She can't bring same-sex date to Catholic high school prom

[ieffinhatecardio]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/04/26/she_cant_bring_same_sex_date_to_catholic_high_school_prom/?p1=MEWell_Pos4



By David Abel, Globe Staff  |  April 26, 2007

Rosanne Strott invited a friend to tonight's prom, but after she bought a ticket and her date paid for new clothes, the 18-year-old senior at Bishop Feehan High School in Attleboro learned that administrators would not allow her date to attend.

The problem: Her date is a woman.

Strott argues the school district is discriminating against her because she is bisexual.

"The decision is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary," she said in telephone interview yesterday. "I wasn't trying to make a statement; I was just trying to bring a friend and have fun."

Instead, she plans to put on her orange and yellow dress and Swarovski crystal necklace -- to comport with the prom's "007: Diamonds are Forever" theme -- and go on her own to the Rhodes on the Patuxet hall in Cranston, R.I.

"I decided that if I couldn't go with who I wanted, I wasn't going to take anyone at all," she said.

Administrators say they have banned same-sex couples because they want the prom to remain traditional.

"We're not looking for trouble at our prom," George A. Milot, superintendent of schools in the Diocese of Fall River, said yesterday. "Having boys bring boys or girls bring girls opens the door to all kinds of scenarios that could lead to problems. We're not willing to open the door. We're sticking with tradition; we have enough problems as it is."

He insisted the diocesean schools are not discriminating against gays and lesbians.

"Rules are made by schools that anyone can call discrimination if they want," he said in a telephone interview. "The school has the right to make rules in the best interests of the students. We teach tolerance towards people who may be gay. That is not the issue at all. That's the confusion. It's against gay sexual activity."

A similar decision would be illegal at a public school and perhaps illegal at other private, non religious schools in Massachusetts, said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. She said state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public schools.

But she said Bishop Feehan High School probably doesn't have legal liability because it is part of a religious institution.

"It seems to me proms are a time for kids to have fun, and it's really too bad a school has to inject biased attitudes into the mix to prevent a kid from going with whomever she wants to go with," Wunsch said.

Ryan Palanza, the student head of the school's prom committee, said that if he could make the choice, he would allow Strott to bring her date.

"I think it's ridiculous that you can't bring a friend of the same sex -- it shouldn't really matter," said Palanza, who expects about 500 people at the prom. "But since it's a Catholic school, I could see why the school has a problem with it. We have to adhere to the diocese's rules. This is just a diocese thing."

The decision -- Strott said a school official told her Monday -- left her date with a brown, spaghetti- strap dress and brown pumps that Macy's won't let her return.

It also left her upset. "I don't understand the big deal," said Jocelynn Sousa, 20, of Norton, who said that she and Strott are just friends who work together at an arts and crafts store in North Attleborough.

"I was just trying to do her a favor, so she didn't have to go to her prom alone."

She added: "I think the school is just worried about its image. They don't want it to happen there."

Doug Strott , Rosanne's father, complained that the district's policy did not seem to exist until his daughter told friends she planned to bring a girl.

"This is discrimination, because they're not allowing her to bring the person who she wants to bring," he said. "Whatever the issues or concerns, they could have been dealt with."

For Rosanne, who won Best Hair in her class of about 250 students and has made a name for herself painting and arranging sets for the school's plays, it's a hollow sendoff as she plans to attend Massachusetts College of Art in the fall.

At least, she said, the school reimbursed her for the $55 ticket she paid for her date.

"It's not fair to say a girl bringing a girl is abnormal because it's not traditional," she said. "Isn't the point of high school to become educated, progressive, and to change with the world?"

Even without her date, she said, "I still intend to have a good time."

[Camel Jockey]

Is the school publicly funded?

[Cap]

Is the school publicly funded?

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction.  Deal with it.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction. Deal with it.

Wow, someone's a little testy.

BTW, it wasn't her girlfriend, they were friends and nothing more apparently.

[Tre]

"Having boys bring boys or girls bring girls opens the door to all kinds of scenarios that could lead to problems. We're not willing to open the door. We're sticking with tradition; we have enough problems as it is."

He insisted the diocesean schools are not discriminating against gays and lesbians.

"Rules are made by schools that anyone can call discrimination if they want," he said in a telephone interview. "The school has the right to make rules in the best interests of the students. We teach tolerance towards people who may be gay. That is not the issue at all. That's the confusion. It's against gay sexual activity."

I don't know if the girl is gay, nor do I give a hoot, but how on earth is a prom defined as a 'sexual activity'??

This superintendent is obviously an idiot.  Maybe they wouldn't have so many problems if they'd wake up and realize that they're in the 21st century.

