Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Constance Wins on Both Fronts


by Brian Leubitz

If you’ve been on Facebook lately, you’ve probably heard much of the news about Constance McMillen. She’s the out lesbian that wanted to take her girlfriend to her high school prom in Mississippi. The ACLU filed suit on her behalf and got something of a mixed bag victory from the federal court.

McMillen’s name made national headlines when she, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against her school and the Itawamba County School District, asking them to reinstate prom for everyone, without discrimination. A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Tuesday that while he wouldn’t force the school to have a prom, which had originally been scheduled for April 2, he agreed that McMillen’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

That was good news, said her attorney, Christine Sun, senior counsel with the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender project. It set a precedent and helped broadcast an important statement, which was made stronger by virtue of where it came from, she said. (CNN)

First, let’s just say this. This is a win for LGBT rights.  The case will likely proceed through the court system, but it will be precedent for other schools to know that they cannot stop a student from bringing a same-sex date to a school event, and will allow students to live their life as they so choose. Legally, this is a great victory for our community.

But, you’ll notice the caveat there, the school was not forced to reinstate the prom.  So, the private prom will go ahead. And, being as that is a private association, the courts cannot force them to accept Constance and her girlfriend.  However, it seems the folks who are organizing the prom either got worn down by the bad publicity or weren’t all that concerned about it in the first place:

Itawamba County school board attorney Michele Floyd said Tuesday that 18-year-old Constance McMillen can escort her girlfriend to the dance Friday at the Fulton Country Club.

The private prom replaces one the school district canceled rather than let McMillen wear a tuxedo and bring her girlfriend, who is also a student at Itawamba Agricultural High School.(AP)

Congratulations to Constance. She is a role model for the entire LGBT community. Her commitment to fighting for her rights where they aren’t as popular should be a teachable moment for us all.  Thank you!


  • 1. John  |  March 30, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    The school board attorney statement looks like a smokescreen to me. Wasn't it already established that Constance was not welcome to attend the private prom? The attorney's statement, I would think, means simply that the school board cannot prevent Constance from attending the private prom. Have the sponsors of the private prom made any statements?

  • 2. Lily  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Check this link out. It's a different private prom than the one originally organized.

  • 3. Kathleen  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:56 am

    That clears up a question I had. I recalled the private prom was planned for the Tupelo Furniture Mart and wondered why the news reported it was being held at the Fulton Country Club.

  • 4. John  |  April 6, 2010 at 8:47 am

    My fears were warranted. Constance and her date were sent to a fake prom with five other students, two of whom are learning disabled (i.e., not fit to be around the other kids). The rest of the kids went to the originally planned secret, no dykes allowed prom.

    Prom Shocker: Constance McMillan invited to Fake Prom

  • 5. Harold Wilson  |  March 30, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Yes, this is a teachable moment and in regard to Constance, she is a phenomenal role model.

    Unfortunately, the other "teachers" are the school officials and the parents who are holding a "private" prom. They are teaching their children ignorance, hatred and bigotry.

    Any fair-minded student would do well to BOYCOTT the private prom. In addition, the GLBT citizens of that area – along with their straight allies – should PROTEST the prom.

    Let everyone learn what it feels like to be "targeted" by people who don't agree with individual viewpoints.

    Shame on the School Board and shame on all the people involved in denying Constance the right to celebrate her prom.

  • 6. Richard Walter (soon  |  March 30, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Yes, Constance is most definitely a hero, and she and Lt. Dan Choi have done more to advance LGBTQQI civil rights in the past month than Joe Solmonese has done in the entire time he has been head of HRC!

  • 7. David Kimble  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:04 am

    I have a new name for HRC – instead of "Human Rights Campaign", how about "Human Repugnant Committee"? I have been so turned-off by their rhetoric in recent times, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is probably a duck. <3 David

  • 8. Harold Wilson  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:39 am

    I am very disappointed to hear attacks against HRC especially when that is not even the issue being discussed here.

    In my lifetime, I have seen the HRC grow from a small group of advocates to a highly professional and powerful force for GLBT issues.

    Their contributions are far too numerous to mention in a single "blog."

    But what really distresses me are "attacks" from within our community. Surely you can find SOME good being done by the HRC (even if you would like to see more). We will gain more by working together than by tearing down members of our own community.

    What have YOU personally contributed to our GLBT community that could even remotely compare to the hard work of HRC.

    Their daily updates of national GLBT news – alone – makes them worth their weight in gold, so far as I am concerned.

    If you think they could do something better, why not communicate directly with them and offer constructive suggestions.

  • 9. Richard Walter (soon  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:47 am

    Harold, for one, HRC could have gotten involved in PREVENTING Proposition 8 from even being passed. Since they did not, then the least they could have done was been involved with the trial to overturn Prop H8 from the beginning, rather than trying to put it off, and not joining in until they saw that we actually had a case. They are also content to wait until at least 2017 for the repeal of DADT, and on ENDA, among other issues, they have thrown our trans brothers and sisters under the bus. And when the head of HRC is garnering more awards for his fashion sense than for his community activism, to the point that it even attracts comments from, then something is rotten in Denmark, and I don't mean the fish that has been on the countertop for a week. HRC has gotten to where they are resting on their laurels and past acheivements to keep the money rolling in, because Joe Solmonese knows that once we achieve full rights, and full citizenship in this country that he is out of a job. There are other organizations out there that are doing more for us than HRC is, and one of those is Courage Campaign. We also have Equality Across America, White Knot for Equality, and the other groups whose names I cannot remember now. And I have a FB group that I started for the gathering and setup of Equality Rides from all over the US to converge on Washington, DC at one time, with all of us in our everyday working clothes to continue putting a face and a name on the costs of discrimination.

