow same-sex marriage, or that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is justified — would be equally unprotected, and should be equally prohibited.
How in this day and age do you get to be the principal of a school and not realize that you can't do that. You can't tell students that their choice of sexual orientation is wrong while wearing your position-of-power hat. You can't back it up with the Bible while wearing your public-school hat. You can't instigate a witch-hunt for homosexuality. You can't suppress some political speech and not others. This is such background knowledge to me that I'm shocked that someone actually doesn't know this.
So can government officials of all sorts, big or small. It's the authority; it goes to the heads of some of them--particularly the lazy and/or incompetent ones who don't want to have to work out problems--and they become tyrants and bullies. But I agree that some school administrators are among the worst, almost as bad as some law enforcement officers.
This particular administrator ought to be dismissed. The school board is presumably elected and regrettably cannot be gotten rid of so easily.
The guy sounds like he could be a sanctimonious creep character in a bad "High School Horror" movie. If I had a child in that school, I wouldn't want them to be alone in the same room with him.
Fub: The mislink was indeed entirely unintended (I accidentally copied and pasted the link to my Academic Legal Writing book from the preceding post, instead of the link to the opinion that I've uploaded). It has now been corrected.
I'm personally more middleground on the issue, and I still find most of his actions unacceptable. That said, I expect it's not from a matter of lack of knowledge. Both he and the board almost certainly knew the rules.
He and the board just thought the rules didn't apply to them.
If that is your mindset, then any discussion of 'gay' would imply fornication, and would be sexually charged. Talking about boy-girl relationships, on the other hand, would only sometimes involve fornication.
I don't think that is a logical position to take - only that if you start with such an assumption, the 'double standard' employed by the principal would actually be internally logically consistent. Except for the whole "lifting of girls' shirts" thing, which makes no sense other than the principal wanting to check out 'hot teen abs.'
I'm over on the deep end of the conservative view of the subject - I think many of us are getting quite a bit more "gay rights" than we need or want - but this guy is definitely out of line.
With luck, the School Committee is elected and has some power over the School Administration and perhaps a new School Committee can change the climate a bit.
Here in MA, School Committees are elected, but all they can do is hire and fire the School District Superintendent and Business Manager and approve the budget - and squawk ineffectually when some outrage like this (or the other way around: see the Lexington case) comes along. It's called "Education Reform...."
There, you may recall, the school officials went out of their way to describe that slogan as political speech (rather than the attention-getting nonsense it really was)which happened to conflict with the School's point of view (DRUGS ARE BAD!!!!)-- it was anything but content neutral. So long as the School's policy in this case is "Homosexuality is bad", why isn't the conduct at issue clearly protected by this recent Supreme Court Precedent?
Wouldn't the school officials have the right to ban armbands that said, "Reform Drug Laws", or "Legalize Dope", ot check the students for Marijuan leaf tattoos?
Having said that, given the way radical queers have been trying to terrorise Christians and others into not even criticising homosexuality, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for queers in general. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One arrogant jerkoff is even suing a Bible producer for printing Bibles at *all*.
I expect to see a huge wave of blowback over it eventually, but probably not for another ten years, during which oppression of free speech by radical queers will grow worse and worse. It's already bad enough in Canada and other countries with no First Amendment, and in California where radical homosexuality is being forcibly taught in public schools.
Then again, I might be projecting my own personal desire that Morse be interpreted as narrowly as possible, e.g:
"A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment , restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use." (opinion of the court)
But even under this interpretation, in an opinion which expressly compared the organization to an association of prostitutes and held that the rules would be no different, the university still had to give them a room to speak in.
Our "blacked-robed masters" have certainly eliminated any possible invocation of those laws.
If I blamed a high school kid for the actions of a litigious jerk who has no connection to the child besides a shared distaste for heterosexual activity, I'd think myself no different than the tiresome "all Christians are Torquemada" trolls who pop up on this site from time to time.
What's blinding you is that the student was being heckled on the basis of her sexual orientation. In fact, going to the school administration to complain about name-calling is perfectly appropriate. Would you say that a black student who is being called the n-word shouldn't report it to the administration, or "deserves what he gets" if he does? Would you say that about a female student who is being called the c-word? A Jewish student who is being called the k-word?
This gets to a point I like to make about these sorts of issues-- there are a fair number of people who still vociferously believe that heckling of gays and lesbians is a social good. That it might deter a few people from choosing a "homosexual lifestyle", that it's a perfectly valid form of speech by heterosexuals against "moral degeneracy", etc.
The fact is, a school should handle heckling and name-calling complaints the same way whether or not the particular epithets are based on sexual orientation. And as long as they are handled consistently and concern taunts directed at specific individuals, there's no free speech issue. (On the other hand, no student should be prevented from expressing, in an appropriate setting, a political opinion about gays and lesbians, including a homophobic one.)
Having said that, given the way radical queers have been trying to terrorise Christians and others into not even criticising homosexuality, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for queers in general.
You know, words are precise things. Gay and lesbian public school students are not the same thing as "radical queers". Complaining about the use of disgusting taunts directed at particular gays and lesbians is not the same thing as suppressing criticism of homosexuality. Nor is it "terrorizing Christians".
I might add, as well, that homophobia is an aspect of certain strains of conservative Christianity, not "Christians". Plenty of Christians do not share the views of conservative evangelicals considering gays and lesbians.
Finally, I have to say that I am dismayed, but not surprised, that several commenters are not able to simply condemnt what happened here without caveats. It is as if expressing any sympathy at all for gays and lesbians, under any set of facts, is something that must be avoided or qualified. It shouldn't be too hard for you guys to say that this school administration went way too far and that public school students shouldn't call people awful names just because they suspect them of being gay.