If they're defining prom as a 'sexual activity', then the problems are in the school's philosophy.  

[Camel Jockey]

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction.  Deal with it.

If it's private then they have every right to not allow that dyke and her lez buddy.

[Dos Equis]

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction.  Deal with it.

I agree.  And this is newsworthy because . . . ?

[ieffinhatecardio]

I love how offended all the hypocritical neotaints get at this topic. LOL

Some chick wants to bring a friend of hers to a dance, why would anyone care enough to stop her?

Bwahhahhhaaaaaa, I love uptight neotaints that want to control the way everyone else lives.

[Cap]

I love how offended all the hypocritical neotaints get at this topic. LOL

Some chick wants to bring a friend of hers to a dance, why would anyone care enough to stop her?

Bwahhahhhaaaaaa, I love uptight neotaints that want to control the way everyone else lives.

It shouldn't even be an issue.  If this were public school then we would have a different discussion.  She is a self-described bisexual bringing a girl to a dance, it is not accepted nor does it need to be.  It's not a matter of political party, it's a matter of school rules/policy.  It's not about control either.  If she doesn't like the rules she doesn't have to continue going there.  Again, make your argument beyond a "I love how neotaints..............." and "Neotaints want to control....." and have a serious discussion.

[ieffinhatecardio]

It shouldn't even be an issue.  If this were public school then we would have a different discussion.  She is a self-described bisexual bringing a girl to a dance, it is not accepted nor does it need to be.  It's not a matter of political party, it's a matter of school rules/policy.  It's not about control either.  If she doesn't like the rules she doesn't have to continue going there.  Again, make your argument beyond a "I love how neotaints..............." and "Neotaints want to control....." and have a serious discussion.

Have you thought about the fact that this girl is a student at the school?

Why are they allowing this girl to attend their school yet won't allow her to go to a dance with who she chooses?

If they don't like her for what she is then don't let her attend the school, cutting her off from the dance is hypocritical. I doubt they have a problem cashing her parent's check.

[Cap]

Have you thought about the fact that this girl is a student at the school?

Why are they allowing this girl to attend their school yet won't allow her to go to a dance with who she chooses?

If they don't like her for what she is then don't let her attend the school, cutting her off from the dance is hypocritical. I doubt they have a problem cashing her parent's check.

It's a rule and parents are aware of the rules.  There is a student handbook explaining these things as well as the fact that it is understood what the Church's stance is on gay relationships.  Not even close to political dude.  Being gay does not exclude her from the school but committing the act is not affirmed by the Church.

[ieffinhatecardio]

It's a rule and parents are aware of the rules.  There is a student handbook explaining these things as well as the fact that it is understood what the Church's stance is on gay relationships.  Not even close to political dude.  Being gay does not exclude her from the school but committing the act is not affirmed by the Church.

Excellent, thanks for completely avoiding my question. Typical neotaint.

Fact, they will ban her from a dance because of her sexuality but won't ban her from the school because of her sexuality. That my friend is hypocritical. Are you saying they don't cash her parent's check?

Perhaps they're trying to change her mind regarding her sexuality, that's why they allow her to attend the school. Of course we all know sexuality is a choice and she can simply choose not to be sexually attracted to the same sex.

[Cap]

You can be gay in the Church's eyes but you cannot ACT on it.  It isn't about whether her money cashes or not, it is about RULES set out by the Diocese and the school and because it is PRIVATELY funded you really have no argument.  The school and Diocese do not see it as proper and do not have to allow it.  It is not hypocritical because by entering the school she is not committing a gay act or anything related.  By taking another woman to the dance, she is crossing a line the Diocese, Church and school most likely set out. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

You can be gay in the Church's eyes but you cannot ACT on it.  It isn't about whether her money cashes or not, it is about RULES set out by the Diocese and the school and because it is PRIVATELY funded you really have no argument.  The school and Diocese do not see it as proper and do not have to allow it.  It is not hypocritical because by entering the school she is not committing a gay act or anything related.  By taking another woman to the dance, she is crossing a line the Diocese, Church and school most likely set out. 

Then perhaps you can explain how taking someone that she is not romantic with to a dance is considered "committing a gay act"? Instead of being there with a friend and enjoying the dance with her classmates they're forcing her to stay home.

I realize we see differently on this issue but I consider it hypocritical to accept her into the school but reject her from dances. If they don't want her to participate in after school activities why allow her to attend the school in the first place. At least that would be consistent.

The Catholic Church considers her immoral. In fact Priests will rail against what she is during Church services yet they will accept her into the school. That my dear friend is hypocritical in my eyes.