  • 10. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:38 am

    I know we're all frustrated here, waiting and waiting for something new to happen on the case.

    However, I do agree with Harold on one thing (and it's not his position on the HRC) — and that is that we are even starting to eat our own young on this board. It's one of the reasons I don't post as often as I used to.

    If love is what all of this is about, why isn't that what we're putting into the world anymore? You get what you focus on, folks.


  • 11. Bob  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:25 am

    @ Fiona, Amen!!!!!! thanks for focussing attention on what we want, instead of what we are so frequently given. The switch is an internal personal experience, it is possible to transcend a negative experience in thought, and respond with love. This could be our highest goal, on our journey , Dan Choi set the example, and reminds us to Be the Change.

    I do think this blog could be turned into an interesting documentary testament of our shared common experience, I was dreaming last night of the things we share, and how we are responding, this is an excellent example of the evolution of the LGBT community, and where we are at , in this point of our history in the universe.

    These ramblings could be saved as revealing archives of our history, or Fiona, even turned into a great ficition novel.

    This is a side note Fiona, but I would like to read one of your books, can you tell me a title

  • 12. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Hi, Bob. Thanks for your kind words — and for asking about my books! I hope to have some exciting new information to share tomorrow about one of them, BTW.

    There are links to all three ("In The Eye of The Beholder," "Les Pensees Dangereuses" and "Born of War … Dedicated to Peace") on my website: click here.

    Fiona 🙂

  • 13. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:43 am

    PS: "Les Pensees Dangereuses" is the one where I talk about (among other thing) marriage equality. I share several essays on the subject that I have written as far back as 2004.


  • 14. Lily  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:44 am

    This on so many levels, seriously. I used to love reading the comments back during the actual trial writeups, lots of very insightful posts. Now I hardly look at them because it's all raging at off topic things. It's like we can't even enjoy a victory without being reminded that we all have a lot of work to do.

    We're supposed to be the side that's above the petty insults and name calling, so why is it that so many of us constantly resort to what amounts to insults?

  • 15. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 8:34 am

    PS re: my books:

    I just got a US publisher for "In The Eye of The Beholder." (I'm published in the UK and electronically.) I'll be signing contracts, etc., and then sending off the manuscript to get everything moving. Plus — they love the original artwork for the book and I get to keep it for the US edition. This is great news, because my artist is also a wonderful friend.

    I just had to share.

    We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.


  • 16. Richard Walter (soon  |  March 31, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Mazel Tov on getting a US publisher for "In the Eye of the Beholder," fiona! that is GREAT news! Look forward to seeing you on Oprah's Book Club shortly!

  • 17. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Harold…you have blinders on…all HRC is good for is raising a personal cash build up for Joe Solmonese…his only accomplishment this year has been winning the "best dressed" award. clothing he no doubt purchased with YOUR donations.
    HRC has consistantly done all they could to prolong the gay equality fight, because when we do achieve equality..Joe's cash cow dries up, and he will be forced to live like we normal folks.
    the daily updates you speak of are laughable…there are about 30 other gay sites that report everything the HRC does, and most of the time BEFORE the HRC does.

    the HRC is as bad for the gay community as NOM and Maggie Gallagher.
    the HRC's daily updates that you are so proud of mean nothing when that's all they are doing…updating. They have done NOTHING for gay rights in the last two years.

    they in fact don't even want to help members of the trans community. I am not trans, but many people are. All Joe cares about is attending fancy dinner parties and photo ops with B-list stars.
    this is evidenced by the HRC's latest decision to hold a rally?..wherein he took alot of pictures with Kathy Griffin while Dan choi was chained to the white house.

    we all know what Dan was doing that day…can you tell me what the Kathy Griffin rally with HRC and Joe was all about?..NO…you cannot. I only hope Joe got some really good pics to hang on his million dollar homes walls.

  • 18. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:00 am

    LOL@ Richard. After I posted my enlightening rant to Harold..I went back and read your post to him…seems great minds think alike..LOL

  • 19. HunterR.  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:26 am

    More news in another front: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests at military funerals.

    Seems to me we are the only group people feel free to target hiding behind the Free Speech argument. The kind of speech the WBC uses against our community is violence at its worst. Shouldn't these kids be removed from that hateful environment? Isn't that kind of ugly indoctrination consider child abuse?

  • 20. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Just to clarify — the free speech part of the 1st Amendment is not how the Phelps clan won their appeal. They won it on the Establishment Clause, arguing that the lawsuit breached their right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.

    Fiona (who disagrees with the decision … but Westboro Baptist is a registered church)

  • 21. Kathleen  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I think Phelps argued both First Amendment rights (religion and free speech), but I think the Fourth Circuit reversed based on the free speech claim, at least according to analysis found here:

    I'd need to read the 4th Circuit opinion to be sure.

  • 22. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:36 am

    BTW, just learned that Bill O'Reilly (of all people!) has offered to pay the grieving father's judgment.


  • 23. Kevin S.  |  March 31, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Wow, that's the second time he's stood up for gay rights recently (he also spoke out against the Catholic kindergarten in Colorado). Of course, it could be more of a "support the troops" thing, but given the ridiculous sway Fox News has over the right (as evidenced by their creation of the tea baggers), having one of their most prominent talking heads be supportive of gay rights… well, that can't hurt.

