Itawamba prom off, then on again
by Chris Kieffer/NEMS Daily Journal and Alisha Wilson/The Itawamba County Times
3 days ago | 2652 views | 101 101 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
First, Itawamba Agricultural High School's parent-sponsored prom was canceled. Then it was rescheduled with a different leadership and a new location.

By the end of a hectic day Tuesday, the school was scheduled to have a parent-sponsored junior-senior prom Friday at the Fulton Country Club.

Itawamba School Board attorney Michele Floyd also said same-sex dates would be allowed at the event.

The original parent-sponsored prom was canceled Monday night after a group of about 80 parents met to discuss the event, which had been scheduled to be held at the Tupelo Furniture Market. Multiple parents confirmed the prom had been canceled but would not say why.

But they did confirm the original parent-sponsored prom would have followed the same set of rules as those previously set by the school, which included a ban on same-sex dates.

After news of the private prom's cancellation surfaced, Floyd sent out an e-mail Tuesday afternoon that the prom would be held at the Fulton Country Club, and country club manager Stanley Ramey confirmed it.

Floyd said the event at the country club would be sponsored by parents, but she would not identify those parents. Three parents involved with the original parent-sponsored prom said they knew nothing on Tuesday afternoon about a prom being scheduled at the country club.

The IAHS prom has been wrapped in controversy since the Itawamba County School Board released a statement earlier this month that it would no longer host the event. That statement came after the district received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union demanding it allow senior Constance McMillen to attend with her girlfriend and to wear a tuxedo to the dance.

Parents stepped in and agreed to sponsor the event.

The ACLU filed a preliminary injunction to force the district to sponsor the prom. Senior U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled March 23 the district did not have to sponsor the prom but that it did violate McMillen's First Amendment rights.

Davidson said that because there was the option of a parent-sponsored prom "open to all IAHS students," it would not serve the public interest to force the school district to hold the prom.

Christine P. Sun, one of the ACLU lawyers who represented McMillen at the injunction hearing, said when McMillen tried to buy a ticket on Monday to the parent-sponsored prom, she was told the deadline to buy tickets had passed on Saturday. But a parent told McMillen to leave her phone number and the parent would get a ticket for her, Sun said.

In a statement released by ACLU lawyer Kristy Bennett on Tuesday night, McMillen said she is hopeful she will be welcomed at the parent-sponsored prom.

"I hope it's true that the new private prom really is welcoming to everyone," McMillen said in the statement. "I never wanted my classmates to not have a prom - all I wanted was the chance to take the person I care about to prom and enjoy the night like everyone else."

Contact Chris Kieffer at (662) 678-1590 or Contact Alisha Wilson at
comments (101)
« lady_in_black wrote on Saturday, Apr 03 at 01:09 AM »
Just because they don't fit into your ideas does not mean that they are looney as you put it. These people have spent most of their lives studying the toics that they discuss. I know that even though they may be different than most people they are not going to say anything without the research to back it up. I also take it personally when you say archaeologist are looney, because I secretly used to be one.
« BuffaloNickel wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 08:27 PM »
So, this is the Big Night for Constance...any results?

Have you got News Helicopters flying over the area, is Anderson Cooper from CNN reporting at the scene?
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 07:41 PM »
Lady, might I suggest you actually research the commentators they have on those shows? Try it; you may be surprised just how unorthodox (loony) some of them are.
« twogone wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 02:10 PM »
daveLister being you look like something shot out of a monkeys ass don't mean you have to be an atheist
« lady_in_black wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 01:57 PM »
I never said that accepted averything that I see on the History channel I said that they have highly educated people and base most of their programs on information gathered by researching the topic fully and giving both sides to a tale. Might I suggest you watching an entire program first.
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 01:51 PM »
Lady, this is what you said... "The New Testament was a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Perhaps you should have been more specific.