This blowback is quite the hypothetical. The latest surveys and polls illustrate that Christianity, especially the hardcore evangelical segments, are losing massive population swaths to other religions, or non-affiliation. Not only that, but within the Christian sects themselves, individuals are found to be more tolerant and open-minded then even 8 years ago.
Perhaps there will be no blowback at all, but a peaceful post-mortem silence from the religious right.
To stretch a metaphor further than it probably ought to go: Yes, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but you have to make sure it's the same sauce.
If there is a case where a militantly pro-gay principal forbade any criticism of homosexuality or of gay rights and also forbade advocacy of, or support for the political rights of, those who follow a heterosexual lifestyle, then I presume such a principal would rightly be considered to be acting wrongly. I, at least, would consider him or her to be acting wrongly.
Perhaps the actions of "radical queers" does make it harder for someone to be sympathetic to gays in general, just as the actions of "radical fundamentalist Christians" might make it harder for someone to sympathize generally with those Christians who happen to think homosexuality is a sin but who don't resort to extreme measures. Either way, the lack of sympathy is rather uncharitable: painting all gays with the same brush is, in my view, just as bad as painting with the same brush all Christians who oppose homosexuality.
Just this week a crazy man (with right-wing political views) took out his anger at "liberals and gays" by unloading a shotgun into a church hosting a children's musical recital.
Would that be acceptable if it was the sincere view of the taunters?
Not strictly true. I'm sure a principal would get in trouble in states that have outlawed sexual preference discrimination but in the free states I'm sure that a principal could counsel students against all sorts of legal activities like watching television; dressing like whores and slobs; sodomy; or lust, sloth, gluttony, avarice, anger, envy, and pride.
If he can tell them not to exhale (emit carbon) he can certainly make loads of other suggestions. Educators make many suggestions these days which is why I never let my kids near them.
The principal was wrong in how he handled it.
Absent any evidence of a credible physical threat, he should have simply tossed her out of the office.
Good grief. Can't people stand up for themselves without running and crying to the "authorities" anymore?
The girl should have just kicked her antagonists' asses. Bullies tend to respect people who stand up for themselves. I learned that over 50 years ago.
I'm sure the lawyers would love that nowadays, though.
Not to me.
All five of her antagonists?
I'm not a Christian myself, either, even though I come from a rather Christian background. I agree that old-style intolerant Christanity has been on the decline for decades, which isn't such a bad thing at all, although one does wonder what will replace Christianity in general for moral strictures on the baser impulses of mankind, assuming that any kind of Christianity continues to be abandoned in droves in the United States and Germany and other countries.
To keep this from straying too far afield from the relevant topic, it does seem minimally charitable to give this student the benefit of the doubt and assume she only meant to report what was undoubtedly outright harassment.
As for the eventual blowback, actually forcing a lifestyle that many people find distasteful or repugnant on people and their children in schools and elsewhere is quite different from simply demanding legal tolerance. Terribly bloody wars have started over far less, historically. Ironically, it might even spark a resurgence of old-style intolerant Christianity, in a classic example of unintended consequences.
So the only people who have a right not to be bullied are those who can kick their antagonists' asses?
I suspect you have a brain. Try using it.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70565
Preachers were actually jailed for expressing opposition to what they called "sodomy". They committed no violence, and were on public property. Yet, off to jail they went, at the behest of radical queers. Only recently did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court toss out the law as unconstitutional. This sort of crap is exactly what will lead eventually to massive blowback.
The guy with the megaphone is I think Marcavage's gay twin brother.
Nick
Still looking for guns....bombs....lynch-mobs.....you know, actual violence.....
Gays are, by and large, one of the most docile, passive minority groups. Our one claim to fame in violent protest amounts to a few drunk drag-queens throwing bottles and singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" back in the 60's. Gay activism generally takes the form of pranks and marches--garish displays of fun that are too embarassing for most of us to even want to attend. And yet, we suffer bigotry--actual violent bigotry--on a daily basis. Our bars have been bombed. And gay bashing occurs on a daily basis, somewhere in the country. We live in fear--I wouldn't say constant, but certainly pervasive--that someone will harm us for doing nothing but minding our business and daring to exist.
imagine having to contemplate what clothes you wear every day in order to avoid intimidation and harassment (and I'm not talking about sporting rainbow speedos). It's really quite annoying.
So when I hear someone talk about "militant" homosexuals or how we "violently terrorize" other people, I get a bit enraged. Other minority groups in similar circumstances have fought back with violence, but we gays just shut up and take it. No gay mafia; no rioting--no, we tend to rely on the police and government for protection, even though they are often unreceptive. So, when you cite some fringe group that represents less than .01 percent of the population as evidence of "violent terorrism", why not at least consider the silent majority of gay men and women. You know, the ones who just want to live our lives without getting intimidated, harassed, and assaulted. We're so low key you probably wouldn't even know it if you encountered us, and that is no coincidence. It takes a lot of effort sometimes.
And if you can give any examples where gay people have forced a gay lifestyle upon any person who doesn't want it, you might actually have a point.
Otherwise, you don't.
On the other hand, we DO find many cases where christians try to force their distasteful and repugnant lifestyles upon many other people, including gays, in that they want school prayer, creationism, and hatred towards gays as part of school curriculums.
