RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/28/2006

Oh, no, no, no -- we only meant sort of Equal Access

by Jeremy Hooper

Speaking in opposition to the news that another court has mandated a Southern school open its doors to a Gay-Straight Alliance, Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation of Kentucky tells Agape Press:

"The Equal Access law was originally designed to provide fuller access to religious groups and Bible study groups in public schools," ..."And unfortunately the intent has sort of been turned against the language of the bill. And so now we have a lot of gay rights groups asking for that same privilege, and according to the letter of that law, that's a difficult thing for a school to argue against."

Except the primary "language of the bill" actually reads:

(a) Restriction of limited open forum on basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other speech content prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.

So even though it's true that religious groups were the early champions of the legislation, it wasn't designed for them. And the intent has in NO WAY been "turned against the language of the bill" by Gay-Straight Alliances. In fact, turning the G-SAs away would run in direct opposition to the act's language.

Now, those opposed to the G-SAs would likely cite a later stipulation that says "Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the school...to protect the well-being of students and faculty" as reason to bar the clubs, because in their eyes, we gays are predatory corrupters out to ruin America's youth. But that is, of course, a load of hogwash, as these clubs actually protect the well-being of students who might have no other place to turn for support.

So in summary, Mr. Cothran: You guys do not own "Equal Access" simply because it was for your own purposes that you originally wanted this equality. Say you simply don't want these clubs in your schools because you don't care for gay rights, if you wish. But "Oh no, we didn't mean THAT KIND of equality" is not a stipulation one can later add to an impartiality-encouraging piece of legislation simply because the group now benefitting from it is on the opposite end of their societal ideal.

Pro-Homosexual Clubs Make In-Roads into Kentucky Schools [Agape]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails