Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santa Barbara Libertarians help win Boy Scout discrimination fight
LP News ^ | February | LP

Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt

Libertarians in Santa Barbara, California have scored a victory for freedom of association by helping to nullify a resolution that censured the local Boy Scouts chapter.

On November 14, county supervisors approved a statute forbidding the government from discriminating against private organizations -- even if that group has "incorrect membership requirements," said Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus.

"Even the U.S. Supreme Court had said the Boy Scouts have the right to associate, and make their own internal rules as they choose," he said. "If LPers could not lead in such a case as local government censuring the Boy Scouts, who would?"

The new statute invalidated a resolution adopted in March by a 3-2 vote, which censured the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters.

County commissioners said the Boy Scout's policy violated the country's anti-discrimination law. The censure would have allowed county officials to prevent Scouts from using local camp grounds, leasing property from the city, or passing out leaflets on school grounds.

However, the Boy Scouts of America said the gay lifestyle violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be "morally straight." It won a U.S Supreme court decision in June 2000, which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.

Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.

"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."

After the commission passed its resolution in March, "libertarian sympathizer" Michael Warnken and local LP members collected 20,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn it.

Libertarians helped drum up publicity for the campaign by sending letters to the editors of local papers, appearing at meetings and rallies, and speaking out on local television shows, said Bakhaus.

A number of conservative Republicans also joined the effort, which shows that small organizations "can't afford to be shy about having allies," he said.

"[Our LP affiliate is] too small to abolish taxation or achieve other radical reforms outright. We must first develop our clout by helping enforce the current good laws limiting government, while rallying better liberals and conservatives to uphold the best American traditions of freedom," he said.

However, the coalition ran into opposition from the county attorney's office, which filed a suit to stop the petitioning.

The attorney claimed the initiative language was "vague," and that only a statute or regulation -- not a resolution -- was subject to invalidation by initiative.

In response, activists changed the language of the measure meet state initiative requirements, and hired their own attorney to defend them from legal attacks, said Bakhaus.

With the initiative back on track and a large public turn-out at the commission's November meeting, county commissioners decided to nullify the anti-Boy Scout resolution, said Bakhaus.

"[It] was approved as law without a vote of the people, thanks in part to a large public showing -- but mostly by the fears of an electoral backlash if it went to a vote," he said.

Most importantly, Libertarians learned valuable lessons from the experience, said Bakhaus.

"The [Santa Barbara LP] learned that a countywide petition drive is not outside the bounds of doability," he said. "We also learned that a 1% investment ratio can be leveraged into victory, if that investment consists of extensive knowledge and experience about the intricacies of real politics."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: braad; bsalist; libertarians; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-457 next last
To: Roscoe
Why should I? It makes no sense to me. -- Only a clown like you sees it as some horrid racial slur.

Get over your 'pc' view of the world. Not everyone thinks in ways you or the government approves.

161 posted on 02/19/2002 9:51:52 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
It seems we have a common foe here.

Indeed. And I will gladly fight with you to get the Constitution to be once again respected.

162 posted on 02/19/2002 9:53:04 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Next, they'll make it illegal for White men to refuse to marry Black women."

Not everyone thinks in ways you or the government approves.

Clearly not. Lunatics who claim that the government plans to force people into inter-racial marriages, for example.

163 posted on 02/19/2002 9:58:20 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
BS. There is no such 'doctrine'.

Libertarians are all over the place on such issues, as is the general population.

164 posted on 02/19/2002 9:58:54 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Excellent!!!

That's all I really want. And it seems so hopeless. Even the people who agree on that are divided and up against insurmountable odds. I feel it urgent that everyone who wants the Constitution reinstated should unite, stand up and demand it. Things are getting too far from it to be tolerable for much longer.

If that could be accomplished, and I hope it will someday, we can agree to not be neighbors. ;)

165 posted on 02/19/2002 10:01:42 AM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
we can agree to not be neighbors

Why? Are you going to have crack parties with hookers in your front yard? :-)

166 posted on 02/19/2002 10:04:16 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Or lunatics who can't recognise sarcasm/cynicism when they read it.

You're becoming obsessive again roscoe. -- Forget your meds this morning?

167 posted on 02/19/2002 10:06:23 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sigh -- Over the line again. -- You think your sophomoric jibes are funny, don't you? Whatta nasty little clown.
168 posted on 02/19/2002 10:10:26 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: tpaine;Roscoe
I am not the member of any klan (unless you consider Conservatives a klan). When I wrote my statement, I wasn't aware that it happened to be a klan's fantasy. What I was trying to get at was that the media can make gullible people believe anything, no matter how absurd. When enough gullible people believe it, there is nothing to stop it from becoming law.

That's why Conservatives shouldn't waste their time bashing Libertarians. We have MUCH more important things to do.

169 posted on 02/19/2002 10:14:04 AM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No, but I do other horrible things not suitable for deeded communities.

Like I drink beer while working on my motorcycle in the front yard with buttcrack showing, while my mangy dogs run amok.

I have to do this because girlfriends hate it when I take the motorcycle apart in the living room.

170 posted on 02/19/2002 10:14:06 AM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: DoSomethingAboutIt
Kudos to the LP. Drop or play down the legalize dope angle and I would imagine they might get more support.

I wasn't going to bring up the dope thing, but you mentioned it in your opening post.

But I don't want to detract from the fact that I find it laudable work for the LP and I as a non-aligned conservative appreciate the effort and the result.

171 posted on 02/19/2002 10:14:51 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I'll say again: libertarianism would work fine in a society comprising highly moral, self-disciplined, God-fearing people.

You have it ass backwards as usual. Only such perfect people could be entrusted with the sort of power you wish to give to government. With the real people we have in the world as it actually exists, government must be denied all power beyond the bare minimum.

172 posted on 02/19/2002 10:15:33 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Like I drink beer while working on my motorcycle in the front yard with buttcrack showing, while my mangy dogs run amok.

Dude, I live in Alabama. That's practically a requirement over here.

173 posted on 02/19/2002 10:16:57 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
You are correct! They won't answer it at all, or they'll use their typical tortured logic to explain away their inconsistencies. These so-called conservatives are simply authoritarians who want to force THEIR will down the throats of others.
174 posted on 02/19/2002 10:16:58 AM PST by BillofRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: untenured
Your statement seems contradictory

That's because CJ's statements are contradictory. It's like that "stream of consciousness" thing my English professor was always talking about (and, come to think of it, demonstrating) in class.

175 posted on 02/19/2002 10:18:47 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Sigh -- Over the line again.

I hate to tell you tpaine, but I get along with most people on these threads. When people get along, they tend to have fun with each other. Try learning that sometime.

176 posted on 02/19/2002 10:18:49 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: BillofRights
I thought the Bill of Rights had a tenth article.
177 posted on 02/19/2002 10:19:08 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe;tpaine
If you refuse to rent to a prospective tenant because of his or her race, you're in violation of our laws.
Libertarian doctrine would legalize such racial discrimination.

So you support this "anti-discrimination" legislation? Do you support similar legislation regarding employment? Would you support similar legislation regarding marriage???

178 posted on 02/19/2002 10:20:39 AM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Are you back to that racist bilge already?
179 posted on 02/19/2002 10:22:07 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I think this example in contradiction in conservative thought (I wouldn't use the term 'principles')

I wouldn't use either of those terms in connection with CJ, Kevin, Dane, Roscoe, et al, given their trolling of this thread.

180 posted on 02/19/2002 10:22:34 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-457 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson