Posted on 10/17/2006 7:11:14 AM PDT by presidio9
Six years after the Supreme Court ruled the Boy Scouts could ban gay leaders, the group is fighting and losing legal battles with state and local governments over its discriminatory policies.
The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.
The action let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofit organizations because of the Scouts' membership policies.
Two years ago, the court similarly rejected a Boy Scouts appeal of a case from Connecticut, where officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.
And in Philadelphia, the city is threatening to evict a Boy Scout council from the group's publicly owned headquarters or make the group pay rent unless it changes its policy on gays.
On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to the group is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts of America requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.
Despite the string of legal setbacks, lawyers for the Scouts said they believe the Supreme Court ultimately will decide that governments are improperly denying benefits that they make available to similar organizations.
"The issue of governments seeking to punish organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights is a recurring one. There will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court to affirm First Amendment protections for organizations dealing with government agencies," George Davidson, the longtime attorney for the Scouts, said in a statement.
Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky agreed that the justices probably have not had their last say on the Boy Scouts and may be waiting until lower courts disagree on the issue.
"This is about when governments can impose requirements for getting government benefits," Chemerinsky said.
In 2000, the court ruled that the Scouts have the right to ban openly homosexual scout leaders, a decision that rested on First Amendment rights.
"The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in a 5-4 decision.
Even so, the California Supreme Court said in March that local governments are under no obligation to extend benefits to organizations that discriminate.
Berkeley, home of free speech protests since the 1960s, adopted a nondiscrimination policy on the use of its marina in 1997 and revoked the Sea Scouts' subsidy a year later.
The Sea Scouts are a branch of the Boy Scouts. They teach sailing, carpentry and plumbing. City officials had told the group that it could retain its berthing subsidy if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists, but the Sea Scouts refused.
Eugene Evans, who leads the Sea Scouts, has been paying $500 a month to berth one boat at the Berkeley Marina. The group removed two other boats because it could not afford the rent. The group has about 40 members, down from as many as 100 before the subsidy was removed.
Berkeley had allowed the Scouts free use of the marina since the 1930s, according to Evans.
The Sea Scouts said they were singled out because Berkeley's elected officials disapprove of the Boy Scouts' membership policies.
The case is Evans v. City of Berkeley, 06-40.
ping
We were with our son selling popcorn at a Show and Sell last weekend, when someone felt the need to come up to us and say he wasn't going to buy popcorn to support a group that discriminates against homosexuals. I'm sorry to say that I was so shocked that I didn't have a ready reply and just stood there with my mouth open.
The Scouts are nowhere without private benefactors. This is the way they've always prospered, at least from my experience.
Hopefully philanthropy will step in to save traditional values of scouting.
I don't see why the court would stop at scouting- many churches do not allow perform or sanction gay marriage- I guess they lose their tax exempt status next. Soon USA will be an entire nation where citizens must accept sodomy as a "natural right" to be taught to the youngest of us as just another normal, to obtain federal tax benefits.
I think something like "enjoy your no popcorn, butt pirate," would have sufficed.
"There is nothing in the history of our country that prohibits homosexuals from establishing their own youth mentoring organization - after all, they have NAMBLA!"
I think that's coming soon, too.
This ruling was issued by California's State Supreme Court. The Scouts think things may be different when the appeal to SCOTUS, and I tend to agree with them.
Any person or group who relies on The State for their well-being and solvency has no reason to complain when The State starts making outrageous demands of them.
Two years ago, the court similarly rejected a Boy Scouts appeal of a case from Connecticut, where officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.
The Boy Scouts were the wrong plaintiff in this case. They would have had a much better chance of succeeding in court if the suit had been brought by a donor who was not permitted to donate to his/her favorite charity through this plan.
Every Bible-based, true-teaching church could charter a Pack (Cub Scouts) and a Troop (Boy Scouts), actively recruit in their local neighborhoods, and include Scouting as part of their Youth Ministry. Just like so many NCC churches do.
And this is not a theoretical matter. The decision of the Boy Scouts that it is dangerous to have adult homosexuals as leaders is a matter of the safety of those in their care. Witness Gerry Studds (D-Mass) who actually seduced a young boy, and Mark Foley (R-Fla) who sent nasty messages to a boy.
The Scouts are right on the law, and right on the practicalities of the matter. The AP is being politically correct by avoiding the fact that adult homosexuals are dangerous to young boys.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "An Open Letter to President Bollinger"
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
The left's battering of the Boy Scouts has been led by the radical homosexual movement in the Democratic party. That the Democrats led the assault on Scouting will be forever to their shame.
Unfortunately, this issue was not properly developed at trial, and therefore could not be presented to the Supreme Court.
John / Billybob
What the hell are you talking about? It's a PUBLIC marina. Wanna bet there's some gay group who is enjoying free use of public property because of Berkeley's arbitrary rules? Plenty of not-for-profit groups are discriminatory. Do you really want to open that Pandora's Box? The end result of rulings like this will be "mo more Boy Scouts." Is that a good thing in the name of buttsex equality?
Do you happen to know, how long has it been that the Girl Scouts have allowed male leaders? I was amazed when this was pointed out to me. It's a bad idea, just as allowing homosexual males to lead Boy Scouts is a bad idea.
Perhaps it's time for the Boy Scouts to undertake a special progect for their Berkeley troop . . . "Demolition of Breakwater and Other Marine Infrastructure."
You're actually making a very good argument that a "public marina" shouldn't even exist in the first place. That rationale should also be extended to just about everything else we've come to expect from government these days -- public schools, public hospitals, public housing, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.