Morse seems to suggest that when the state thinks something is bad for kids, it can keep kids from talking about if it can make a plausible argument that doing so will "disrupt" class. There's probably an additional implied clause after "the state thinks something is bad for kids", "and if it can get a 5 members of the Supreme Court to agree" (if 5 members of the Supreme Court think something is bad, it is called "objectively" bad, at least until the court's membership changes.)
What, in all honesty, is the difference between a "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" banner and a Gay Pride banner? Is it simply that some people think gay pride is OK but bong hits are bad? If it depends on what one thinks is bad, why aren't the prinicpal and school board, given that the matter hasn't been litigated post-Morse, entitled to go with their own opinion on what they think is bad, until the courts choose to enlighten them as to what is and isn't "objectively" bad?
It should be noted that because Lawrence v. Texas by its terms applied only to adults, homosexual behavior among children can be criminalized, so one possible basis for distinguishing between speech about drugs and speech about sexual matters isn't so obvious. Is it that this speech was serious but the BONG HITS banner sarcastic? An odd distinction to hang the first amendment on.
Given Morse, it seems to me the arguments for distinguishing aren't so obvious as they might seem.
In the 1980s, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether a school district could fire a teacher who advocated homosexuality (more or less on the same lines as these children). Lower courts were split. Given this old line of cases, and given that Morse seems to have weakened rather than strengthened First Amendment protection in schools, it's not clear this is as clear cut as it appears. Frankly, it would seem to be at the very least a candidate for qualified immunity.
Lawrence v. Texas by its terms applied only to adults, leaving regulation of children't behavior undisturbed. Because the state can criminalize the underlying behavior so far as children are concerned (although, under the Robinson line of cases, not the status), distinguishing this case from Morse is not a slam dunk.
Sticking it to the man and winning brownie points with teachers - at the same time. Score!
Interesting. I'm curious, does any state have such a law on the books?
Actually, it is quite obvious. Perhaps schools can criminalize certain sexual behaviors (although if it does so, it would have to do the same for everyone -- equal protection and all that). But, they cannot criminalize sexual orientation. No one can.
The young woman in question merely stated that she is a lesbian. She didn't state that she has sex. It isn't any different from a student claiming she is heterosexual. Perhaps both are saving themselves for marriage.
Very simple. Bongs imply use of pot, which is an illegal drug in all 50 states for everyone, students included. One might conclude that any reference to illegal drugs is some sort of condonation.
Being gay isn't illegal for anyone in any state, students included. No one can plausibly argue that Gay Pride is an argument for anything illegal, or condoning anything illegal, any more than a Hetero Pride banner would.
This seems, at the minimum, to require that the speech in question be advocating an act that is actually illegal.
No state that I know of makes underage sodomy a specific crime in excess of general laws on statutory rape*. In the absence of a valid law criminalizing the conduct allegedly promoted by the Gay Pride group, I just don't think Morse applies.
*I suppose Kansas' 'Romeo and Julliet' Law comes the closest but it maintains that both hetero and homo statutory are crimes, only with different punishments. IOW, anything covered by R&J would likewise be illegal if done by straight kids.
Given that by the time of Lawrence, only seven states actually had sodomy laws on the books, it wasn't SCOTUS that eliminated any possible invocation of those laws, but the states themselves.
And in Texas itself, the legislature voted to repeal the ban on sodomy, but it was vetoed by Gov. Bush. It was only a matter of time before Texas would have repealed the law without any help from black robed justices.
But, please, don't let reality intrude upon your paranoia. Continue to think as you like.
I respectfully disagree. Again, one can be gay but be a virgin or celibate, just as a hetero. Being gay, and having pride in being gay, includes not just attraction to those of the same sex, but it can mean enjoying show tunes, trading decorating tips, wondering if escargots taste disgusting, idolizing Judy Garland, watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, avoidance of getting killed by gay bashers, wondering whether you will get kicked out of the house and left homeless, and other fun things that gay kids go through. That's quite a lot to come together and discuss without ever getting near the subject of sex.
And none of it is illegal.
"Davis also stated that he would not prohibit a male student from telling a female student that she is “cute” or that he wants to “date her,” but that he would ban “I Vote Pro-Gay.”"
Now, I am sure that Davis would not have prohibited homosexuals from telling others that they are voting for Obama or even that they support homosexual marriage, etc. What Davis was objecting to was homosexuals making signs or protests, not actual political commentary or debate. There would be a double standard if Davis had allowed students to carry large signs stating "Homosexuality is a Sin," "A Free Society is Free from Homosexuality," etc.
Except it's not a sexual statement - you're buying into the school's argument, which is wrong. They are expressing support for gay rights, they are not saying that people should have gay sex while they're in high school (although I will note that the Florida age of consent is 16, and I am pretty sure 15 year olds can have sex with 15 year olds, and on down, under Florida law.)
But again, it misses the point, so even if the age of consent was a hard 18, it would be still be legal speech.
personally i cannot believe that the school district lawyers were stupid enough to waste time litigating this slam dunk loss-and give themselves bad press in the meanwhile.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer capable of look at the tea leaves of Morse to divine how the Court will see the next school-1A challenge. Here's hoping it's the California gay bashing siblings (aside: good name for a variety show act) -- it will be interesting to see what the majority in Morse when the shoe is on the other foot.
Normally? With respect? As a member of a privileged majority? From the facts of this case, it would appear that gay students at Ponce de Leon High School are not being forced to suffer through the status of being a member of the largest and most powerful religious sect in the country, with all the attendant advantages and in-group ties that entails. I bet you they wouldn't object if someone wanted to start treating them that way, though!
Crafty, have you considered that the behavior you find objectionable might be blowback to a long history of violent intolerance?
You're not a lawyer?
