Apparently Gay Students’ Expulsion Okayed By Courts

images-3.thumbnail.jpgA California appeals court ruled Monday that a Christian school could expel students perceived as gay. California Lutheran High School in Riverside County–part of the extremely fundamental Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod–expelled 

two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship."

The court ruled that because the private religious school was not a business it did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating.

The girls had been reported to the teacher by another student in 2005 for saying they loved each other; a search by the school on their MySpace pages revealed one girl described herself as bi-sexual and the other listed "not sure"as her sexual orientation.

John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School said

that the school’s purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."

McKay said the girls, then juniors, were expelled for

conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians.

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod believes homosexuality is a sin and the school’s "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus. 

The girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law; however  Justice Betty A. Richli wrote:

The school’s religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions. The whole purpose of sending one’s child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework.

 The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod rejects

any thought that makes only part of Scripture God’s Word or that allows for the possibility of factual error in Scripture, even in so-called nonreligious matters such as historical or geographical details. We likewise reject all views that say Scripture is merely a human record of God’s revelation as he encounters mankind in history, and so is a record subject to human imperfections.

which means man and dinosaurs lived together; Noah’s Ark held two of each species (and all the food for them); and Lot’s wife really did turn into a pillar of salt. Etc.

69 Responses to "Apparently Gay Students’ Expulsion Okayed By Courts"
egregious | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:04 pm 1

Thanks Lisa.

AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:14 pm 2

I’m for equal rights for virtually any group; but if this is a private school that doesn’t receive any public funding then it’s their choice of who can/can’t be in their school.

Splicer | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:15 pm 3

I’m seeing this story as “Expelled: The Untold Story”, a Viv Thomas production.

RieszFischer | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:17 pm 4

The girls had been reported to the teacher by another student in 2005 for saying they loved each other;

Love is a four letter word to these “Christians”.

spurious | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:18 pm 5

is this school accredited? i don’t see how it could be

Ted666 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:19 pm 6

If this stupidity causes the 2 kids to question the beliefs of this cult they got born into then it could be the best thing that could happen to them.

Hugh | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:21 pm 7

I don’t know anything about California law. In general, a purely private entity can discriminate if it so chooses. So a social club can discriminate but a restaurant (which serves the public) even if privately owned (or owned by say a religious order) can not. So the real question would be is the college more like a social club or a business? I would agree with anyone who would add that the religious overlay muddles the waters further.

OTOH if the Lutheran college receives any money, any money at all, from the US government, there would be a good case to be made in the federal courts.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:24 pm 8
In response to spurious @ 5

It used to be (and probably still is) one of the best academic high schools in the Inland Empire. But it has apparently become really repressive religiosly. On the other hand, when I attended school in RiverBottom there wasn’t even an ARPA-Net.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:25 pm 9

It’s not a college, folks. It’s a high school.

whataretheysmoking | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:28 pm 10
In response to AwCrapBob @ 2

sorry. if i run a ski instruction school and get no grant from the government, i will be prosecuted for discrimination. why is a religious body exemp?

‘cos they are so damn entitled and others agree with them?

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:29 pm 11
In response to AwCrapBob @ 2

I’m getting pretty tired of people stating that just because they believe in a magic man in the sky that they have the “right” to be bad people and treat others indecently.

I know this is the US of A where citizens have the right to believe any crazy crap they want and no one can say sh*t about it, but I’m getting sick and tired of the violence and hate and pain that allowing these “religious” people free reign causes.

How the hell do junior school girls “conduct themselves in a manner consistent with being a lesbian”? I can see a school rule disallowing public displays of affection (no necking in the halls). I can see them stating that “touching” is inappropriate across the board (fr legal reasons except in the case of contact sports perhaps). Were they groping each other and sitting on each others laps? I doubt it. Seriously, what could these girls have been doing?

I’ll go searching for more info on that one, but dollars to doughnuts this is a classic case of “Mean Girls” tattling on a couple of girls they hate and whom they wanted to get rid of.

LS | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:33 pm 12

I wonder if the school hearts Haggert.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:35 pm 13
In response to Jett @ 11

You’re probably correct. But the girls apparently posted on MyFace that their sexual identities were something that wasn’t straight. They had to know what the school’s stance on sex is. Repressive is the term I’d use, I’m sure the school authorities would pick some nicer sounding euphemism.