I

[Cap]

Then perhaps you can explain how taking someone that she is not romantic with to a dance is considered "committing a gay act"? Instead of being there with a friend and enjoying the dance with her classmates they're forcing her to stay home.

I realize we see differently on this issue but I consider it hypocritical to accept her into the school but reject her from dances. If they don't want her to participate in after school activities why allow her to attend the school in the first place. At least that would be consistent.

The Catholic Church considers her immoral. In fact Priests will rail against what she is during Church services yet they will accept her into the school. That my dear friend is hypocritical in my eyes.

I

Okay one last response before dinner.  You don't get a sexual preference checklist when you apply nor are you asked your sexuality EVER at a Religious school.  So she is a senior, so most likely for four years the school did not know her sexuality until this event.  It is not uncommon for girls of the same school to go stag and then hang out.  My point again being is that nobody hates her for thinking about lesbian sex.  They do not approve of her ACTIONS as a woman desiring another woman sexually.  However, if nobody knew she was bisexual then nobody would have thought to exclude her from the school and I don't think they would have even if she was a freshman.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Okay one last response before dinner.  You don't get a sexual preference checklist when you apply nor are you asked your sexuality EVER at a Religious school.  So she is a senior, so most likely for four years the school did not know her sexuality until this event.  It is not uncommon for girls of the same school to go stag and then hang out.  My point again being is that nobody hates her for thinking about lesbian sex.  They do not approve of her ACTIONS as a woman desiring another woman sexually.  However, if nobody knew she was bisexual then nobody would have thought to exclude her from the school and I don't think they would have even if she was a freshman.

This is actually a good answer and somewhat plausible although I don't believe that the school didn't know she was a lesbian. Clearly I'm quite a bit more cynical than you are. They cashed her parents check and they accepted her into the school then they should let her go to a dance with a friend. I'll even agree that they have a right to ban her if she were attending with someone she was romantic with but with a friend I think she should be safe.

BTW, IMO there's no such thing as bisexual. If you have sex with people of your own gender then you're homosexual. If you also have sex with people of the opposite gender then you're homosexual with more options.

[gcb]

I think the whole point you neotaints have to get over is really 'what is the big deal?'. The Catholic Church are a bunch of tossers.

[Cap]

I think the whole point you neotaints have to get over is really 'what is the big deal?'. The Catholic Church are a bunch of tossers.

Yea.  I mean they are dumb huh?  They such a bunch of tossers that they wouldn't give King Henry a divorce so he had to make his own church.  Bloody morons sticking to their doctrine no matter what.  Poppy cock I tell you. 

[gcb]

wasn't it part of thier doctrine at some stage to insist that the sun revolved around the earth

[ieffinhatecardio]

Yea.  I mean they are dumb huh?  They such a bunch of tossers that they wouldn't give King Henry a divorce so he had to make his own church.  Bloody morons sticking to their doctrine no matter what.  Poppy cock I tell you. 

LOL, not bad.

Since you brought up marriage and sticking to doctrine I have a question regarding annulments. Aren't annulments forbidden when children result from a marriage? I mean since an annulment says the marriage never took place after all. Children would kind of throw a monkey wrench into that little theory.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction.  Deal with it.

My son goes to a private christian school, they wouldn't allow it either!

[gcb]

Nope.  Catholic schools are funded by tuition and donations.  BTW, a CATHOLIC school is not going to allow gay/bisexual interaction.  Deal with it.

Don't they get tax breaks though?

[Cap]

LOL, not bad.

Since you brought up marriage and sticking to doctrine I have a question regarding annulments. Aren't annulments forbidden when children result from a marriage? I mean since an annulment says the marriage never took place after all. Children would kind of throw a monkey wrench into that little theory.

You could say that a spouse never wanted the child or it was the result of drunken fornication.  You would probably need witnesses to say that that spouse made comments about not wanting children.  I would imagine, although this is completely wrong to do, you could both lie to get an annulment and thus could marry in the Church again.  If you just had one you could this off but a few would be impossible.  Even if you want an easy divorce this would be the route to go.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You could say that a spouse never wanted the child or it was the result of drunken fornication.  You would probably need witnesses to say that that spouse made comments about not wanting children.  I would imagine, although this is completely wrong to do, you could both lie to get an annulment and thus could marry in the Church again.  If you just had one you could this off but a few would be impossible.  Even if you want an easy divorce this would be the route to go.

I know of a few Kennedy's that would beg to differ. It's amazing what being a Kennedy allows you to do. I asked you the question because I know of a few people that have paid for and been granted annulments with children involved so that they could get married in the Church again. In each case doctrine was broken, at least that's what my interpretation was and the interpretation of nearly everyone else.