What a great way to prepare students for the global economy.....
I'd have been driving my kids to school the next day with GAY PRIDE and all those other slogans splashed all over my car. I'm glad the student body reacted the way it did, it makes me proud and hopeful for our young people.
It seems like the sex-obsessed power-tripping of school officials (almost invariably male) always seems to end up with behavior like this.
Oh please. They were using bullhorns and speakers to out shout the official proceedings on the stage of the permit holders. They were told to stop disrupting the activities by the police, told to move to a different location by the police, refused and were arrested and charged by the police. It was 'at the behest of radical queers' only in the sense that they were the legal permit holders - the police did their jobs. Trying to make these hateful people look sympathetic really is just an attempt to make a silk purse out of sow's ear.
Any group of students staging an "anti-gay" protest as these students staged (or attempted to) a pro-gay protest would all be silenced and punished far worse than these kids got it for being politically incorrect and the pro-gay folks in here or anywhere wouldn't bat an eye. It would be par for the course in America's left-wing run re-education/indoctrination centers known as public schools.
So, please spare the sanctimony.
Since real life isn't a Jet Li film and she was only one while her antagonists were five (not sure whether they were guys or girls) this wouldn't have been an option for her. Yet, suppose she did tell all her dyke friends about these bullies and then one day, during recess, they moved in and sent these bullies' punk-asses to the nurse's office.
We would, of course, never hear the end of how the "gay mafia" now infiltrating public schools and beating up anyone who dares to be "politically incorrect" or voice "heretic" opinions about homosexuality.
She did what most gays and lesbians would do in this situation. Try to appeal to authority to settle a dispute or use non-violent protest and advocacy.
Just a quick reply from a Canadian: While most countries do not have a "First Amendment" (well, technically, most do, inasmuch as they have modified their constitutions at least once) that guarantees Free Speech rights, that does not prevent them from having, say, clause 2 of the Charter:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter/index.html#libertes
Astonishingly enough, the US isn't the only country in the world that believes in freedom.
No, no one else has made that argument. But I won't pile on....I'll leave that up to your gay friends.
This is a valid point. Heterosexual males never pressure troubled girls to engage in sexual practices that they may later regret. It's always those darn gay people.
I know there were many times in high school when I was a little depressed and it occurred to me that if I were just to make myself gay, all my problems would go away.
So do you condemn what happened here or condone it in your hypothetical? And who's being sanctimonious?
(That's not even getting into the fact that you misunderstand the difference between free speech and harassment.)
So you are all for "free speech zones" then?
The 1st amendment only applies in public when you've paid for a permit?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
You're telling us to assume facts that are probably contradicted by the ones we know. What makes you think there could have been an active gay and lesbian club at that school, much less one that was bringing in older activists to indoctrinate vulnerable heteros into "the gay lifestyle?" This principal was pulling up girls' shirts to make sure they didn't scribble slogans on themselves. Do you really think he'd have let gays and lesbians get together Tuesdays and Fridays in the auditorium for... God knows what? Isn't it more likely he would have stopped them or tried, something that probably would have made its way into the facts of the case?
There is absolutely no pro-heterosexual speech in high school? Now, it's been quite a while since I've been in high school, but I find this hard to believe.
What if a student wanted to wear a shirt which stated "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned"?
What about if a wedding photographer decides not to photograph a same-sex "marriage" ceremony?
What about if a dating service decides not to offer same-sex dating services?
What if a religious organization refuses to rent its property for same-sex "marriage" ceremonies?
What if businesses in Colorado wish to put up posters that list Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality?
Where is the ACLU on these cases? Or do First Amendment rights only flow in one direction?
ACLU is a private organisation, pursuing its private agenda.
The school is a public body, subject to the restraints government is under in a free system.
I'm wondering though is it common for a school board or any public body to make so patently untanable legal statements in court. Can they not affort a decent lawyer?
No kidding! In fact, there should be some sort of PRIZE for that one. (Free copy of EV's book? What if we all chip in?)
The school, in a liberal city, invited a group of outside gay speakers for rallies and discussions for 'diversity week'. Students were ordered to attend and encourged to support gay rights.
Students were forbidden to express any view not supporting gay rights. A Christian student group in particular asked to be allowed to speak, the school ordered them to submit a speech in advance and when it contained Christian speech and was not gay enough, the school rewrote the speech.
The ACLU supported the school's position and refused to assist the victims. The Thomas Moore Center came in to right the evil.
This statement, ironically, reeks with male privilege. It is not the same growing up female as it is growing up male. It is certainly more acceptable for girls to flirt with bisexuality when they are young (girls may experiment; guys may not). You can read that social reality either as pressure on girls or freedom for them, but the point is that it practically makes lesbian poaching easier precisely because parents and schools are on-guard against young males on the make. In general, it is much easier for a girl's female friend to sleep over without supervision than for her guy friend to. Your little snarky statement ignores reality.
Also, your statement would be just as snarky if we played a substitution game:
This happens a lot.
It's called Columbine.
I would find that strawman hard to believe, too. But what I asserted was that there was no pro-hetersexual speech counter to the pro-lesbian indoctrination, not that there was no ambient pro-heterosexual speech at all.
Assuming this is irony in search of a valid argument, the precise point of my post was that the ample safeguards that exist to prevent heterosexual pressure on teen girls do not exist to prevent homosexual pressure on teen girls. It is the imbalance that is the problem. Whenever someone attempts to correct this imbalance, it becomes a First Amendment issue and accusations of bigotry start to fly. Can't we agree that some parents don't want predatory lesbians trying to indoctrinate their young daughters just as much as some parents don't want their daughters impregnated by the bad boys at school?