  • 24. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Wooooooo…hooooooo…."Let's hear it for the Girl!!!!!!"…….I heart Constance…<3….Ronnie

  • 25. Harold Wilson  |  March 31, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Soooooo – speaking of Constance …..

  • 26. Bob  |  March 31, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Speaking of Constance, I would say she portray's and example for us all to look up to , someone who transforms negative reactions into positive affirmations, stands firm in who she is as a person, in such a way that it makes a difference for others, without being nasty to the people who offended her. Thanks Constance for that example

  • 27. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:04 am

    So ONE military man has it right!:

  • 28. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Today in Proof-reading 101:
    Apparently MSNBC suffered a freudian slip when printing a story regarding DADT.

    apparent also is that the Marines like "bottoms"
    enjoy the headline as reported by MSNBC

  • 29. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:19 am


    home schooling is a bad thing it seems.

  • 30. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:41 am

    The person who has this photostream has dubbed it "Teabonics."


  • 31. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 7:25 am

    hehehehe…..hooked on Teabonics worked fore be….is Laneguage the other spelly cheaze?……bwaaaaaa….<3……Ronnie

  • 32. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Marines dad REFUSES to pay WBC any money. this is going to supreme court he says.

  • 33. Sagesse  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:13 am

    From the article

    "Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Kansas, plans to protest in Florida on Wednesday, outside a funeral for a Marine killed in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan on March 22.

    “Military funerals have become pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool,” states a press release posted on the church’s website, announcing the rally at a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson. At the bottom of the press release are printed the words “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the roadside bombs that have killed thousands of troops in both wars."

    Perhaps a suitable counter-demonstration could be arranged, as was done for the Laramie Project?

  • 34. Dave P.  |  March 31, 2010 at 10:14 am

    YES. YES. YES. DO THIS!! The Westboro Cult chickened out on Saturday and didn't show up at Hillsdale High for their planned demonstration at The Laramie Project because the school and various pro LGBT forces did such a great job of organizing a huge counter-demonstration. It was obvious that they would look like losers, even to other anti-gay bigots, due to the overwhelming show of support for equality and decency.

    So if this happens every single time they threaten to show up anywhere, their days are over. They'll cancel again and again and nobody will every have to hear or see their disgusting message of hate again. Like Hillsdale, the events will turn into peaceful celebrations of equality and equal rights. OUTNUMBER AND OVERWHELM.

  • 35. Sagesse  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Idea of the Day: Re-enlisting Service Members Discharged Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

    An example of the results that should come from the Pentagon DADT repeal study. Not that it takes nine months to figure it out.

  • 36. Tim  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Brian you said

    First, let’s just say this. This is a win for LGBT rights. The case will likely proceed through the court system, but it will be precedent for other schools to know that they cannot stop a student from bringing a same-sex date to a school event, and will allow students to live their life as they so choose.

    I'm sorry I feel this sends the wrong message! Being LGBT is not a choice.
    W/respect Tim

  • 37. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:32 am

    "living ones life as they choose" refers to CHOOSING to live openly…not that they CHOSE to be gay.

  • 38. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Ok so last night on "90210", Adrianna talks with Naomi and Silver about having more the friends feelings for Gia who last week told her that she has a crush on her……They talked it out really well…..the convo. starts at 7:45…..of course Naomi made the whole thing about her….but Silver really spelled it out…..Then later Ade talked it out with Gia, they kissed and she aid she would want to do it again….Gia asked her out on a date….Ade said yes(this part is not in the video below, but I'll see if I can find it)…..I can't wait to see how this storyline plays out though……<3….Ronnie:

  • 39. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:54 am

    LOL…I found it….Adrianna and Gia's convo. about sexuality and their feelings for each other and the decision to go on a date and see where it goes……starts at 1:23…..<3….Ronnie:

  • 40. Kathleen  |  March 31, 2010 at 6:59 am

    The 9th Circuit has issued an order requiring the two sides in the discovery dispute to file briefs by April 9, "addressing solely the issues of whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal and whether mandamus is appropriate." This means the Court of Appeals has not yet decided whether to take up the discovery appeal; it will decide sometime after the briefs are filed.

    This order, dated 3/31, can be seen here:

  • 41. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 7:14 am

    so we are still many months away from getting any news…first they have to decide this, then they go back to Walker, who will then set a closing argument weeks later, then will want to take a few weeks more to write his decision, then..on and on and on…..
    hard to deal with while still recovering from the bus accident…you know..the one where Obama and the DOJ threw us under the DADT bus.

  • 42. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 31, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Trying to stay on topic…. 😉

    I'm reminded of a time I was watching footage from my prom and my grandma expressed surprise at a young black man escorting a young white woman. One day the Constance McMillens of the world will blend in with all the other couples and nary a perplexed glance will be made.

  • 43. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 8:23 am

    well what do you know about this?..
    It seems that every time the "christians" call us names and say we are not normal and that Jesus doesn't like us…they are actually causing Jesus to BLESS us.
    Here is a little used direct quote from the bible that the Christians don't want us to know about:

    Jesus said, "Blessed are you, when people revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11

  • 44. Bob  |  March 31, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Oh my god, this is dragging on so long, that now even dieter is quoting bible passages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! guess we got to explore a little of where they're coming from, just kidding dieter, but it is cute.

    I think the court case will drag on until we convert Melissa to our side , that's all that's left, since we got into reading the bible. LOL

    And by the way, that is a good one to throw back at them,

  • 45. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Give me some credit….it is very hard for me to read a bible since I refuse to touch one, for fear of bursting into holy flames.

