Outlaw Blues

July-August 2007

At Maria Carrillo High School in Santa Rosa, Calif., in 2002, freshman Rebekah Rice was being teased about being a Mormon by a few of her classmates. One mocked her: "Do you have 10 moms?" Rebekah responded: "That's so gay."

Their repartee ended when teacher Claudine Gans-Regebregt intervened. Guess whom she sent to Principal Mark Klick's office? Guess who received a written warning from Principal Klick? Bingo: Rebekah Rice.

Rebekah's parents, Eden and Katherine Rice, then filed a lawsuit against the school alleging that Rebekah's First Amendment rights were infringed. Rebekah, they claimed, was punitively punished for using a phrase that "enjoys widespread currency in youth culture." Rebekah testified that the phrase means "That's so stupid, that's so silly, that's so dumb," and that she did not use it in reference to anyone's sexual orientation.

We can confirm Rebekah's intent in the use of the phrase, "That's so gay," to mean what she says it does. Back in our June 1999 issue, we printed a letter from Richard Bruce of Davis, Calif., who said, "At one time 'gay' meant happy, more recently it meant homosexual, and now it has a new meaning. Teens use it to mean lame. Instead of saying, 'That's so lame,' they say, 'That's so gay.'" We replied in an Editor's Note in that same issue that "in this case, it seems…teenagers [are] engaging in a little linguistic outlawry." In Rebekah's case, it is outlawry indeed.


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



New Oxford Notes: July-August 2007

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Each American has the unalienable right to say whatever he believes about any religion (or about any sexual perversion) - regardless of whether someone be offended.

This girl has the right to use the word 'gay' in any way she wants (never mind that the word has already been perverted by those who engage in perversion) - including pejoratively.

I suggest to my fellow Americans to start exercising those rights vigorously, and engaging in the fight to retain them - before tyrants take them away.

And hey - the whole idea that we're having this debate is, indeed so very, very gay.

(Ought oh - the intolerant tolerance police are coming...)



Posted by: Luke
August 07, 2007 03:09 PM EDT
I don't see anything wrong in criticizing Mormons. Religion should be discussed more openly and critically. Say one negative thing about Judaism and you're automatically labeled an anti-semite. The homosexual lobby, in order to pervert our children, are trying to make homosexuality into some unjustly persecuted minority. Now more than ever we need to put on a thick skin and speak out against stupid religions, like Mormonism, and sexual perversions like homosexuality. Posted by: awacs
July 20, 2007 01:15 PM EDT
Yup...Welcome to the new American standard, from the Politically Correct crowd: "Everyone is equal---But some are more equal than others"!!!! Posted by: john
July 20, 2007 04:03 PM EDT
This is standard PC and secular progressive action from the school. So what if she said "gay"? What substantive comments were coming from her antagonizers? She handled it well. Catholics would do well to shun PC and start learning their religion in more depth. The secular progressives, and the gay movement have conned this country into thinking that this is a human rights issue and the PC stuff has merit. You haven't seen anything yet if the Dems get the presidency and the Congress next year. Then you will see all kinds of initiatives that are antithetical to Catholic teaching and even traditional American values. Posted by: wunsch
July 21, 2007 12:53 PM EDT
awacs -- The fact that you don't see anything wrong with criticizing Mormonism is irrelevant to this article and to the Mormon girl's situation. We should be able to reasonably expect that a student in a public or private school should not be taunted and bullied over her religion -- no matter what it might be. The point of the article, in case you missed it, was that taunting students about "sexual orientation" (or even using sexual orientation language) is condemned while taunting students on religious grounds is not. Posted by: charing cross
July 23, 2007 12:44 PM EDT
charing -- if you can't criticize someone's religion, then you can't criticize someone's sexual perversions. you can't have it both ways. the point is we shouldn't be overly sensitive either with religion or sexuality. liberals love feeling like victims. Posted by: awacs
July 24, 2007 01:47 PM EDT
Add a comment