PDA

View Full Version : Ominous Court Ruling for re-enacting


Canebrake Rifle Guards
04-01-2004, 07:28 PM
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court made it's ruling in the case of
Katherine Garrett v. Iowa Living History Association, Inc.

Ms. Garrett sued the ILHA Inc. for denying her civil rights to participate in a Civil War recreation. ILHA Inc. did not allow Garrett, wearing a 'zouave vivandiere' uniform, a female uniform, to participate in a 1998 reenactment as an artillery crew member.

A spokesman for ILHA said that Ms. Garrett's gender was not the issue. The issue was authenticity since no Vivandieres worked artillery pieces during the war. ILHA's case was that they would have allowed Ms. Garrett to participate if she had been dressed as a man.

The court ruling sets a new standard for Living History groups nationwide. Women will now be able to participate in mock battles wearing correct clothing for the era, but not clothing deemed proper to the part they play or to the gender they are portraying.

As a member of the 11th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, a zouave unit that wears fancy uniforms based on the French Algerian elite troops of the 19th Century, Garrett would have to wear baggy red pants to participate as a man or the skirt if she portrayed a vivandiere.

"The baggy red pants are not flattering to my build. I would prefer to wear them and pass myself off as a man, but they [the pants] make my posterior seem huge."

The Court ruled that artistic expression is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. Ms. Garrett's interpretation of events is as important as what is recorded in history books.

"We don't believe this should prevent Ms. Garrett from participating in these displays" according to one Justice's opinion. Her desire to not wear pants that make her butt loom large needs to be respected as well. She can't be forced to wear clothing, historical or not, that makes her ass seem larger.

In one dissenting justices opinion he stated APRIL FOOLS

Greg Starbuck

Matt Caldwell
04-01-2004, 07:41 PM
Aight, I read it, but is this a BS article or what? Was this case really on the docket? If so, I foresee 501c3 reenacting organizations looming on extinction.

never mind, I read too much into it

Bill Cross
04-02-2004, 02:38 PM
A Google search showed nothing on this. Unless it has passed entirely below the radar screen, I suspect the fact this was posted on APRIL FOOL'S DAY may be relevant. As my kids would say "you've been punked."

RelicRoomGuy
04-02-2004, 02:41 PM
NO FAIR! It's April 2 now, and you had me TERRIFIED!!!

(Though now I'll never get to read Antonin Scalia's dissent on this case, and that dissent would have been some comfort, I'm sure...)