    Was a trick to get ordained but I did it…and all without TOUCHING a bible.!!!
    as soon as prop 8 goes away, I am ready and ordained to start marrying everybody…now if only I could find a date for myself….hmmmm….

  • 46. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I'm sorry Haggie, again, who is being attacked, threatened, and having property vandalized?….That's right…LGBTQQIA……not Hateros….

    Posted on March 31, 2010
    Gay Campsite Vandalized
    By Michelle Garcia

    A gay and lesbian campground was vandalized in Saugatuck, Mich. over the weekend. Photos of the site show that vandals spray painted a swastika and the words, "Fags don't belong" on the fence surrounding the Campit Outdoor Resort.

    (me) Isn't Haggie in Mich. right now?…..I'm just saying….coincidence?…..I think not…..

    Co-owners Sally Howard and Michael O'Connor said this is the first time in their 10 years of ownership that such an attack has taken place at the resort. Before they became owners, the site had been known as a gay and lesbian resort for 30 years prior. According to its website, Campit offers more than 100 RV sites, tent camping, and cabins.

    (me) What's that Yogi?……The Yellowstone Caldera is grumbling?……Man put that picnic basket down we need to get to safety…..oh wait there is so safe place from one of the worlds largest super volcano that is being fueled by the hate of the USA Hateros…..BOOM!!!!!…..hehehehe…..<3…..Ronnie

  • 47. Ronnie  |  March 31, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Posted on March 31, 2010
    Anybody Can Be a Single Lady
    By Editors

    The latest "Single Ladies" youtube sensation has little to do with Beyoncé: A male toddler is told by his father that he can't sing along to "Single Ladies" because he's not a single lady, which leads to a fit of tears.

    But his father quickly reverses his assertion and tells him, "It's OK, you're a single lady."

    (me) aweeee…..this video is so cute….if only all we had to do was cry….yeah?……<3….Ronnie:

  • 48. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 10:57 am

    More proof Obama sold us out..and has ZERO intention of doing away with either DOMA or DADT.

  • 49. cc  |  March 31, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Arg not again. First his administration defends DOMA by comparing the LGBT community to pedophilia and incestuous relationships and its defending DADT! I think I’m going to vomit. Yeah you can say that he had to, its law, etc, etc… but really he has a choice! Remember Schwarzenegger and the Attorney General isn’t defending Prop 8 or whatever this disgusting amendment on our CA Constitution is called.

  • 50. Sagesse  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Don't get me wrong. I don't like the way DOJ is arguing the DOMA and DADT cases. It feels rigid and legalistic.

    Just trying to psyche out Obama's logic. Bush was all about executive power. Obama lets legislators legislate… and sometimes it's awkward and messy… think health care reform. He let them thrash around plenty, but in the end Congress owns the legistation. That seems to be important to him. DOMA and DADT are the law of the land and need to be overturned by Congress.

    The difference in California is that Prop 8 was not passed in the legislature, it was a ballot initiative. It explicitly goes after a California Supreme Court decision. The governor and the AG are saying "this isn't our law, it was handed to us. We (the government of California) have to live with it, but we don't own it." There is a California Supreme Court agrees with them.

  • 51. Carvel  |  April 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    We were hustled. We gave him the vote and he gave us the shaft. I didn't bote for him because no other democratic elected official ever gives us what they promised us. Clinton signed the DOMA into law. Perhaps he did this while getting a blow job in his chair in the oval office. What on earth led you to believe that he was going to do anything for us and repeal a clearly unconstitutional law and policy.

    It will take the courts acting to make a change. Let us hope that the Supreme Court has the courage of their convictions to civil rights and puts religion, prejudice, traditions notions of what they were taught by their bigoted ancestors all in its place.

    I do not care for me as I am old and my time to get married has passed. My deceased partner of a lifetime has been dead since before we could legally get married anywhere. My hope is for the next generation.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Carvel, I am truly sorry for the loss of your spouse. I am saddened by the fact that our country did not evolve soon enough for you to enjoy the benefits of marriage.


  • 53. Zander  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Way to go Constance! I was wondering if she was going to be able to go to the prom or not.

    Also, thanks for the video, Ronnie, I needed to see something like that tonight.

  • 54. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    woohoo…they just announced that they are holding auditions for Glee at the arden fair mall on April 12th. That is right by my house….

  • 55. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Here is a post to clear up a few things about the DOJ defending DADT. Especially for Fiona who is under the false assumption that it is required for the DOJ to do so.
    That is in fact wrong. the DOJ is NOT required to defend anything. Something being a tradition, does not make it mandatory. if you subscribe to that idea..then you cannot say we should be trying to over-rule "traditional" marriage.

  • 56. Sagesse  |  March 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Rhetorical nitpicking. Obama will say that DADT or DOMA is 'discriminatory', but will not say it is 'unconstitutional'. Is there a legal distinction?

    Perhaps it has something to do with being a constitutional scholar. I get the feeling he believes it is for the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality… not his place to voice his opinion on their turf. Repeal ducks the question of constitutionality… it just gets out ahead of the Court, whose sympathies are somewhat murky, and gets rid of the law.

  • 57. fiona64  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Dieter, you are wrong and so is that blog. How about if you go to the source?

    Quote from the mission statement at that link (emphasis added): To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law;

    Whether or not we agree with that mission, Dieter, it is indeed the DOJ's job to enforce the law. Unless and until the law is changed, their hands are tied.