This is a tough lesson for the girls, but anything you post publicly about yourself can be used by others.

Jkat | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:36 pm 14

“apparently gay” … geeze louise …

AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:36 pm 15
In response to Jett @ 11

That’s a morality issue, not a legal one. I sincerely wished stuff like this wasn’t happening, but from a legal standpoint they can do it (as long as they meet my conditions).

To whataretheysmoking: I agree religious institutions get too much leeway…but current law is on their side…it is a matter that needs rectifying. I personally think that religious organizations should be treated exactly like any other-here in Utah pols and laws genuflect to the LDS church…it isn’t right, but until we change the way gov’t treats religion there isn’t much recourse.

AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:39 pm 16
In response to whataretheysmoking @ 10

I agree the relationship between religion/politics/gov’t is WAY too close-you should see how the Utah state gov’t asskisses the LDS church here. Reform is needed, but indoctrination is a tough thing to beat.

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:41 pm 17
In response to RieszFischer @ 4

Like I said: “Mean Girls” tattling on others they don’t like.

Kicked out of school on hearsay evidence. And so what if they do love each other? At least they won’t be running out and getting pregnant before they graduate like Bristol!

And you’re right, these folks are supposed to believe “God Is Love”.

“Love thy neighbor” as long as he’s not a Muslim or the same sex.

“Use your words, not your body” but bomb the crap outta Iran next please and you’re weak if you want to meet with their diplomats.


AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:42 pm 18

Oops…dbl. posted!

Gitcheegumee | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:44 pm 19

This is one of the issues I have with charter schools.[I don’t know if this school gets vouchers.]

But many who are in favor of tax payer funded vouchers don’t realize that the charter schools get the best of both worlds.

Get public money without public accountability,and can make their OWN rules,set their own curriculum as to what to teach.Especially the faith based charter schools.

WarOnWarOff | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:44 pm 20


(Who Would Jesus Expel?)

perris | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:45 pm 21

I have no problem with private clubs using any protocol they want

however they cannot then have authority to issue state sanctioned degrees

if they want their private club then they are not a school, their students would not satisfy state requirements for education, and the students would have to pass equivilancy tests when they decide they think they want a degree.

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:47 pm 22
In response to AwCrapBob @ 15

I know you’re right.

I’m merely voicing my frustration that this is legal and I believe it should not be. I know I have the weight of history against me, but I come from a religious family and know full well the way in which “belief” is used to damage and control.

I just get pissed off at how love = intolerance
good = familiar and
evil = different.

perris | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:48 pm 23
In response to Gitcheegumee @ 19

But many who are in favor of tax payer funded vouchers don’t realize that the charter schools get the best of both worlds.

no tax payer funding for organizations that want to disregard local state law

I don’t even want private and religious schools getting tax dollars in the first place much less if they’re allowed to ignore local anti-discrimination law

i4u2bi | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:49 pm 24

“the school’s purpose was to teach fascist values in a fascist setting pursuant to a fascist code of conduct”.

What is there about fascism makes it so hard to understand? Who would want to learn fascism?

KiwiJackson | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:49 pm 25

My wonderful Marie counseled kids in Hollywood in COvenant House who were thrown from their families for being in that kind of love. One boy died if I remember in an alley from addiction. He had not been able to reconcile with anyone from his former life, the family, his friends and schoolmates. So estranged and alone as to take his own life with some concoction of drugs.

Love is love. My son and his partner live with me now that Marie is gone. I think their love for each other is as beautiful as ours was before she passed on.

Give up trying to ban it. its only been here since time began like all love for one another, you fools.

AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:53 pm 26
In response to Jett @ 22

Hell, I went to a Catholic High school way back when…but in our smallish city in Upstate NY (about 30,000 at the time) you didn’t have to be Catholic to attend.

I’m always wary of people who profess ANYTHING constantly (I’m a Christian/passionate about */whatever), they’re always the ones who who seem to be trying to convince themselves of the fact.