If they cannot be stopped somehow, we may see a post-apocalyptic future of only cloned lesbians soon.
The ACLU wants to stifle the one weapon that works against this foe: middle schoolers calling them gross.
I think I saw this movie. The ending was awesome.
Are most statutory rape laws are written to so as to only criminalize heterosexual rape? And besides, they don't stop "indoctrination", just physical penetration. A law that attempts to stop "bad boys" from trying to talk the pants off some sweet young thing would be pretty ridiculous. Takes an "actus reus".
Face it folks. If it a "Christian" lifestyle to bully and insult people whose non-Christian lifestyles you find repugnant, then someone needs to do a major rewrite of the New Testament. And if stopping that kind of bullying is "anti-Christian", we aren't very many steps away from "honor killing" are we?
(2) Changing the subject (really), this comment is a gem of its kind:
The issue of free speech in school is just one of several reasons why the public school system cannot work and we need a system of private vouchers instead.
Beautiful. I can't think of a stranger takeaway from the blog post.
Except for the "killing" part.
So simple.
You need to learn to read: I was discussing the high school environment and minors, not discussing legal adults who have matriculated from college. Contrary to your mistaken presumption, I had lesbian friends in high school who used the term Lesbians Until Graduation. So, if anyone missed the point, it was you. But thanks for telling me what my memories are.
Furthermore, your opinion is spurious. The hypothetical women you desscribe aren't actual lesbians, they are bisexuals who are having fun with women now and who never had any future interest in long-term lesbian relationships that create families. They don't "lack the backbone to be who they really are"; they simply aren't lesbians. You can spin the "artificial" college environment into "freedom to be who they naturally are," but if the football team were running trains on your daughter, I doubt you'd spin it that way and praise her backbone. And she most certainly wouldn't be lacking in backbone if she decided that gangbangs with the football team were something to do while she was young, but inappropriate for her whole life. Nor do I think you'd protest her marriage to an upstanding young gentleman by screaming out, "My daughter lacks backbone! Stop the wedding!"
Actually, I equated bisexual girls intentionally misleading a succession of earnest, relationship-seeking lesbians into frivolous one-night stands to other sexual experimentation in college that would be conventionally looked down upon. Unlike you, I don't actually look down upon group sex or serial monogamy or promiscuity. But my point was to sympathize with the lesbians who are getting purposely shafted by exploitative bisexuals, not to condemn gay sex. But the juvenile misinterpretation of my motives and distortion of my analogies is what I come to expect from many of the humorless, braindead commenters on this blog.
I am telling the truth, and I'm not sure why I would need to lie about anything I posted in this thread. Nor does my joke e-mail really have anything to do with credibility, given that the person you claim is skeptical doesn't provide an e-mail, either. Oh, and I am sure that Sarcastro files his taxes with that handle. Seriously. What bunk.
I wasn't talking about rape at all, but I just want to point out the self-refuting nature of this argument. Basing a rape law on penile penetration of the vagina is sexist and anti-heterosexual in exactly the way you claim it is not. And it most certainly does emanate from underlying hostility toward conventional heterosexuality. Not to mention in analgous cases, boys are prosecuted for statutory rape and girls are not, despite the fact that they are technically raping each other when both are underage.
That's the joke! I mean, WTF?!!!
Who says these women will "later regret" the lesbian sex they had in high school and why should they?
Given the nature of lesbian v. heterosexual sex, I'm sure there are plenty of fathers and older brothers, if they had time to reflect*, who'd rather have their daughters go thru a lesbian stage in their younger mature years until they find the right guy to marry.
* In general women are not sexual predators while men are. I use the term "predator" loosely not to necessarily connote criminal activity (although it certainly can be criminal) but rather sexually agressive courtship. You know what's on a young man's mind; and it's not necessarily on a young woman's mind.
The only remedy is to kick the asses of the multiple bullies.
Well, you're a sexist, and it's attitudes like yours that result in pro-lesbian indoctrination in high schools under the theory that the girl won't regret it and it's better a lesbian phase than that she be impregnated by an evil male. Your post is proof-positive of what I am referring to. In any event, these are underage girls. They shouldn't be indoctrinated to engage in any sex acts. They should be able to enjoy their childhoods as children.
I'm just glad we moved the topic away from that boring mstory about the principle telling that girl it's not okay to be gay and stifling student speech.
No. The joke is simply that the juxtaposition of homo and gayfriends in the e-mail address, given the content of my posts, is absurd. I assumed that very few people would look at the e-mail address, and that anyone who did would have a sense of humor and recognize the humorous intent.
I concede that you are a humorless man.
They can't if they don't know. They might just think it's a girly sleepover.
"You know what's on a young man's mind; and it's not necessarily on a young woman's mind."
I never said men are evil so stop putting words in my mouth. And yes, getting pregnant as a teen is a big freakin deal resulting in either an out of wedlock birth or an abortion (a teen marriage is unlikely). It would be better for a girl and SOCIETY (and to you pro-lifers the potentially aborted fetus) for a girl to go thru a temporary lesbian stage to avoid that.
Why haven't I heard all about this on FOX News?
I'm so home schooling any future daughter of mine!
There have been news stories and court cases. It appears that sarcasm is just a reflection of ignorance.
The true homosexuals -- 3-4% of the population -- are that way because of their natural constitution and no amount of harmless experimenting will change that consistency in any given population.
If I understand the discussion correctly, the point that is being made is that the experimenting is not "harmless." At a minimum, it is statutory rape.