  • 58. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:07 am

    you are FLAT OUT wrong Fiona, and I will not argue this with you. You are WRONG. I have already provided you with at least THREE cases wherein the presidents of 3 different administarations REFUSED to defend laws they felt they did not need to. That is HISTORIC fact! and the 3 cases I provided were all recent.
    You should join HRC. They also like to twist the truth to fit into their own reality.
    learn to READ and UNDERSTAND what actual LAW means before you call someone a liar.
    now go away. and perhaps spend some time trying to come up with an explanation for the list of times wherein the DOJ refused to defend laws…..

    Don't bother responding to me, because much like people from NOM and HRC, I do not argue with drivel and mis-information. I think your wig must be on too tight.

  • 59. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:11 am

    and sweetheart a MISSION STATEMENT is NOT a LAW!
    read the entire post you so kindly provided yourself!

  • 60. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:12 am

    "To give advice and opinion when REQUIRED by the President……."

  • 61. fiona64  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Dieter, I fail to understand why you so consistently make an ass of yourself and then accuse other people of being too tightly wound.

  • 62. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:48 am

    aww..poor tranny upset because I called her out on her LIE?

    a mission statement is NOT a law idiot. and I see like the christians…you have refused to explain the many cases that the DOJ has NOT defended….. why are you avoiding the facts?
    the DOJ is NOT required by any law to defend anything….
    it is a tradition to do so when the PRESIDENT asks them to. NOT A LAW that they must.
    I will let you figure out reality on your own..I see you have already experienced dificulty in living in reality …
    and I gotta love how you randomly stated that I "consistantly" have made a fool of myself…I will wait for the list of THAT proof!!…LOL
    You got called out for spouting ignorance and that angers you to the core of your man panties doen't it?
    YOU stated I was wrong and then you tried to prove it by posting a link that in fact proved YOU wrong. Gotta love it.
    your assignment for the day is to go look up or google the definition of "mission statemnet", and then compare that to LAW.

    My mission statement is that I will meet a hot younger than me stud, and get married, and live happily ever after. That does not make it the law.

    I think your hormones may be affecting your ability to understand law…and ENGLISH.

    read your own post again.
    Oh and have a lovely day.

    you don't exist anymore.

  • 63. fiona64  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Thanks for proving my point (both from today and yesterday), Dieter. Your regularly scheduled "I'm leaving and never coming back" post should come any minute now, I'm guessing …

    First of all, I'm not a "tranny," which is a term that you KNOW is offensive to our transgendered friends. Heck, I'm not even transgendered.

    Second, the mission of the DOJ is to enforce the law. You didn't prove anything to me except what a complete ass you are.

  • 64. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Fiona….you get more ignorant with each post. a MISSION is NOT a LAW…bitch….learn ENGLISH!!!!

    I notice other than your sad attempt to distort reality, you have still as of yet FAILED to provide a link to the LAW that states otherwise.

    LOL……no wonder people hate gays…it's because ignorant witches like you insist on spreading FALSE made up facts.

    again I state for your convenience…
    is your weak little mind understanding that yet?



    Got it yet?

  • 65. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Wow, dieter. Fiona disagrees with you so you start name calling? That this is uncalled for should be self-evident. Dieter, I appreciate your contributions here, but I think this is over the line and does everyone here a disservice.

    As to the question being debated… I don't pretend to be expert on this question, but I haven't read anything in what's been posted that has suggested that the DOJ had much choice but to defend DADT, when a challenge was brought into the courts.

    It's true that there's a lot of nuance to how much influence the President has in directing the DOJ, but it is the job of the DOJ to enforce the laws of the US.

    This reference:
    says, almost all of the exceptions fall into one of three categories. (1) where Supreme Court decisions have essentially nullified the law (I would add that sometimes it's been less dispositive than a SC ruling; it may have been any Federal Court ruling casting doubt); (2) involves statutes that in DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself; and (3) involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional.

    I don't see DADT falling into any of these categories.
    (1) the closest I can think of is the case of Witt v. Department of the Air Force. However, the Court did not rule that the policy was unconstitutional; it only objected to the manner in which it was being implemented.
    (2) this president has made it pretty clear that he does not believe he has the authority to overrule the policy, that it must be done by Congress
    (3) I don't believe he's ever made a public statement that DADT is unconstitutional. I doubt he ever would, because I doubt he believes it is. Believing it's a bad policy that should be changed and believing it's unconstitutional are two different things.

    Let me make it clear; I remain HIGHLY suspicious of just how effective and sincere an advocate Obama will prove to be for the glbt community. I'm just saying that the fact that the DOJ is defending DADT in court isn't necessarily a strong indicator on the question. It may, instead, be more of an indicator of how Obama views his role as President, in directing the DOJ.

    Dieter, you made reference to three cases you cited earlier, giving historical evidence to the role the President can play in guiding DOJ defense of federal law. If you can point me to the references, I'll be glad to look at them and give an opinion as see how they fit into the analysis offered above. (and whether they do).

    I hope we don't lose any of our valuable contributors here over a disagreement of opinion and I hope that disagreements can be handled in a civil manner.

  • 66. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    More trouble for the POPE.

  • 67. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Day 16 and still no response from the President or the white house.

  • 68. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    gay marriage recognized in Maryland….for now.

  • 69. Straight Grandmother  |  March 31, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    I am happy for Constance. I was suspecious that that private prom, by means of being "private" was going to ban her and I see my suspecions were right. But now after the parents heard about the Judge's decision that she was discriminated against and the Judge said she could sue for money damages, now these parents decide to drop that prom and we move to a now "All inclusive prom." Well good for Constance, good for her girlfriends and good for all young people everywhere. Thank YOU Constance.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Posted on April 01, 2010
    Anna Paquin: "I'm Bisexual"
    True Blood star Anna Paquin came out as bisexual on Wednesday while filming a PSA for the True Colors Fund's "Give a Damn" campaign.
    By Editors

    (me) I'm…….coming…….OUT!!!!…..I want the world to know…….got to let it show!!!!…….

