Utah Supreme Court Will Hear Case Against Lesbian Teacher

[invisigoth]

SALT LAKE CITY ¯ A high school teacher is defending herself against a claim
that discussing her sexual orientation in front of students is prohibited,
just as encouraging them to use drugs would be.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed court papers with the Utah Supreme
Court on Thursday in support of Wendy Weaver, a longtime psychology teacher
at Spanish Fork High School who is a lesbian.

She has been sued by a group of parents and students who argue that state
law requires her to keep quiet about homosexuality in class.

"In our view, the case amounts to nothing more than continuing harassment
against a teacher who asserted her First Amendment" rights, said Richard Van
Wagoner, a Salt Lake City lawyer who is assisting the ACLU with Weaver's
case.

Fourth District Judge Ray Harding dismissed the case against Weaver in 1999.
But her detractors appealed to the state Supreme Court last year.

They say the judge made a mistake.

"There are mandatory standards that say teachers are to model morality,"
attorney Matthew Hilton said. Teachers are prohibited from supporting
criminal conduct by students ¯ and sodomy is against the law in Utah, he
said.

Just as a teacher couldn't encourage students to smoke marijuana or drive
drunk, Weaver shouldn't be allowed to have gay issues "become intertwined
with the teaching experience," Hilton said.

Weaver won a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Nebo School District
in 1998 after the school required her to sign an agreement that barred her
from discussing her sexual orientation ¯ in or out of the classroom.

That case drew national attention. Weaver has continued to teach at the
school, which is about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City.

The latest case in state court was brought by a group of parents and
students who want her out of the classroom.

Another legal question for the Supreme Court to decide will be whether those
people have any legal standing to sue an individual teacher.

Hilton argues that the Legislature has made it clear that they do.

The ACLU claims that decisions about who's fit to teach should be made by
the state school board and licensing officials. Those groups have refused to
take any action against Weaver, said Stephen Clark, legal director for the
ACLU of Utah.

A series of procedural issues have delayed the case before the Supreme Court
during the past year, but both sides now say they expect to present oral
arguments later this year.

March 15, 2002

[maudmac]

Well, pffffthphth!

I really feel sorry for this woman. The tension, the hatred all around her. I know what it takes to stare bigots in the eye and struggle not to flinch.

Here in Alabama, it is required that part of the curriculum of sex ed classes include the teaching that homosexual sex is illegal and that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle.

It seems the phobes/fundies rely very heavily on laws criminalizing certain sex acts or sexual activity between people of the same sex. How, in 2002, there can even BE such laws escapes me. Morons.

There's so much gay stuff in the news lately! I've always thought that the more progress we make, the harsher the backlash, the more radical the polarization will be. Which, of course, leads to even greater progress.

Kinda makes me wanna polish off the ol' rainbow ring necklace and start wearing it again. I haven't seen one of those in about ten years.

[invisigoth]

I'm trying to write a paper about broadening intestacy laws (inheritance laws) to include committed co-habiting partners. It seems so simple and such an easy fix to change the laws, that I sometimes forget that changing the laws to include anything POSITIVE about gays, lesbians and transgendered people is near impossible in most states. I'm writting my paper thinking "la la" everyone would be on board with this proposal, and then articles showing the pure stupidity of some people reminds me that we still got a long ways to go to change attitudes. It makes my blood boil to think of the misinformation some school kids are getting about same-sex relationships.

[This message has been edited by invisigoth (edited March 17, 2002).]

[Robin]

My very first thought while reading the text and the first post was: I'm glad I'm living in Germany.
I think people are different on the west and east coast of the USA but it must be hard to live in the so called "bible belt".
I'm not saying things are like paradise over here but especially the younger generation is quite liberal and with that new law that allows to kinda marry (but not in a religious way) things have become more open.

[Epicurus]

I love it that they compare the act of love to that of drug use and drunk driving, but hate and discrimination against people is morally ok.
Is there anything wrong with this picture?

------------------
"One often contradicts an opinion when it is really only the tone in which it has been presented that is unsympathetic."
-Nietzsche

[supermus]

Ya know, stuff likes this makes Virginia seem like less of a conservative hellhole. I never hear about this stuff hear, the worst I hear is kids calling each other "gay" as an insult, and that I can just argue with them enough about it so that they'll shut up to stop me from talking . It must be really hard to live in places like that.