Margot | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:54 pm 27

new post–>

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:56 pm 28
In response to BargainCountertenor @ 13

I’m an old guy and just joined FaceBook because a much younger cousin invited me. I’m amazed at how these kids live their whole lives on-line and update each and every move they make. I guess it is a hard lesson for these girls.

I can only hope that their parents put them in public school and save lots and lots of cash which they spend on therapy for the whole family and that these girls can try dating each other while trying to deal with all the other crap we all did trying to figure out who the hell we are through the terrible teens.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 12:59 pm 29
In response to AwCrapBob @ 26

Most Catholic schools don’t require that students be a Catholic to attend, although it’s made clear that the religious component of instruction is Catholic and the noncatholic students are not excused.

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:03 pm 30
In response to BargainCountertenor @ 29

On the contrary – I was educated by the Jesuits and it was me and the “two Jews” at the back of every service being told we were going to hell because we weren’t Catholic. We heathens were seen as a chance for the priests to practice their conversion skills (while they tried getting into our pants too, but that an entirely different story)

AitchD | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:03 pm 31

Adults haven’t figured out what gay or same or neither means (yeah, they know it when they see it), so how is it logical and lawful to apply such an ambiguous behavioral code to a minor?

The courts are an equal branch of the government, but they’re more than half the problem while Congress and the Executive get 100% of the inky attention.

We need better lawyers.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:03 pm 32
In response to Jett @ 28

Intelligent adults take anything a mid-teen says with a very large grain of salt. And they take anything mid-teens say about sex with a whole salt mine.

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:05 pm 33

That’s what I said, Jett. Just because you’re a proddy (or Jewish or Muslim or Pagan or …), you still get to go to Mass, Theology and all the rest of that happy stuff that comes along for the ride with the three R’s.

whataretheysmoking | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:17 pm 34
In response to AwCrapBob @ 15

that’s why i no longer live in utah.

Jkat | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:24 pm 35

no one “lives” in utah my friend .. they merely subsist there … ;)

BargainCountertenor | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:26 pm 36
In response to AwCrapBob @ 15

The thing to remember about the Utah Lege is that essentially all its membership is LDS.

And the thing to remember about LDSers is that they make great Republicans, because they want to fall in line. It’s much easier to fall in line than it is to think.

So, you end up with the State of Utah being (de facto, not de jure) an almost wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Or, as Mrs BC said, “Utah would be a wonderful place with 60% fewer Mormons.”

whataretheysmoking | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:27 pm 37

if you’re rich and white and and male and went on a mission and are tight with the honchos in the local ‘ward’, you can live pretty well in utah.

AwCrapBob | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:29 pm 38
In response to whataretheysmoking @ 34

For me, it’s not bad…I’m not a drinker (recovering alkie), and local politics never meant much to me. Weather’s decent (not bone cold like Vermont, not blazing hot like Az., nice seasonal changes). The Mormons I work for (and I worked for a lot of them in Mesa Az) respect me because I’m a hard worker and a decent person.

gannonguckert | Wednesday January 28, 2009 01:35 pm 39
In response to perris @ 21

Yo, Perris, I agree, no state-sanctioned diplomas/degrees.

Let the school brag all it wants that its diplomas meet-or-exceed all the requirements of public school diplomas, etc., but there should no sanctioning by any accreditation boards operating by virtue of statute or public taxpayer funds.

joel | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:29 pm 40

Come on! What has happened to reason in this country? Those girls knew exactly what the rules were before they enrolled in that school. Did anyone force them to attend? Why the hell would you attend – or want to continue to attend a school that teaches something contrary to your beliefs? Looks to me they were just looking for a reason to sue. As a religious school, California Lutheran has the right to set its own code of conduct. If you don’t like it, don’t enroll. If you do enroll, play by the rules. End of story.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:38 pm 41
In response to joel @ 40