    True Blood star Anna Paquin came out as bisexual while filming a public service announcement for the True Colors Fund, the organization founded by Cyndi Lauper to raise money for gay rights.

    (me) OMG…… I heart True Blood and I heart Sookie Stackhouse and Anna…..

    "I'm Anna Paquin. I'm bisexual, and I give a damn," the actress said into the camera while filming her PSA, according to Radar Online.

    (me) Let's all say it….."I'm Ronnie Mc. I'm Gay, and I give a damn"…… she's engaged to Stephen Moyer but she still likes a little lady lady action…..Good for her……

    Other celebs taking part in the “Give a Damn” campaign include Cynthia Nixon, Whoopi Goldberg, Elton John and Kim Kardashian.

    (me) and yet NOM and Haggie have yet to find their 21st century Anita… sad……<3….Ronnie

  • 71. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Posted on April 01, 2010
    Free Bibles for Gay Prom Controversy
    By Julie Bolcer

    (Me) I'm sorry…but who's trying to recruit people?

    A youth pastor who believes Itawamba County Agricultural High School students need help coping with this season’s gay prom controversy plans to distribute free copies of the New Testament to students Thursday in Fulton, Miss.

    (me) ummm…."need help coping"?!…..did somebody die?…..FOOLS!!!……

    “This spectacle, which has drawn nationwide attention, has been turned into an opportunity for an enterprising youth pastor, Tracy McMillen (no relation) of Bethel Baptist Church in Fulton. His students are planning to offer a free copy of a youth-oriented New Testament to every student at Itawamba who wants one.

    (me) you mean a youth-oriented New Testament that was fabricated to read how you want it to read instead of how it was written, what?, over a thou years ago?

    “‘This situation has been chaotic and confusing for this entire community,” said McMillen, ‘and we believe the answers to the questions people have been asking are right here in this book. If my students can get a copy of God's Word into the hands of every student, this controversy can wind up serving an eternal purpose.’”

    (me) Right because a book has all the A's to universe…..I have a Q……what does the fabricated youth-oriented New Testament say about Hate and Judgement and what is the punishment for committing those sins?……….That's what I thought……shove your youth-oriented New Testament up your cherry picking hoo-hah…..JMHGO…..<3….Ronnie

  • 72. fiona64  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Well, everyone, it looks like Dieter has declared me a non-person. I was not aware that Dieter was a spokeperson for the entire group, but so be it.

    Unlike Dieter, when I say that I am leaving I mean it. Dieter does it go get attention and have people beg him to return. He is welcome to be the board's hate-speaking drama queen to his heart's content. I am no longer available to be verbally abused by a pissed off little boy.


  • 73. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:52 am

    BUH-BYE…don't let the door hit ya on the way out. perhaps on your little vacation away from here…you will find the time to learn the difference between a "mission"…and a "law"….
    I doubt it..because you have already proven yourself to be a lazy liar..
    but you really should seek help, and a little education.
    and as for the hate speaking drama queen of the site…Ronnie has already filled that position and I will not step on his toes…….lol
    he is good at ranting, and whether or not I agree with him sometimes, at least HE posts facts and not insane personal made up facts about the LAW.

    The DOJ is NOT required BY LAW to defend everything.


  • 74. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Dear Fiona…
    for your enjoyment:
    a case where the DOJ refused to defend a law.

    ooops. looks like you were in fact wrong again:

    Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads

    February 9, 2006
    Solicitor General Says Government
    Does Not Have a Viable Argument to Advance in the Statutes Defense
    Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statutes defense and will not appeal the district courts decision. Today is Congress last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit.

    The Justice Department finally met a law so unconstitutional that it could not find any way to defend it, said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. Congress should stop trying to silence public discussion of the cruel and expensive failures of current marijuana laws.

    and THAT my friend is the truth…and the DOJ could have done the same thing with either DOMA or DADT.

  • 75. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:19 am

    This particular law falls into category (1) above. It was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. It's a reasonable argument that the arm of the federal government responsible for enforcing federal laws isn't bound to enforce those which are found to be unconstitutional.

  • 76. Lily  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Don't leave. =/ Dieter is pretty much everything wrong with internet arguments tbh. It doesn't matter if he's right or not, with how he's taken his stance, he shouldn't be respected. you on the other hand have always been civil and given insight.

  • 77. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 7:12 am

    everything wrong with the internet huh? when one person calls another person a liar and mis-states the law..that is ok with you..but when that person proves the first person wrong, and defends himself he is everything wrong with the…you must be a christian…because clearly you live in an alternate reality.
    and if you knew how to would see that it was that bitch who attacked ME first by stating I was wrong, and that I should learn how to get my info from the "source". a fact that I did do, and the source she provided backed ME up… not her…so up yours.
    i do not spout random "made-up" facts like she did. I research BEFORE I post. but you go ahead and defend her. fairy tale believers like YOU are the reason we gays have made such little progress.

    a MISSION statement is NOT a law.

    I guess English is not YOUR primary language.

    and to Kathleen, albeit a temporary decision, the president in fact could issue an executive decision to over-ride DADT, so it in fact DOES fall into one of the 3 categories you suggested.
    and again…tradition for the DOJ to do something does NOT..I repeat does NOT make it a LAW!