[Zahir]

At heart, this is the sort of thing that made me vote for Al Gore. He and Bush in general proclaimed similars stands on many issues, but evidence shows they'd choose very different people for the Federal Bench.

And to my mind, the nastiest thing done during the Clinton years was the Republicans' refusal to even hold hearing for dozens and dozens of federal judgeships left open. They didn't want to risk any of Clinton's nominees being confirmed, who tended to be moderates with real-world experience (as opposed to the conservative academics Reagan and the first Bush usually chose).

Grrrrrrrrr...

Okay, rant over now.

------------------
"O let my name be in the Book of Love.
If it be there, I care not of
That other book Above...
Strike it out! Or write it in anew.
But let it be in the Book of Love!"
--Omar Kyam

[Thanatopsis]

Ah, Utah, the home of the most relaxed, easy going of religons, Mormans. The same people that believe its okay to have more than one wife.

------------------
Riley: We like the ceiling fan.
Willow: Yes! It's very...you know, kind of old south.
Buffy: But without the unpleasant slavery associations.
-The Replacement

[concrete]

Well, it’s refreshing to find out some people are so law-abiding, like these parents & students of this particular school. I’m sure they are also familiar with the laws I found
here . What a sad and scary bunch......

------------------
It's not so much that I'm always right, it's just that I'm never wrong.....
{pecunia non olet}

[shellybean]

God that is SO ridiculous! And how can they compare talking about your sexual orientation to driving drunk and doing drugs? God things like this make me so upset.

------------------
Willow: "Besides, spells going awry, friends in danger...I'm really nothing special."
Tara: "No, you are"
Willow and Tara's first real conversation - "Hush"

Tara: "I understand. You have to be with the person you l-love."
Willow: "I am." – "New Moon Rising"

"But with Tara, I just know she likes Willow, and she already has one of those" – Family

"Hear that baby? You're my always"
Willow to Tara - "Tough Love"

[tommo]

Section 28 anyone?

In the UK, teachers like myself have lived with this for many years. It's the law. It's morally wrong, but it's the law.

------------------
You know I've been through hell...Joss can't you see, there'll be nothing left of me. You made me believe...

[the literary exterminator]

I always thought Section 28 didn't apply to what is taught in schools so much as what is said by local authorites. I think this year-old BBC article is what led me to believe that.

Of course, what do I know? I live in Bumblefuck, AL, not the UK.

[maudmac]

Heehee, Bumblefuck. I think I've been there. Now, is that near Lickskillet or Froghop?

[Under Her Spell]

This illustrates for me the main problem with the US governing system; you've got a situtation where in the same country, homophobia and hatred is both enshrined in law and prohibited by it. It's just insane that local government can have the power to override the Constitution itself.

[RedDirtGirl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thanatopsis:
Ah, Utah, the home of the most relaxed, easy going of religons, Mormans. The same people that believe its okay to have more than one wife.

---

Actually, the Morman church has prohibited polygamy for nearly 100 years. And I am officiating over a gay wedding in May here in Utah in which of the four guests invited to participate in the service, two are practicing Mormans. Not all of us in Utah are intolerant.

[This message has been edited by RedDirtGirl (edited March 17, 2002).]quote:

[Hasu No Hana22]

I totally understand how this teacher feels.

I work in a very homophobic place.(I wish I knew this 4 months ago, or else I would have never taken this job). It is very hard not to talk about who you are. The hatred that is spread around in that place about homosexuals is a beyond anything I have ever heard in my life. I am still in shock that they can even continue run a business.

I hear men talk about how their dates went the night before. I hear women talk about how the men dogged them, after they gave it up to them. But yet, I can not talk about a wonderful time I spent with my same-sex partner.

It really is a shame that I live in a country that wants to control who I love. I will always say, The USA will not be a free country(as it claims to be) until I have my right, as a homosexual to bring my future wify to the US and live together as a married couple.

Thank god she lives in Canada.

[maudmac]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Under Her Spell:
This illustrates for me the main problem with the US governing system; you've got a situtation where in the same country, homophobia and hatred is both enshrined in law and prohibited by it. It's just insane that local government can have the power to override the Constitution itself.