Joel, when the young girls enrolled, they might not have known that they weren’t going to “play by the rules.”
You might consider that, and consider that teenagers are deserving of protection and sympathy. Also might consider that teenagers rarely institute lawsuits.

~~~Edited in moderation by request of commenter.~~~

TheLurkingMod | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:46 pm 42

Ladies & Gentlemen, tear the issues to shreds. But not each other.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:48 pm 43
In response to TheLurkingMod @ 42

Apologies. Heat does tend to overawe coherence, particularly for me.

JoyB | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:49 pm 44

I say let the stupid religious schools do their mean stuff, we can comfort the little victims on the outside, and let the schools live with the weight of their stupidity. Remember, these girls have parents, friends, friends of the parents, who ALL might have smiled on the school before this. Now, they all know better.

If the schools are forced to be NOT stupid and horrible, they can continue the tripe that Christians are SO oppressed while not being outwardly stupid and horrible.

Synoia | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:51 pm 45
In response to macaquerman @ 41

Teenages are also minors, and as minors are not always responsible for their actions.

The two girls, probably have a lawsuit against the other teen who complained.

Hmmm | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:51 pm 46

The school doesn’t receive Government money? Really? I might argue that’s not true. By virtue of the tax exemption for churches, does the Government not bestow a public financial benefit on California Lutheran High School? If there is indeed a tax exemption there, then frickin’ revoke it.

JoyB | Wednesday January 28, 2009 02:56 pm 47

disclaimer: not all Christians play the victim card, I know. Just so many of the ones I know that I’m getting cranky. They keep sending me these emails telling me how atheists are going to get killed by God in all these horrible ways (choking on vomit is the latest), forgetting–or not–that I’m one of the ones they hate. It’s really nice when your cousins, or the friend you loaned money a few months agi who hasn’t paid you back, do this.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:11 pm 48
In response to Synoia @ 45

What’s the good of a lawsuit? These are kids and regulating kids’ conduct through the legal system is, in the end, denying their “kidhood”.
What happened is just a stinking shame. If the adults supervising the school couldn’t handle this any better than it seems they did, it’s the adults failing.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:13 pm 49
In response to macaquerman @ 43

LM, if you can delete the last sentence from 41, I would be obliged.
joel, apologies to you.

perris | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:38 pm 50

this court’s ruling is the same thing as allowing the school to throw someone out for being black

it is NOT illegal to be a lesbian and they cannot be allowed federal, state funding or creditation ability

Hmmm | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:42 pm 51
In response to perris @ 50

Oooh, good one. Lose tax exemption -and- accreditation.

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:48 pm 52
In response to joel @ 40

Not so many girls (remember these kids are juniors) have much choice in where their parents send them esp if it’s to parochial school) and the how many kids (if they’re gay) know that they are ancd can articulate that to their parents or even themselves?

You’re blaming the victim.

joel | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:53 pm 53

If the school decided to expel a male and female student for maintaining a sexual relationship – because in its view any sex outside marriage is wrong – would everybody be this upset? From my experience, that sort of policy is typical among religious schools.

joel | Wednesday January 28, 2009 03:58 pm 54

No, the parents.

Jett | Wednesday January 28, 2009 04:13 pm 55
In response to joel @ 54

No, you didn’t blame the parents, you blamed the girls:

“Those girls knew exactly what the rules were before they enrolled in that school. Did anyone force them to attend? Why the hell would you attend – or want to continue to attend a school that teaches something contrary to your beliefs?”

cinnamonape | Wednesday January 28, 2009 04:19 pm 56

The two girls should expose half the other kids as “apparently gay”, or some equally suggestive “sin”. But I suspect that the gals are too Christian for that.

BTW anyone know the story of Onan and Tamar. Back then one had to marry the widow of one’s brother or son. Some of you likely know about Onan as the guy who married his dead brothers (Er) widow (Tamar) after the Lord smote Er. Onan would “prematurely withdraw” to prevent her from conceiving, spilling his seed on the ground. This left Tamar and her daughters in a precarious economic situation since she would have no children from Onan and no inheritance rights through him. And then the Lord smote Onan, too.

There was a third brother, but he was too young…and Tamar’s father-in-law, Judah, began to wonder if perhaps there was just something a bit dangerous about this Tamar gal. Maybe she was a witch and cursed her husbands…or maybe there wasa a curse on her? So he quickly married his third son off to another gal when he reached maturity, in spite of his promises and responsibilities to Tamar.