Most biblical scholars do not believe the Essenes were Christians. Finally, the History Channel often runs shows like "Banned from the Bible". While shows like that suggest Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, such things cannot be proven. So, to accept everything you see on that channel is foolhardy.
« lady_in_black wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 01:36 PM »
They were incorporated into the New Testament of the Bible. you make it sound like they were written only recently. They were discovered recently yes. But they were sealed in a cave thousands of years ago to be discovered later. Hiding the Scrolls was how Christians were able to protect them during a time when they themselves were being killed for their faith.
« Dave_Lister wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 12:28 PM »
You still aren't making sense, lady. The Dead Sea scrolls are much newer than the OT, and the product of a particular sect.
« lady_in_black wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 11:42 AM »
Actually, most of my information comes from the books on history. And I never said that the entire New Testament came from the Dead Sea Scrolls just parts of it were. And as far as The History Channel and The Discovery Channel being nonreliable. The documentaries that are shown on those channels are done by people who devote their lives to perserving history and dispelling the myths. They are known as Archaeologists. These people write the books on history that you have read no matter if it was in school or, like me, just for fun.
« twogone wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 11:37 AM »
VictoriousU good morning to you and a happy easter
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 11:16 AM »
lady: Newsflash... the Discovery Channel and the History Channel are not reliable "sources". Did they provide you with footnotes for their claims? Nope.

And, nowhere would the History Channel suggest that all of the New Testament was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The latest date projected for the Dead Sea Scrolls is 70CE. Portions of the New Testament weren't authored until the 2nd Century.
« lady_in_black wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 07:31 AM »
I never said that it had been always accessible to people. I know that it was not translated into other languages until recently. And I know that my information is correct. My sources for everything that I am talking about is books on history, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 06:36 AM »
lady: And perhaps you should remember that ordinary people were forbidden access to the Scriptures until the 16th Century. For hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic Church purposefully disallowed Scripture to be printed in local languages in the belief that commoners were not worthy enough to know Scripture.

"The New Testament was a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls"? I'm not sure where you got that idea, but that's completely false. Only a few, small excerpts of Mark's Gospel are even alluded to in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
« Dave_Lister wrote on Friday, Apr 02 at 12:23 AM »
I don't know what you were trying to say, lady, but it made no sense at all. The Jewish bible, and the Torah in particular, are very old. The New Testament is brand new in comparison, and usually at the back of the Christian bible.

Biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon primarily among the American uneducated underclass. It has no basis in the rest of the Christian world, nor did it have a place among the educated in early America.
« lady_in_black wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 10:09 PM »
Actually it has. The Bible has existed for at least the past few thousand years. What people today refer to as the Old Testament is actually the original version of the Bible and it was recently that the New Testament was added to the front of the Bible. The New Testament was a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Bible that everyone uses is a combination of the two Bibles. The Old Testament being the original Bible and the New Testament Being added to the front since it was considered to be older than the Old Testament.
« BuffaloNickel wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 10:06 PM »
For anyone interested in the CSA film details

A brief portion of the film plot follows:

"In 1895, the Confederate government, which did not separate the Church from the State, outlawed all non-Christian religions. After much debate, the Roman Catholic Church was permitted as a Christian religion. Originally, Judaism, too, was outlawed, but, after grasping the contributions of the Jewish Judah P. Benjamin to the Confederate cause, the government decided to house American Jews in a reservation (similar to a Native American reservation) in Long Island, instead of executing or deporting them."

« Dave_Lister wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 09:56 PM »
lady, Christian fundamentalism would perhaps be better described as biblical literalism, and no, it didn't exist until relatively recently.
« lady_in_black wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 09:44 PM »
You do relize that the Bible itself has been around for the past few thousand years. That it was simply updated when the New Testament was added a few hundred years ago. And the only reason that was done was because of the missing scrolls that were found in the middle east. They are called The Dead Sea Scrolls.
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 09:28 PM »
lady: My denomination has NEVER been a fundamentalist sect. Additionally, there was no canonical New Testament for the first 300 to 400 years of Christian, so, by definition, no church during that type period could have been fundamentalist. Christian fundamentalism didn't exist until the 19th Century.

My denomination does not believe in the "Rapture". My denomination does not believe in a "salvation experience". Those are both basic precepts of all fundamentalist Christian denominations.
« VictoriousUnion wrote on Thursday, Apr 01 at 09:25 PM »
Buffalo... yes, I did. And, as I recall, kicking out all Catholics and Jews out of the U.S. was a big policy in the film