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.
On that first, at one time, you couldn't. But now, you can, according to a link I saw yesterday.
Scouting ties boys with men, other boys, authentic manly virtues, service, reverence and the earth. I suspect that 'with men' part sounds bad to many people these days, an indication of the success of new-age male bashers.
Exactly...
Sorry, but this story is about the SCOTUS refusing to hear the case, letting the California Supreme Court decision stand. The California court already ruled, unanimously, and the SCOTUS won't review the decision.
That IS the problem with conservative judges. They do not legislate from the bench. They look at the facts and the merits of the case and then make their decision. Those who think that a conservative court is going to turn back years of liberal excess are delusional. Liberals use the court as a battering ram, conservatives use it as a mediating tool, big difference. The best we can hope for from a conservative court is that they don't make matters worse, not that they will clean up the mess that is already here.
Wow. That's a majority of each house of Congress...
Not to mention that one Eagle Scout served as President...8^)
"I work with a woman who's daughter is on her HS wrestling team. She's actually proud of the fact that her little emancipated princess is "undefeated" because no coach with any sense of decency will let a teenaged boy get in the ring with her. "
There are several girls on HS wrestling teams here in Minnesota. No defaults, either. They have to wrestle the boys. Sometimes they win...sometimes they lose.
It's an accepted practice here, as are girls as placekickers on football teams. One team here has two girls as placekickers, and they're darned good. Several wins have come from their efforts.
When a previous decision is clearly in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has an obligation to take the case and overturn the unconstitutional ruling.
Overturning liberal judicial activism is not legislating from the bench. It's protecting the Constitution.
Yes. Why would an organization like the Boy Scouts of America even want to be associated with a cess pool like Berkely, California?
I would seriously wonder about any boy who lost a wrestling match to a girl of the same weight as him. Boys have a tremendous advantage in upper body strength.
Also, when I wrestled in HS, there was a lot of grabbing going on between the legs. It is entirely innappropriate for HS girls to be wrestling with HS boys.
Well, would you abandon those that have the values that the Boy Scouts espouse?
Into the belly of beast so to speak.
BTW, for those who don't know, you can go down to your local Scout office or Troop and write out a check for a donation, you can go to their website and join their legal defense fund as well. I make contributions in spirit, in practice and with $$$'s.
There is no excuse for what berzerkely has done, but it is done, now is the time to find an alternative rather than to see the Sea Scout program there die.
Cheers,
SZ
On average, boys are stronger than girls of the same wieght. There are always exceptions, though.
As for the hand positions, it's just part of the sport. If you think that's bad, you should see what goes on in classical dancing. Not all young guys who dance are gay, and there's all sorts of hand positions that might be considered wrong, but not in dance.
Frankly, I just don't worry all that much about such things. It's not as if boys aren't groping girls every chance they get anyhow. If a girl can compete in her weight class and wants to participate, I just don't have a problem with it. Few girls will opt for the sport, though.
What you said.
I wonder very hard about the girl that does. And her parents.
The truth of the matter is that the Scouts are protecting their young boys from potential sexual predators.
John / Billybob
Wish I'd have been standing by you when he said it. I would have said, "That's okay - you're going to need your money for AIDS treatment anyway."
LOL. Nicely put.
I fight a lonely battle to save the word "discrimination." I guess everyone should have one lost cause.
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.