Tamar dressed up as a temple prostitute and wore a veil to conceal her face and hung out at the local temple. Judah came by to make a sacrifice and saw the temple prostitute [okay, I didn’t know that these were used by Jewish temples, either…but apparently they were] and asked her to have sex with him. She agreed, and somehow they did the act without Judah recognizing her. But Judah didn’t have the money to pay her so gave her his “staff and seal” as collateral until he could get the sheckles. When his man was sent to find the prostitute and pay her…Tamar had disappeared.

Tamar became pregnant with Judah’s child. But members of Judah’s family noticed her “baby bump” and told Judah that she had “played the prostitute” and had shamed the family. Just as she was about to be burned at the stake, Tamar reveals that she has Judah’s staff and seal and that the child she bears is his own, obtained by guile since Judah refused to undertake his legal responsibility.

Tamar actually had twins…one becoming an Amorite and the other the line of “Judah”. A few generations more and you get King David [which is actually the reason the Jews included the story of Onan and Tamar in the Scripture…since David would not exist without that incident]…and from there one reaches down to a gal named Mary…mother of Jesus.

cinnamonape | Wednesday January 28, 2009 04:27 pm 57
In response to perris @ 23

Actually the Republicans are all about passing laws, like the recent one that allows health care professionals to opt out of acts that they find morally objectionable, even when there is tax-money being applied. Thus pharmacists and doctors can “refuse” to offer appropriate advice or facility access to women that want contraception or abortion. Theoretically a Christian Scientist “doctor” could advocate that a person “pray” without dispensing any medical care at all…and couldn’t be fired.

I wonder if there will be other “exemptions” they’ll try to get passed at the State or Federal level. Maybe a Biology Teacher would not have to mention evolution (thus depriving his students of the modern unifying theory in biology). Or perhaps schools like these WILL be able to obtain Federal funds, even though they discriminate, as long as if they do so on “religious grounds”.

dakine01 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 04:47 pm 58
In response to cinnamonape @ 57

Actually the Republicans are all about passing laws, like the recent one that allows health care professionals to opt out of acts that they find morally objectionable, even when there is tax-money being applied.

I don’t believe that was an actual law passed by Congress. It was a “rule” issued by the Bush Admin in expanding the use of the law to cover far more than was actually stated in the original bill.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 04:55 pm 59
In response to cinnamonape @ 57

There’s unlikely to be much actual denial of health care on moral grounds. Unless and until people’s health is actual threatened, freedom to act in accordance with one’s own conscience is consistent with our Constitution.
Most health care professionals I’ve met are professionals and are not going to selfishly allow harm.

dakine01 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 05:25 pm 60
In response to macaquerman @ 59

Of course, though, the Rule change implemented by BushCo includes allowing folks to deny dispensing birth control, condoms and just about any family planning preventative if it is “against their moral beliefs”

Which leads to the question can they then deny someone treatment for STDs since someone having an STD did something that the person treating the disease disapproves of? That is the interpretation being placed on the rule.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 05:38 pm 61
In response to dakine01 @ 60

My experience with health care professionals is that the overwhelming majority are people who are motivated by a desire to help others. The things that they see and are called upon to do only deepen their compassion.
The rest like the money and aren’t gonna do anything to shorten their pile.

The health care pros who don’t want to do some things are already not doing them. The rule hasn’t changed anythng to date and won’t.
It’s not a danger.

dakine01 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 05:56 pm 62
In response to macaquerman @ 61

True but all it takes is one or two who decide they want to be a Cause Celebre.

And there are plenty of folks, who have not refused to sell condoms and standard birth control before now but now have cover to do so. It’s not just the so-called “morning after” pills now that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense but any birth control. Even if it was prescribed for reasons other than birth control. Which means the pharmacist is substituting his/her judgment for the Doctor and the patient.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 06:12 pm 63
In response to dakine01 @ 62

Good point. But i’m guessing that there’s so much money to be made in running a pharmacy that someone else would cover it, and probably drive the other guy out of business. In a pinch where no other local pharmacy is available, the prescribing physician would likely have an on-premises hospital pharmacy dispense the meds.

dakine01 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 06:31 pm 64