---

I agree, it's completely insane and very confusing. The problem is, though, that the Constitution really doesn't address this issue. So, the states are free to do what they want. When a stance is made on the federal level, it takes precedence over the state level. If the U.S. Congress said, "No more gay-hatin'!" it would invalidate state laws promoting/tolerating the discrimination. Congress has failed to do that.

The whole federal versus state thing goes back to the Civil War and is sorta complicated. The way our government works is supposed to balance the need to have a unified nation, where all Americans have the same rights and responsibilities, with the need of individual states to make their own rules.

It doesn't always work and it sure does lead to a lot of problems.quote:

[Karzia]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
I love it that they compare the act of love to that of drug use and drunk driving, but hate and discrimination against people is morally ok.
Is there anything wrong with this picture?

---

Big Time wrong. I went to High School in a suburb of SLC (Kearns, were the world fastest speed skating track is now), and people wonder why it took me ten plus years to come out of the closet. Though I am gonna get the last word, I am taking my wife to my 20 year HS reunion

Maudmac, go back to the Consitution, one state cannot NOT recognize the law of another state. This was the argument here in Nebraska not to long ago when a legally boanded and registered gay couple moved here from Vermont and then tried to file state income tax as a married couple. As for Congress it is outside their jurisdiction to tell states what to do. They can advise and pass Federal Law, they have little power on the State leval outside of threatning to withhold Federal funds. As much as I would love to see it happen we will never get wide sweeping anti-gay bashing legislation, and I was very surprized when the Hate crimes bill was passed. The question of Gay rights is and always will be a state issue.

I have to edit again to point out that the USA IS free like we claim, if it was not the second I opened my mouth to proclaim my Gayness and demand my rights, the powers that be would have me taken out and shot

------------------
Ad astea per asta

Edited to add: The constitution referance I made earler is Article 4 section 1

Edited to please ask that the dupl. of this post that appears at the end of this thread be deleted by Mods. I have no idea how that happened, nor can I personally delete it, at first I though it was an other kitten quoting me, but it has my tag name on it,????? so am I just like stupid and can't seem to get the hang of quoting ( I though I was getting better), or is Novagate out to make me look bad to the kittens?

[This message has been edited by WillTara (edited March 18, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Karzia (edited March 18, 2002).]quote:

[RiffRandall]

"The same people that believe its okay to have more than one wife."

Not trying to be a jerk here, but what isn't okay with having more than one wife? If all parties concerned are consenting adults then polygamy/polyandry should be just as okay as gay marriage. Speaking as a libertarian/anarchist it's really none of the states business anyway.

[Genea]

Intrestingly enough I met my wife of almost five years(april 5th) while attending college in Utah but, now we're here in good ole Colorado which seems to be liberal but, really isn't. By the way according to the Utah history class I took while I was there the only reason they banned polygamy is because it was recuired for them to join the United States. I also have a friend who is the 13th child of a man with three wives who live in Northern Utah, who is engaged to marry a man who is also a polygamist, go figure polygamy banned but not forgotten.

------------------
Sugarloaf
"If only I liked girls, my life would be so much easier." Amber Benson on Loveline 3/14/02

[Anakin1218]

man that is so sad and wrong!!!
Hearing what kitties in other states/countries have to put up with just breaks my heart and makes me think about the Civil Righs movment of the 50's and 60's.

In history class(which is women centred)we're discussing the treatment of hispanic,black,native american and chicano(sorry if I forgot anyone) women by the majority and my prof actually added lesbian/bi women to the list!!! She's activly discussed lesbians in various periods of american history,which I can tell you has been overlooked in my other history classes

I guess what Im saying is,kudos to my prof for talking about the what use to be overlooked sections of the American voice and that I can't be too proud to be an American when i know so much of the population is beeing treated as third class citizens.

As a flyer asking the Presdient when woman could vote said...."How long must we wait in silence to be heard?"

------------------
"My heart doesn't stutter" -Tara

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karzia:
Big Time wrong. I went to High School in a suburb of SLC (Kearns, were the world fastest speed skating track is now), and people wonder why it took me ten plus years to come out of the closet. Though I am gonna get the last word, I am taking my wife to my 20 year HS reunion

Maudmac, go back to the Consitution, one state cannot NOT recognize the law of another state. This was the argument here in Nebraska not to long ago when a legally boanded and registered gay couple moved here from Vermont and then tried to file state income tax as a married couple. As for Congress it is outside their jurisdiction to tell states what to do. They can advise and pass Federal Law, they have little power on the State leval outside of threatning to withhold Federal funds. As much as I would love to see it happen we will never get wide sweeping anti-gay bashing legislation, and I was very surprized when the Hate crimes bill was passed. The question of Gay rights is and always will be a state issue.