The problem with these two statements is that it envisions world where LUGs use true lesbians as dispoable sextoys. Part of my point is that true lesbians tend not to like that.
I wish you'd make your mind up about who is exploiting who:
It sounds like both parties are bad sorts, and deserve all the exploitation that they get!
Yes, I do think there is a cycle of exploitation; the older true lesbians try to identify/create as many future mates as possible, which leads to indoctrination that backfires in LUG behavior and older true lesbian resentment, which leads to trying to identify/create as many future mates as possible through indoctrination.
So my high-school fantasies went, anyway.
When I was in high school images of people having sex was always on my mind, in fact it was probably rarer that those images were NOT there than when they were.
I hope you didn't discuss those thoughts with middle schoolers.
Maybe he's gay?
In at least two senses of the word.
Heh. I used to call up fundamentalist talk radio host (now notable as an "exorcist") Bob Larsen and debate him, oh, about 15 years ago [has it been that long?] when I was in college.
I remember debating him about Howard Stern when Stern's first book came out. Larsen chided Stern for promoting homosexuality -- lesbianism in particular -- and I asked him that very question: You aren't "stimulated" by lesbians? He told me it sickened him and made him want to puke and I responded "I don't believe that for a second." It got worse from there.
No person with "gay friends" talks about "indoctrination."
Then again, the WND cite does show how pernicious the homosexual agenda is: it causes cross dressing, transgenderism, and similar sexual confusion, even among committed right wing defenders of family values: "Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America."
Children, this is a paradigm of Nierporent's Rule of Cognitive Dissonance.
By faithful application of Nierporent's Rule of Cognitive Dissonance, David M. Nierporent is a homophobe.
I'm sorry I spelled your gay-hating name incorrectly. I guess that is more proof that humor cannot exist in any possible universe.
I know this is supposed to be funny, but I just watched a Congressional hearing on C-SPAN where a woman from the military was complaining about lesbian gangs on military bases.
This blog is HELLA cooler than my job!
Again, the irony is supposed to be funny.
I do not think David Nieporent is gay-hating; I think his comment about cross-dressing was a joke. He could extend me the same courtesy and regard my jokes as just that.
I silence my conservative friends' complaints about teachers' unions by telling them about school adminstrators. "There will be teachers' unions as long as there are school administrators."
Wooga at 8:12pm: The only 'logically consistent' position I can think to attribute to the principal is that while there are different types of male-female love (all those greek terms), that there is only one type of male-male or female-female love, and that is fornication. (I do NOT believe that, I'm hypothesizing the principal thinks that).
Like φιλíα? All that brotherly love is not only gay, it's incestuous!
Randy at 12:24am: I respectfully disagree. Again, one can be gay but be a virgin or celibate, just as a hetero. Being gay, and having pride in being gay, includes not just attraction to those of the same sex, but it can mean enjoying show tunes, trading decorating tips, wondering if escargots taste disgusting, idolizing Judy Garland, watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, avoidance of getting killed by gay bashers, wondering whether you will get kicked out of the house and left homeless, and other fun things that gay kids go through. That's quite a lot to come together and discuss without ever getting near the subject of sex.
Thread could have ended there, nothing more to say.
Arvin at 5:05am: I know there were many times in high school when I was a little depressed and it occurred to me that if I were just to make myself gay, all my problems would go away.
cf. Woody Allen, "Bisexuality does double your chances for a date on Saturday night."
I have plenty of gay friends at 3:51am: But, in my experience, the pro-lesbian indoctrination in liberal high schools is quite strong. There is no counter pro-heterosexual speech.
Later comments confuse me as to his position, and I may have missed irony here, but besides as others mentioned all the teenage boys who are trying to indoctrinate the girls into heterosexuality, it starts in pre-school with Cinderella and Prince Charming.
You think the term Lesbians Until Graduation is a ludicrous concept and an implausible social phenomenon? I just don't know what to say. You are an ignorant person, who, apparently, doesn't know any lesbians, or anything about them. That you doubt lesbians until graduation exist and I just made up this term really casts doubt on your intelligence.
Please. That is not indoctrination. When I say indoctrination I am talking about a part of a recruitment strategy that includes state authorities compelling attendance to pro-gay seminars where graphic sex is depicted or discussed with visual aids, parental consent forms are not disseminated, and teens have to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevents them from disclosing the details of the seminar to their parents. Comparing that to the existence of fairytales is absolutely ludicrous.
At least in my state, Statutory Rape requires sexual intercourse. (O.C.G.A. 16-6-3(a))
Here, what those lesbians were/are/may be doing would be sodomy. (O.C.G.A. 16-6-2(a)(1))
I suspect that most jurisdictions are similar
I nominate this for gayest comment ever.
It is not an interpretation. I have observed it with my very own eyes.
Your thoughts do not correspond to reality.
I live in Manhattan. You need a refresher course on statistics.
My memory of high schools day is rather hazy by now, but my main interest in lesbians in those days was getting a chance to watch. No such luck. I also vaguely remember a great deal of pro-heterosexual speech. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but my recollection is that the atmosphere, indeed the entire culture, was permeated with rampant heterosexuality, and the celebration thereof. My main interest in those days was in getting a goodly share of it. No such luck. I predict, by the way, that heterosexuality will not be going out of style any time soon.
Unless David M. Nieperont gets his way...!
Hearing stories like this one really makes my blood boil. Its not that I much care about homosexuality or homosexual rights in particular, but the thought of some government official suppressing perfectly legitimate speech in the name of paternalism just sends my subconscious straight back to high school and having to put up with official idiocy.