I'm sorry to keep bringing these things up but I'm trying to show a bigger picture, namely that doctrine is not always followed and often is followed only selectively. Which leads back to a female not being able to go to a dance with her female friend.

[Cap]

I know of a few Kennedy's that would beg to differ. It's amazing what being a Kennedy allows you to do. I asked you the question because I know of a few people that have paid for and been granted annulments with children involved so that they could get married in the Church again. In each case doctrine was broken, at least that's what my interpretation was and the interpretation of nearly everyone else.

I'm sorry to keep bringing these things up but I'm trying to show a bigger picture, namely that doctrine is not always followed and often is followed only selectively. Which leads back to a female not being able to go to a dance with her female friend.

If the wife could argue she didn't want the kids then I guess it wouldn't be impossible.  Also if the marriage wasn't the first choice or the union wasn't entered into properly or for the right reasons.

Quality of Consent. Let's take that first question and look at the quality of marital consent, which is far more exacting than ordinary decisions. Consent to marry is the most weighty decision the person ever will make. Its effects endure beyond the here-and-now; it is a lifelong choice. Obviously an individual must know to what he or she is agreeing.

Consent must be free and discerning. External or internal pressure, which significantly reduces freedom or undermines critical judgment, could impair consent to such degree that commonsense requirements for such a binding decision as marriage are not fulfilled.

For centuries, theologians have recognized that strong emotion and external pressure could weaken free choice and diminish responsibility as far as sin was concerned. The Church has been more cautious in applying these principles to marital consent. Modern psychology's study of decision-making shows more sharply how unconscious motives and situational pressures can get in the way of freedom and judgment. Such findings greatly help Church tribunals assess the adequacy of marital consent.

The shotgun marriage is an outdated joke. Yet more subtle pressures may interfere with freedom and discernment just as effectively. Take, for example, the couple who have been intimate and now the woman is pregnant. She rightly refuses abortion. She does not want to give up the baby for adoption. The father feels trapped. He may have fine intentions, feeling honor-bound to do "the right thing." One or both may see marriage as the only way out. Is this decision a free, mature choice of a lifetime partner, or is it a pressured solution to a problem?

What about the consent of the teenager, overwhelmed by infatuation with the only person ever dated, in love more with love than the person he or she consents to marry? Or the youngster with no critical appraisal of the character of the intended partner, and with meager appreciation of the financial responsibilities of marriage or the burdens of parenthood? Add to the picture, perhaps, the desperate need to escape an unhappy home life, marred by alcoholism or quarrels.

How would we assess the widower, still grieving for his deceased wife? He has a demanding job and is anxious for his young children. So he hastily remarries. Is he giving prudent, thoughtful consent or enlisting a housekeeper and stepmother for his children?

What sort of consent is given by a person with lukewarm, nominal faith, who has absorbed the divorce mentality which pervades U.S. culture, and the philosophy of casual sex which is daily TV fare?

There is no automatic answer about the quality of consent in these examples. Surely the average disinterested adult would question the wisdom of such marriages, and have qualms about the freedom or discretion of the immature or agonized person taking marriage vows. A thorough investigation by the tribunal of the premarital situation may support the conclusion that one or both of the partners could not freely and maturely choose to marry at that time.

Capacity to Carry Out Consent. Marriage essentially includes a community of conjugal life which is perpetual and exclusive. Therefore, both partners must have the maturity to establish and sustain a mutually supportive communal relationship with one another.

Saying "yes" without the capacity to carry it out is invalid, even though a person takes marriage vows in good faith and with the best intentions. St. Thomas phrased the principle neatly: "No one can oblige himself to what he can neither give nor do."

Before we had a better understanding of human behavior, both the average person and the Church thought everyone had what it takes to make a marriage work except the most overtly disturbed individuals. Before Vatican II, the Church considered the marriage contract principally in terms of procreative rights and obligations. The wider issue of a mutually supportive human relationship, while never totally ignored, was given second billing.

The right to a communal relationship does not mean that marriage must be idyllic. Any two people, even ordinary friends, have incompatibilities to work through. Few if any persons are so mature that they have no failings, foibles or hang-ups regarding self-worth, pride, aggression or sexuality. But the basically mature person tries to be honest with self, admit mistakes, be open to advice and to grace.

But in some persons, psychological problems are the consuming, motivating force of life. One's sense of alienation or inadequacy, self-depreciation, hostility, sexual problems, impulsiveness or selfishness can be pervasive and chronic. It is most unlikely that such a psychologically burdened individual can establish and maintain the close, empathetic, cherishing relationship with a spouse which provides for mutual growth and the proper rearing of children. In plain words, the person entering marriage does not have what it takes to develop the community life which is the substance of the marital pledge.