In response to macaquerman @ 63

I’m just a bit more skeptical about it than you are I guess. After watching Short Ride supporting the Catholic Church supported hospitals in CT in their refusal to offer the morning after pill and knowing how many small towns there are in the South and Mid-west where ALL the pharmacists are willing to avoid issuing the pill, I’m quite willing to believe this will happen sooner rather than later.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 06:41 pm 65
In response to dakine01 @ 64

I’m a city slicker and unfamiliar with almost any service being more than an hour’s ride away.
Do you know of any area where denial of service is total? If so, please tell, so I can adjust my thinking.

dakine01 | Wednesday January 28, 2009 06:48 pm 66
In response to macaquerman @ 65

I don’t know of any specific examples but I do know they pretty much have to exist. First think of all the states that have made abortions almost impossible to get by hounding the doctors or facilities where they might be performed (Kansas and South Dakota being good examples of this). Then take a town in some of the states such as Kansas or the Dakotas or just about anywhere with mostly small towns and no cities near by; areas where the Interstate might have a sign “Check your gas gauge, no exits for 120 miles”. Areas where the town might be 5k in population, supporting two or three pharmacies and the next nearest town of any size is over a hundred miles and it may only be 20k. If the pharmacy owners are fundies or against birth control, you have the situation laid out right there. And I suspect that’s not an uncommon situation.

macaquerman | Wednesday January 28, 2009 07:04 pm 67

The US mail delivers prescription drugs (and obviously non-prescription) ordered via internet.
I don’t know about the availibility of abortions in rural areas.

dmac | Thursday January 29, 2009 07:30 am 68
In response to macaquerman @ 65

what dakiine said–and i’ll add that i think it is south dakota that has only one clinic left and that was being legislated out of existence las5t year. and it was in a major city.

——and to your 67—
non-existent, getting there and back is a problem. let alone the money, having a car, and the hours it takes to get there and back and ‘cover’ it. and that means you’re taking off work, too.

you said you haven’t seen rural areas much–do what my sister and i used to do–we call it ‘blow the stink off’…..hop in a car and drive, just head somewhere and see what you can see. or take a train, or a bus is even better.

or use google map’s video to take a look. problem is, what i have found is that a lot of the rural stuff isn’t in the system yet.

i live in a rural area now, have for 10 years, it is a different land. and whatever area of the country you go to that6 is rural, eac h has its own flavor…yet they all have things in common…picture not having things that involve infrastructure, tax base to fund, ‘charity’ funded things like symphony and cultural things, things available that need a large populace to support, options available to those with disposable incomes-including everything from personal care to upper end clothing and electronics….the internet is the only way to purchase some things without driving an hour for a best buy or two hours to go to a major city for a real italian restaurant. no manufacturing jobs, just construction and service or small business or university jobs. a few city and county jobs, but not that many.

yet we have our own things that make this a desirable place to be. fresh meats and dairy and vegetables and anything homemade you can think of. beautiful scenery just driving to the grocery store. small diverse community. no rush hour traffic, except the day the students come back. you can wear whatever you want when you go out, who knows what you have just been doing before you left the house, and are not judged by it. there are some who are worried about appearances here but i’ve noticed they aren’t the ones really running things around never know who is who here and you sure won’t be able to tell from what they are wearing or what they are driving. big environmentalist area and self-sufficient locals, neither of which would be caught dead wearing clothes with a ‘label’. except maybe birkenstocks. ha.

so get out there and explore some farmer’s markets or something this summer, or find a mom and pop restaurant in a small town and hang out for a while. never a waste of time.

—–general comment—

and as to the ‘choice’ to go to a school, my sister was forced to go to a catholic high school. not a choice. we were methodist. a friend of mine teaches there now..a few years ago a few jocks spread pig poop all over and trashed the school, no punishment. end of the football season. that’s values for ya.


macaquerman | Thursday January 29, 2009 09:38 am 69
In response to dmac @ 68

Thanks. You post reminds of when I used to do the same. I spent a year and change living on a farm and for months could barely comprehend the difference in the taste of the food or the degree to which people avoided sticking there noses in your business. maybe that’s way I’m so reticent to believe that there aren’t abortions available. It used to be that, without clinics, there were always doctors willing and rural hospitals that had a rather large number of patients who suffered miscarriages.
Again, thanks.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post