I have to edit again to point out that the USA IS free like we claim, if it was not the second I opened my mouth to proclaim my Gayness and demand my rights, the powers that be would have me taken out and shot

---

Let us be reminded that Congress Acted on their Article 4, Section one power in order to enact DOMA. There in the Full Faith and Credit clause there is a line about the power of Congress---twice, since the 1830's they have acted on this and both times have been to EXTEND the full faith and credit of another state--DOMA represents the 1st time it has ever been acted on to LIMIT the power of FFC. And yet, there has been NO injuction leveled against it, nor any Federal challenges--but, really, how can you challange a law that goes against something that doesn't even exist?

Oh, and as far as this Utah teacher thing.. I wouldn't get my hopes up.. Even if it gets to the supreme court they have the precedent of Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10 working against them.. But, here's to hoping.

-S

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."quote:

[Karzia]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banshee:
Let us be reminded that Congress Acted on their Article 4, Section one power in order to enact DOMA. There in the Full Faith and Credit clause there is a line about the power of Congress---twice, since the 1830's they have acted on this and both times have been to EXTEND the full faith and credit of another state--DOMA represents the 1st time it has ever been acted on to LIMIT the power of FFC. And yet, there has been NO injuction leveled against it, nor any Federal challenges--but, really, how can you challange a law that goes against something that doesn't even exist?

Oh, and as far as this Utah teacher thing.. I wouldn't get my hopes up.. Even if it gets to the supreme court they have the precedent of Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10 working against them.. But, here's to hoping.

-S

---

Yeah!!!!:0 I exult in the kittens, not just this thread but many other, Shakspear, Nietzche, and Constitutional Law, I am forever gratful for the educational leval of Fandom.

As for Art. 4 sec. 1.... In the case I mentioned, The couple had been legally "married" in Vermont before moving to Nebraska, where they attempted to be granted all the marital privlige, they were denied. A court battle insued with the cental issue being that NE had to by Constitutional Law respect AND uphold VT law. Marriage is basicly a contract between two parties for the purpose of inheritance and mutal soupport.

The problem that I see with the Utah teacher case is that it is actually at this point of it not a gay thing. The issue here is actually who has jurisdiction to issue teaching credentials, and hire teachers, the State or the local district? Once the issue of "who is in charge" is addreased then the question, "Why am I being fired be raised?"
If the answer to that question is...."Because your Gay." than it is a gay issue. Fight the easy battles first.

PS: please ignor earler plea to delet dup. post Nova gate is just out to get me, it seems to be gone

------------------
Ad astea per astaquote:

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karzia:
Yeah!!!!:0 I exult in the kittens, not just this thread but many other, Shakspear, Nietzche, and Constitutional Law, I am forever gratful for the educational leval of Fandom.

As for Art. 4 sec. 1.... In the case I mentioned, The couple had been legally "married" in Vermont before moving to Nebraska, where they attempted to be granted all the marital privlige, they were denied. A court battle insued with the cental issue being that NE had to by Constitutional Law respect AND uphold VT law. Marriage is basicly a contract between two parties for the purpose of inheritance and mutal soupport.

The problem that I see with the Utah teacher case is that it is actually at this point of it not a gay thing. The issue here is actually who has jurisdiction to issue teaching credentials, and hire teachers, the State or the local district? Once the issue of "who is in charge" is addreased then the question, "Why am I being fired be raised?"
If the answer to that question is...."Because your Gay." than it is a gay issue. Fight the easy battles first.

PS: please ignor earler plea to delet dup. post Nova gate is just out to get me, it seems to be gone

---

Ummm... actually, if you go to http://wwww.marriageequality.com
you will see that Nebraska does NOT recognize a SSM--in fact, Nebraska is the ONLY state that also has a Mini-DOMA law and specifically has a law against Civil Unions.
With DOMA--which, if you want, I can send anyone here a lovely 10pg legal brief on the Unconstitutionality of it, just email me--The Federal Gov't has said that NO state shall recognize SSM or even define marriage as anything outside of your standard one man/one woman.. So, until DOMA is over turned, it's nothing but a life full of Civil Unions in VT(which is also in doubt because the Governor of VT is not seeking re-election).