The world is full of strange and different people, and you'll never survive in it without a modicum of critical thinking skills; the fact that someone in our educational system wants to stop kids from thinking for themselves or encountering people different than themselves just hits me at a visceral level.
And for everyone making the argument that this same treatment happens to Christians who express anti-gay beliefs at other schools, aren't you angered at both? I know I am. And I know the people who run this blog condemn both.
Well, the classic legal mechanism used by parents worried about impregnated daughters is statutory rape prosecutions (or threats thereof...)
I don't think anyone but you said penile penetration ... ask most prosecutors and you'll find that the object doing the penetrating is often immaterial. Probably doesn't even have to be a body part. And statutory rape laws do net the occasional older woman dallying with the young boy/man ... seems we had a spate of female schoolteachers in trouble for that recently. Who gets prosecuted is usually a matter of age, not sex, once a complaint is filed. Of course, it's usually the girl or her parents filing the complaint.
The bottom line is this poor girl was harassed, and "I have plenty of gay friends" seems to think she/he can twist this into a pity party for heterosexuals ... methinks she/he had some rejection issues in his/her high school days. All this fear of homosexual indoctrination is just way too Freudian ... and a pitiful smokescreen.
As a parent, I would be outraged that a legitimate complaint about bullying and harassment was similarly twisted into officially-sanctioned harassment of the victim by this ethically and morally challenged principal. It shouldn't matter if the harasmment was straights on gay or gays on straights. It's still harassment.
Yes, because statements supporting gay rights in general are the equivalent to calling someone a "dyke." That is "one possible take", although it is the silliest one.
No. I just hung out with bi-girls and lesbians.
Uh. No one said anything about homosexual indoctrination, Mr. Freudian Smokescreen. I've been talking about lesbian indoctrination, specifically. Methinks you're the one who just made a Fruedian slip.
When I say indoctrination I am talking about a part of a recruitment strategy that includes state authorities compelling attendance to pro-gay seminars where graphic sex is depicted or discussed with visual aids, parental consent forms are not disseminated, and teens have to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevents them from disclosing the details of the seminar to their parents.
Correction: I nominate this for Gayest Comment ever.
And with all the expertise you have gained in this area from your plethora of gay friends, that would be high praise indeed!
I really find curious that instead of explaining why you find my "definition" incorrect (nevermind there was a court case that described the gay seminar in those terms and the district superintendent conceded that forcing teens to sign the confidentiality agreements was a mistake), you simply deny that I have a lot of gay/lesbian friends. Sorry to inform you, but I do have plenty of gay/lesbian friends, and I just described an instance of lesbian indoctrination in those terms. It should be obvious that reality does not comport with how you think it ought to be. Though you probably are a liberal, I imagine that you know very few, if any, gays or lesbians, and simply project your beliefs about what people who do know gays and lesbians ought to be like onto the world. Perhaps if you actually met and befriended some gays or lesbians rather than engaged with equality as a concept but not a practice, you would not be so bigoted towards those with different life experiences and thus different points of view. You are a perfect example of a liberal who pretends to care about diversity, but somehow only has a social network consisting of like-minded liberals of the same class, educational status, race, religion, and age.
I never complained that I was indoctrinated by lesbians.
But, yes, every guest speaker at gay/lesbian events handed out Ani DiFranco CDs. And dental dams.
I didn't complain about it. I just said it happened.
No. I just Googled that article to respond to Sarcastro's remark. I do not even regularly read World Net Daily, but it seemed close enough to Fox News. You really need to get out more. The simple fact is we've come to a crossroads because I live in Manhattan and have led an interesting life, whereas you live in Clifton, New Jersey. That may explain why I know more about lesbians than you do: no self-respecting lesbian would be caught dead anywhere near Clifton, New Jersey.
Have a good day.
And yet, several people said that the solution to the problem is to avoid strand and different people, and segregate all the schools through private vouchers. I guess so that when they enter the real world, they will be able to fight with their jewish, or gay, or black, or buddhist co-worker as to who is more narrow minded.
Oh, and I was indoctrinated as early as elementary school. I was shown graphic heterosexual sex during a 'father/son' night. It was disgusting! I hated it. So guess what fellas -- your indoctrination didn't work on this gay boy!
Man, you all went to better schools than I did. We had a science fair.
It didn’t make any difference to the school principal what the relative merits of my statements or the facts on the ground were. Had you asked my principal at that time what she thought of homosexuals you would have certainly gotten an earful—all of it negative. That wasn’t the point. I was being a turd and deserved to be punished for that behavior. I think it is entirely reasonable for any student to expect the same.
I suspect you have a brain. Try using it.
****
Hey, nice dig, bub.
Although I probably have never "used my brain" in a fashion that would meet with your approval, I have so far made it to the second half of my seventh decade without too awful many scars.
The point is that most bullies are cowards at heart, and when confronted, they usually back down. At least that has been my experience.
Yeah, I've had my eyes beaten shut a time or two, but the problem still went away, and without the interference of police, lawyers, or school principals.
I guess my brain wasn't programmed for whining.
Don't try to mau-mau me. My sister is gay -- and, by the way, happily married to a wonderful partner in Boston. Beyond that, I am pretty much 100% sure that the number of gays and lesbians I count as legit friends is greater than the number of gays and lesbians you're aware of ever meeting.
And whatever you think, or the World Daily News thinks, of a "seminar," nobody WHO IS FRIENDLY WITH GAYS would describe it that way. That was the point.
Of course the number of gay friends you have would be irrelevant to any actual argument you are making, if you were making an argument that wasn't heavily based in anecdotes you claim happened to you or people you know. In that regard, your complete lack of credibility on who your "friends" are does tend to undermine the rest of your stories.