  • 78. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Deiter, you keep asking for legal authority for the DOJ action:
    Please see Title 28 U.S.Code § 547(2)
    "Duties: Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his district, shall—
    (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned"

  • 79. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 7:56 am

    I would add that the analysis offered above about when the DOJ has historically not defended US laws, is less about elucidating a tradition, than it is an analysis of how the phrase "Except as otherwise provided by law" has been interpreted.

  • 80. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:12 am

    I inadvertently tossed in a red herring by saying above that "(2) this president has made it pretty clear that he does not believe he has the authority to overrule the policy, that it must be done by Congress." The second prong in the analysis above involves cases where the DOJ has determined that the law in question "infringe the constitutional powers of the President." So, DADT would come under this instance of "except as otherwise provided by law" if the DOJ thought Congress had legislated in an area reserved exclusively to the power of the President. And that's clearly not the case.

  • 81. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:49 am

    You have YOUR opinions, backed up by YOUR facts, and I have MY opinion, backed up by MY facts, and since you have at least treated me CIVILLY while disagreeing with me unlike Fiona did to begin with, I will respectfully say to you, that since we will not see eye to eye on the facts that we have independantly gathered, thank you for your thoughts, and it is time to move on…LOL
    No one can convince me that the DOJ is required to defend all laws when they have clearly NOT done so in many many cases.

    In other news:

    An Austin judge has upheld a divorce granted to two women in Texas.

    Texas attorney general Greg Abbott hoped to intervene in the case and prevent the divorce on the grounds that Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. But district judge Scott Jenkins refused Abbott's request and maintained the divorce, reports the Austin American-Statesman

  • 82. Lily  |  April 2, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Well see, look at this. Now you're being hypocritical too. Fiona wasn't rude to you, at least not in this discussion. She didn't want to bother with it, and you ruthlessly went after her. Hell, you even called her a tranny out of the blue.

    You don't see what you did wrong?

  • 83. Bob  |  April 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Well, I'm grateful I missed out on this whole back and forth between Dieter and Fiona, but it bothers me.

    Kathleen, does this involk Godwin''s Law, if I remember correctly, blog sites are only helpful discussion and learning tools, until the conversation deteriorates to the point of rudeness, name calling, etc. eventually resulting in conversations about Nazi's,, or something like that. (are we reaching that point here) I hope not, because we have much more to learn and share.

    Dieter, I've been thinking about you lately, ever since your bible quote, previous to that I bristled at your ability to fight and assert your position to the point of rudeness, and beyond, I was leary of you, then you provided so many insightful links to news articles, and I valued your ability as a news reporter, I loved the one about the hot bottoms issue in the military (maybe I only typed this just so I could mention that again) but I had many fantasies about hot bottoms, and of course you , (I won't mention the position you took in my dreams) but you became at that point very hot, and of course the bible verse thing, was over the top, and your response,, yeah I could see the bible bursting into flames in your hot hands.
    I've been thinking, you said you were battling cancer, and now I'm wondering and I know this gets personal, but are you on any treatments. The reason I ask this is because as I have mentioned in earlier posts I have a lot of years of experience with AIDS treatments, one of the things we often fail to recognize, are the psychological affects of these treatments, not to mention that living with life threatening diagnosis can produce depressive/anxiety disorders. These have impacted on my ability to interact consistently, and sometimes I would fly into a rage for no good reason, instead of fighting my illness I would be fighting everyone around me. Dieter I know I'm way out of line here, but I'm taking the risk, just cause sometimes that's what we have to do. I know you're fully capable of telling me where to go and in no uncertain terms. I see mood swings, and positive and negative sides to your blogs. Enough said. I value your opinions, but it doen't matter about being right or wrong, (would you prefer to be right and we loose the battle for equality, or would you give up that position to gain it for all)
    That's what's being asked of us here, emanicpation of the mind, the ability to give up our positions to look at things from a different angle. In this process there are no dumb questions, any question is valid if it leads towards the truth, dumb questions can garner positive ensightful answers, this is the risk be must be able to take, letting go of our own personal positions, this is what we are asking of our President. This is just an experience of what that must be like .

    Fiona, don't storm of in anger, Dieter's rantings cannot belittle you in any way, unless you let them, you also have great contributions to our dialog. If we can't get around these issues how will we get around to what we're really working at. In your anger at Dieter you punish all of us, rise above this, I'm so grateful I got your website before all this happened, I am so looking forward to holding your book in my hand when I figure out how to order it.

  • 84. fiona64  |  April 2, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Bob, believe it or not, I am not angry. I have just concluded that perhaps my posts are not as welcome here as I might have believed. Dieter's belligerence and what I can only call intellectual dishonesty was merely the final straw. Like I said, I manage my own internet experience and only even peeped in a couple of times today because of some very nice private e-mails from Ronnie and Kathleen. I am grateful for the kind words of support, but I am pretty sure that I won't be back again until closing arguments (if then).

    BTW, I am signing a contract early next week with a US publisher for my novel. You can order it from the UK if you want it sooner (the link is on my site), but the exchange rate is not all that great right now. The eBook is much more affordable on the novel, and you can have the memoir/essays for free if you set the price to $0.00 (I have no problem with people doing that … I want to share the information).

    When one is having to pay for lots of medications and things, money becomes an issue (been there, done that). I always try to consider that.