Well, it could also be a 1st Amendment issue on both sides--her free speech and their freedom of Association. Also, Utah--to my knowledge--doesn't have anything on it's books adding 'sexual orientation' to it's list of protected groups/individuals--as was the case a few years ago in some Middle Atlantic State and the company that fired him, won across the board because there was NO statute in place to protect them..

Here's something that my professor did when we talked about rights.. What rights do you have when you're home or when you're walking the street? What says you can do that or that you're protected?

-S

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited March 18, 2002).]quote:

[Karzia]

Banshee, I am to my great sham aware of NE mini-DOMA, sorry about my mini-rant, The conservative-liberal has been battling with the liberal-canservative all day, I did not mean to be offensive nor did I mean to indulge in a debate of Constitutional Law (though if it is not to much troble I would love to see the breif you mentioned, and discuss it further, you can e-mail me at ginniepwwo@aol.com

[This message has been edited by WillTara (edited March 18, 2002).]

[supermus]

I have some serious beefs with the constitutional. It is WAY to vague. Ya know that first amendment everyones always talking about? It says this, and nothing more:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How is that good enough? It doesn't define protected speech or religion. All the way through ten, way to vague. That's why so many issues with state's rights come up, all it says is that rights not specifically given to the Federal Government or denied to the states belong to the states. If they had bothered to give that more definition, things like this wouldn't come up. OK, civics rant over.

[invisigoth]

Actually, there is good reason for wanting the Constitution to have flexiblity. If you have a law that defines everything, then if you have something that fits within the spirit but not the letter of the law, you're screwed. It seems that constitutions in other countries that are too ridgid do not survive as long as the U.S. constitution. There is a huge amount of protective case law that has arisen out of this amendment. The problem we have is that we have to rely on a large part on the political outlook of the judiciary. Unfortunately, the federal courts are stacked right now from all of the Regan/Bush 1 appointments. Clinton did a lousy job in making sure his appointments got pushed through, so the federal courts are probably going to get even more conservative once Bush starts churning out his appointments. I'm really praying that Stevens has a long, healthy life and will still be around once a democrat gets back into office.

I have a question for Banshee about DOMA, since it appears that you have done research on the subject. The statute only refers to same sex marriages, correct? It doesn't say anything about civil unions or domestic parntership agreements, does it? I'm wondering if there can be a case made that full faith and credit must apply to the creation of those new forms of union.

[tommo]

Section 28...now, it's a tricky subject. But I'm bound by it as a teacher in the UK and I hate it.

Basically, the tenets of the act prevent a teacher from promoting a homosexual lifestyle in the classroom. This is inherent homophobia, because the only option you have is to promote heterosexuality. Which honestly, I don't mind. I mean, a loving relationship is a loving relationship, whether it's between two men, two women, a man and a woman...it's the nature of the relationship I'm interested in. Although, being gay, I have had to hear the insulting and hurtful comments that children predictably make in a society that doesn't teach them about values.

So, Section 28 prevents me from fighting back against those kind of comments in the classroom. It doesn't, however, prevent anyone from making them.

What a wonderful progressive society I teach in.

------------------
You know I've been through hell...Joss can't you see, there'll be nothing left of me. You made me believe...

[WbBuffyfan00]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maudmac:
Heehee, Bumblefuck. I think I've been there. Now, is that near Lickskillet or Froghop?

---

I really thought it was closer to slapout!

-Amy

------------------
"You want to take a picture of my butt?...ummm...OK...You've got two seconds." -Amberquote:

[Dr.G]

Karzia, you've clicked on the quote icon instead of the edit icon, you can read the Kitten Board FAQ on how to reply with quote or edit. Also if you are replying to a new post below yours it is probably best to make a new post instead of editing your old post, otherwise the conversation might get confusing or people might miss your edit.

When I first got here it took me quite some time before I figured out how to quote, and that was *after* I had read the FAQ. Don't tell anyone though, I have a reputation for brilliance to uphold.