I suppose if you count success in numbers of replies, you have succeeded, albeit as a troll. But don't think anybody buys what you're saying.
Followed by a 'hands on' seminar whereby all male teens are forced to suck dick and women must carpet munch regardless of whether it makes them puke.
Sheesh. You just can't make this stuff up.
Unless, of course, you believe in the whole Homo Agenda thingy.
I do not think David Nieporent is gay-hating; I think his comment about cross-dressing was a joke. He could extend me the same courtesy and regard my jokes as just that.
But his jokes were funny....
What a great way to prepare students for the global economy..... (private, possibly denominational schools of various types).
Actually, the private schools do pretty well at it, as do the home-schoolers, many of whom are religiously motivated. Most private schools have a good overall curriculum, very often better than the public schools. In addition, their teachers are often better qualified and motivated than many PS teachers.
No argument, the selection process of private schools does eliminate problem student to some extent, but we all know that some public schools (a regrettable minority) do provide a good, well-rounded education with a minimum of indoctrination in whatever the fad of the day might be, whether gay/lesbian or multiculturalism or global warming or secular humanism. Others are just black holes where the taxpayers drop in children and money and get out mostly functional illiterates.
Most of the bullies I ran into were bigger, tougher, and more skilled than I was -- which they proved handily when I took the all-too-frequent advice about confronting them. I've often wondered how this theory that standing up to bullies works got started. The bullies I knew picked not so much on people who wouldn't stand up to them as on people they could beat if they did stand up to them. Maybe I just knew a more rational class of bully.
My comment wasn't about private schools in general. I was responding to the viewpoint that Christians should go to Christian schools, gays go to gay schools, and blacks go to black schools, and so on. (Of course, those comments make the mistaken assumption that all Christians hate gays, which isn't true).
We can't prepare anyone for a career today in any field if we shield students from people different from themselves. It may make them feel good while in school, but in the real world, they will have a very tough time of it. And the schools are bad enough already.
Most schools likely have a few female students, perhaps more, who work as prostitutes. What if they formed an association to encourage pride and self-respect among prostitutes and call for the decriminalization of prostitution and sex with minors?
What we be the limits of what the school could do? The association would of course argue that it's not advocating engaging in any specific acts, merely supporting the STATUS of being a prostitute and the changing the legal status of those acts.
If the school doesn't like such an organization (particularly if it noticed, say, that it was tending to recruit attractive female students), what if anything, consistant with the First Amendment, could a school legally do? Did Morse change its options in any way?
Is there a difference between such an organization and the Gay Pride one for First Amendment purposes? To what extent should our view of an organization's First Amendment rights depend on whether we agree or disagree with its message. How closely associated with illegal conduct does the message have to be? Is the association where children are involved the same as it is for adults?
In all candor, a "BONG HITS FOR JESUS" banner strikes me as not coming even close to meeting the standards for solicitation if it were done in an adult context. For this reason, it seems clear that Morse necessarily made the nexus between what the speech advocates and criminal conduct looser than it can be as applied to adults. How loose is it? Does a message have to directly advocate criminal conduct, or does it simply have to be plausibly construable as advocating criminal conduct, under this looser nexus? In whose eyes? Morse seemed at least to suggest that it might be the eyes of opponents, i.e. school officials, rather than the eyes of supporters or existing caselaw.
I buy what he's saying. A number of you are intolerant, sheltered jerks.
If you are going to charge me, someone with no children, to pay for the education of other people's kids, then I get some measure of say in what they get taught. Currently, that is handled through school board elections and other democratic means of the public school system.
Maybe that's because you aren't even reading closely enough to see that "I Have Plenty of Gay Friends" is claiming to be female, and thus, ostensibly, is not a "he."
But feel free to add gratuitous, substance-free insults.
Nate in Alice,
I concur with your statements as an out gay man, but unreceptive is not the word I would use. Negligent would be.
What's even worse is that we have two court cases, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and Gonzalez v. Castle Rock, which states that police are not liable for lack of protection. Gonzalez is particularly galling, because of the fact that despite the fact that the Castle Rock Police Department failed in their assigned duty, they cannot be held liable for Mrs. Gonzalez' children being murdered by their father.
Do I rely on government for protections due to perceived and real sexual orientation? Only in the civil sense, workplace discrimination, and so on. Expecting the police to protect me from violent criminal acts by gay bashers? No way. Get yourself a CHL/CPL/CCW, learn how to shoot, and if a few morons decide that they're going to use a broken beer bottle to stab you and then curb stomp you, give them lead.
www.pinkpistols.org
I never claimed to be female. Indeed, I am male.
Your analogy might work if homosexual conduct could be punished criminally. But it can't.
I thought this had been thoroughly refuted somewhere in the last 150 comments.
Here's one of several recent state-court legal cases specifically upholding punishment of a minor under a sodomy law for engaging in a consensual sex act (the case involves a heterosexual act) with another minor of approximately the same age, specifically holding that the sodomy law continues to prohibit homosexual conduct by minors after Lawrence v. Texas because Lawrence applied only to conduct by adults, holding that it applies to cases of same-age sex where statutory rape laws don't, and holding that the statute is constitutional post-Lawrence on grounds that the Constitution recognizes a legitimate state interest in protecting the morals of minors notwithstanding the Lawrence decision regarding adults.
In the Matter of R.L.C. (N.C. 2007)
Given the way these courts have interpreted Lawrence's explicit limitation to adults, it's simply not so clear that this issue has been refuted at all, let alone thoroughly.