From Sovo.com:
The school board voted 7-0 April 10 to create a policy that would ban all “sexually oriented clubs, gay or straight or otherwise.” School system spokesperson Kathy Walters said the board could vote on adopting the policy at its April 24 work session or its May 8 board meeting, but a date hasn’t been decided yet.
“Sex-oriented clubs have no place in our school system, gay or straight,” said board member Jim Shuping, who proposed the action. “They are disrespectful and disruptive to our educational process…. We need to take a step back from this and take control of our schools.”
This ban would clearly apply to a “Gay To Straight” club. I’m sure Liberty Counsel will swoop in to fight for the legions of students who wanted to form an ex-gay club.
If they’re gonna ban school activities that may lead to teens having sex, is the prom next? How ’bout cheerleading?
Well drama club is on the chopping block for sure.
Everyone knows that those are stealth GSA clubs.
It’ll be interesting to see how they argue for policies that allow gay-to-straight groups but forbid gay-straight alliance groups. You can pretty much count on the fact that they’re working on it right now though.
…
How, exactly, are such clubs disrespectful and disruptive?
test
The Salisbury Post has a more informative article.Note that despite the Principal (Turbyfill) categorically stating that the club had not been disruptive — a statement he also made at an earlier board meeting at which Shuping (board member) attempted to ban the club.Despite this, Shuping inserts into the motion that the GSA will “materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities in school”. Clearly, a fraudulent statement made without any merit.The attitudes and comments at the meeting make things perfectly clear, but you may be wondering who the protestors are.Look no further than local crazy-man preacher, Flip Benham.Anyone want to try and connect Shuping to Benham?Where, one wonders, is someone with spine enough to stand up and categorically state that the very behaviour of the anti-gay protestors provides reason enough to think that a GSA is necessary.This is playing out exactly as we’d think it would: first try to ban GSAs.When, not if, that fails — expect the pay-for-exgays to arrive from outside and demand access for their anti-gay viewpoints; viewpoints disguised as “pro-exgay”.
Ironically, taking this literally, it would ban straight to gay clubs but not GSA’s. The GSA’s are generally restricted from discussing sex and are not “sex oriented”.
However GSC’s seem to be focused solely on sex: their only resources are “health dangers” relating to sex.