  • 85. Ronnie  |  April 2, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Fiona64 your posts are welcomed hear….nobody has ever complained about your posts until now and anyway thats only one person…..well and the Hateros and trolls…..but who cares about what they want…yeah?…….so post away…..<3….your dopty-son…Ronnie

  • 86. John  |  April 2, 2010 at 6:45 am

    I'm very sorry to see you go! Unlike our president, you have been a fierce advocate for us. I hope the actions of dieter have not soured you on our community as a whole (I mean the world, not this blog).

  • 87. fiona64  |  April 2, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Stopping in only briefly, and because Ronnie and Kathleen asked me to. John, Dieter could not take me away from a cause in which I have been involved for six years. I do note that even after I was proven to be correct that Dieter continued his nasty little rants and name calling. One pathetic little boy in need of a psych evaluation is not enough to make me stop working on a cause in which I believe, but I do manage my own internet experience and I choose not to be subjected to that kind of abuse anymore.


  • 88. fiona64  |  April 2, 2010 at 6:56 am

    PS — If Dieter goes back and reads his own posts, he will see that he is the one who first said that I was wrong about the purpose of the DOJ, not the other way around … and I would like to thank Kathleen for proving me right.


  • 89. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 2, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I am also sorry to see you go, fiona. And I am also sorry we missed your call yesterday. Please call again. We are at home.

  • 90. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Soooo…Constance wins on both fronts?……Ricky Martin is Gay (realiy?!)…….Adrianna is a Lesbian?…..Anna Paquin is bi?…..Derrick is taking his boyfriend to the prom?…..and toddler's father quickly reverses his assertion and tells him, “It’s OK, you’re a single lady.”?……The world is so gay and I love it…..I love Hype…….<3…Ronnie

  • 91. Straight Grandmother  |  April 2, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    For the record (LOL asif we were in vourt LOL) I did not enjoy any of the exchanges between dieter & Fiona. Honestly we all know dieter has "issues" what we don't know is "why." Since he has been a valued contributor we could have chosen to simply overlook it when he gets on a tear. Yes he lashes out. Yes he makes personal attacks but "we" all have control in how "we" react to that.

    Fiona bless her soul has been a valued contributor and ally. The GLBT community needs more allies, as you are indeed a minority, there are not that many of you in the population. Fiona, you could have risen above, as I believe is your nature. You should have actually, and you still can.

    Maybe it is just me but this forum gets less and less interesting to me as time goes on. I was attracted because of the trial and have hung around, often times making small talk, because there is not much trial activities going on. I still read it, but now a few days go by and so I have to catch up on several topics at once, whereas before I was checking it several times a day.

    It's not fun for me to read the exchanges between dieter and Fiona. Dieter I wish you could go back and somehow make amends. Fiona I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave P8TT, and truly rise above.

    We all know Ronnie can only keep us all entertained for only so long (LOL). He can't carry this whole P8TT on his back. To me there has always been a difference between being a contributor and a consumer. I have friends on Facebook that hardly ever post at all, what they are is "consumers" of my efforts to share. Oh I know they are reading it but again they do not contribute, but instead consume. All of us who regualrly post, the contributors, are a step above those who merely visit here and only consume and do not contribute.

    The exchanges of dieter and Fiona only encourage more conumers, and discourage contributors. Your exchanges have a wider impact than you realize. I would like to nicely ask both of you to come back and let's just move forward.

  • 92. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Straight Grandmother, I notice your absence, and welcome your comments when you check in. Suppose that's the way it goes for lots of people since things are dragging on.

    I like to think there's a reason for everything, in this case, we're left to talk amongst ourselves, while the wheels of justice grind slowly, the initial excitement of the win we watched ,(education vs ignorance) has sort of worn off, and even left us wondering, could they actually find a legal loophole to void the court proceeding. Those extremes of high and low, are what we are left to share, as we wait watch and listen, to any sign of news regarding us and our issues.
    I think it was Dan Choi who said, this is the time for the LGBT community to find it's soul, to discover who we really are…He along with Constance have been shining examples of how to overcome the challenges we face whithout stooping to that level of hatered directed at us, but rising above it.
    This is what we are striving for, but we are also all only human, as evidenced by our struggles with communications.

    thanks for your encouragement, to rise above and beyond, I agree people are learning about us here, in ways many would not be able to access otherwise, we share our thoughts and feelings, we argue, and disagree, I think this is a time for us to get to know ourselves, and often, I learn as much from those posts which start by OT, as by any other.

    The fact that recent polls showed an increase in people who have changed their minds to vote in favour of SSM, is an indication that this time to talk amongst ourselves has brought out much information that people didn't have before.

    Between you and I , did you manage to catch up on the post with the poem, And Then They Came, written by a Lutheran minister, I encourage you to check that out and read about the author, that's our Church, our background, except I think neither your synod or mine was on the writers side during the time he scripted that poem. Personally I challenge you, because this is where we can do something, go back to the church you left, and attempt a dialog on this issue. While we wait for them to come for us.

  • 93. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 5, 2010 at 1:48 am

    And just in case anyone thought taking a same gender date to a high school dance is a new thing, check out today's Garfield by Jim Davis.

  • 94. John  |  April 6, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    It's not new by a long shot. Aaron Fricke successfully sued his school in 1980 when they told him he couldn't bring his boyfriend to the prom as his date.

    30 years on, and we're still dealing with this crap. Please see my response to my first post at the top. Constance was sent to a FAKE PROM, while the original, private prom was taking place.

  • 95. eye exercises to improve &hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Natural Wellness…

    […]Make the time to scan or visit the subject or sites we have linked to immediately below[…]…

  • 96. Online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Get it…

    […]Here is another great site[…]…

  • 97. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    The cool site…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!