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."
Bakhaus should really not ruin, what I consider, a perfectly principled position with this kind of rethoric. It only serves to give Libertarians the bad reputation the have amongst many conservatives.
No, they didn't. They did it as a matter of principle, something the Republican Party has long since abandoned.
A principle of self centered naïveté. The L's would just soon protect the rights of a "pedophile" as to protect the rights of parents and their children.
That's manure. Read the article again. The action the LP took in this case has exactly the opposite effect.
Don't presume to tell me what I would "just soon do".
There is no such thing a right to pedophilia, so your statement is foolish. Furthermore, even a pedophile has Constitutional rights that are currently protected by force of law. Are you opposed to that?
Ironic statement.
I think the statement is true. Bigot is not a bad word...
Main Entry: big·otFits Robert Bakhaus well.
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Merriam-Webster
What a hubristic comment. Comparing the Boy Scouts to the KKK. And you ask why a lot of people think that Libertarians are on dope.
-- Of course it would kevin.
-- But the true genius of our constitutional republic would be realised if it's basic libertarian principles were reinstated and honored by courts & government officials.
We would then have a society that worked, --- dispite immoral, undisciplined, irreligious people.
Self interest & fair treatment under minimal law work. Our nearly hundred year experiment in big brother government has not.
Care to comment on post #13? It makes a very important point that hasn't been addressed by 'your side'. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at it?
Spoken from what you stand for? Does the right of an individual or a group have to be intrusted to ones grovernment?
That comment speaks volumes to me. Mr. Bakhaus thinks that the Boy Scouts are bigots and are on par with the KKK. The same tact basically as Hillary Clinton.
Sorry but the Boy Scouts are not bigots and there was no reason for Mr. Bakhaus to make that "Hillary" like remark.
-- Refreshing to see you make a rational remark, jihad. But then you lapse into incoherence:
But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say, or that religious have no 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion which includes the formation of the larger family, then we part company.
-- I would too, if anyone 'chimed in' to actually say anything like that. Can you make some quotes of those positions being avocated on this thread? I bet not.
Yet, he defends them.
The same tact basically as Hillary Clinton.
I doubt ol' Hill would stand up for the rights of those with whom she disagrees. Principled defense of liberty isn't in her playbook.
Given any thought to post #13?
Yet they both(Hillary and Mr. Bakhaus) have the same mindset, that the Boy Scouts are bigots. That speaks volumes, IMHO.
Ironic statement.
More than you realise.
He means even you.
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.