Scouts Seek to Overturn Ruling on Homosexuals

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 9/23/02 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - The Boy Scouts of America is seeking to overturn a decision by the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission that the scouts unlawfully discriminated against two Washington area scout leaders because they were homosexual.

A three-member panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District's highest court, is considering the case after listening to arguments Sept. 10 by representatives for the Boy Scouts and by lawyers for Michael Geller, 40, and Roland Pool, 41, whose membership in the scouts was revoked in 1992 because of their homosexuality.

In a ruling in June 2001, the D.C. Human Rights Commission ordered the Boy Scouts and the National Capital Area Council to admit both men as adult members, to pay their attorney fees and to pay them $50,000 each in damages.

The Boy Scouts argued that the District of Columbia didn't have jurisdiction in the case and that the verdict went against a decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2000 that the Boy Scouts is not a public accommodation subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

In a 5 - 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts therefore had the right to exclude James Dale as a scout leader because of his homosexuality.

Merril Hirsh, a lawyer with the law firm of Ross, Dixon and Bell, which is representing Geller and Pool, said the commission gave careful consideration to the Dale case before making its ruling.

In the Dale case, the Boy Scouts convinced the Supreme Court that they had a constitutional right to exclude someone who - in the Boy Scouts words before the Supreme Court - was so publicly associated with advocacy that it was "as if he had wrapped a banner around his neck," Hirsh said.

In the case of Geller and Pool, however, the commission found that the Boy Scouts were attempting to expand their exclusion and apply it to everyone who is homosexual, Hirsh said.

"We argued that being able to protect a First Amendment right of expression doesn't mean you can exclude everybody who is gay and lesbian," he said.

Frank Wu, chair of the D.C. commission and an assistant professor of law at Howard University, said after last year's decision that the Geller and Pool case differed from the Dale case in significant respects.

Although Geller and Pool were openly homosexual, they were not activists, Wu said on National Public Radio.

"What the three members of the commission have found was applying the human rights act will not infringe upon the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right to free expression.

"The commission also found that admitting the two individuals as adult leaders would not significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate its public or private viewpoints.

"And finally, the commission found that the District of Columbia, under the Human Rights Act, in balancing all these factors, it has a compelling state interest in eliminating discrimination of public accommodations," Wu said.

Gregg Shields, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts, said he was confident the appeals court will rule in favor of the scouts, however.

As the Boy Scouts sees it, the case is similar to the Dale case, which centered on whether the scouts have the right as a private-member organization to define their own membership and leadership standards, Shields said.

"The Boy Scouts have long taught American family values as held in the scout oath and law, and the right to believe in these values to define our membership was affirmed by the Supreme Court two years ago," he said.


E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[TxBec]

Boy Scouts bump

[2banana]

The importance of winning the senate in NOV

[DWSUWF]

Hmmm...

Adult queers going well out of their way to insinuate themselves into a group that very pointedly does not welcome them which is populated primarily by young boys...

There’s nothing in the least strange about that.

This is precisely what queers have always done.

[yendu bwam]

Boy Scouts 1) may choose who it wishes for the scoutmasters of teenage boys; and 2) is not a public accommodation. It's a private group which has its belief as to what kind of scouting program is best for teenage boys - and it in a free country, it has a right to that belief. Homosexuals have NO intrinsic right to be put in charge of other peoples' teenage boys on overnight camping trips - no more than atheists do, or alcoholics, or people who practice bestiality, or people who espouse a lifestyle that believes that adultery is a good thing. Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want.

[mgc1122]

No one wants to join their own program complete with Faggot Patrol -- rather the goal seems to be to infiltrate, disrupt and ultimately corrupt innocent youth along with an institution whose values go 180 degrees from those of Scouting.

[ibme]

Here we go again, judges making laws from the bench. Rather queer laws at that.

[Pietro]

What strikes me is that after the horrible scandal in the Catholic Church that these jurors would be so willfully ignorant to the potential harm that are allowing.

This is nothing short of an attempt to destroy the BSA as an organization.

Next they'll inform churches they must hire atheists as preachers.

[BillaryBeGone]

Next they'll inform churches they must hire atheists as preachers.

Naah. There are enough churches doing that already (e.g., ELCA and Episcopal USA). My question is this: If the queers of the country want to be "Boy Scouts" so badly, why don't they just start their own organization? Nothing's stopping them!

[tomkat]

What strikes me is that after the horrible scandal in the Catholic Church that these jurors would be so willfully ignorant to the potential harm that are allowing.

this assumes literacy among a signifcant percentage of the DC jury pool

[Pietro]

"why don't they just start their own organization"

I believe they have. It's call "Scouting for All", however, the enrollment is probably very small outside of Manhattan and Hollywood and so they need to destroy the competition.

[uncbob]

Homosexuals have NO intrinsic right to be put in charge of other peoples' teenage boys on overnight camping trips - no more than atheists do, or alcoholics, or people who practice bestiality, or people who espouse a lifestyle that believes that adultery is a good thing. Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want.

Ain't no different than not putting heterosexual 17 -18- year olds or adult males in charge of teenage girls

Why this argument is not used amazes me

[Greeklawyer]

"... so they need to destroy the competition. "

The objective of the homosexual practitioners is to anestitize public opinion to homosexual behavior. Thus, when it is established homosexual orientation/behavior is either geneitic or environmental the public at large will not care and be indifferent.

The homosexual lobby is moralphobic. They are threatened by statements of right and wrong which contradict homoseuxality as benign.

[fone]

>>>Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want<<

I think they call it NAMBLA. sICK bA$TARDS.

[Non-Sequitur]

Didn't we go through this a few years ago? The Supreme Court ruled that the scouts could deny membership to anyone they chose since they were a private organization. Where is this case any different? Don't judges have an obligation to consider precedent before ruling? This will just go up the ladder and then be overturned, wasting everyones time and money.

[KuernoDeChivo]

I think I'm starting to understand the meaning of the term "2 man pup-tent"!

lol! 'not a friend of scouting any more if that's what it's all about.

Kuerno

[upchuck]

From The Overhauling of Straight America: "We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

Looks this is just another step towards the ultimate shoulder shrug.

Remove all liquids and foodstufs from your surrounding area (so as to prevent spew) and then check out Scouting For All Queers and Faggots.

[fone]

Thanks for the warning before the link. If they only understood what the rainbow really represents. . .

[yendu bwam]

Ain't no different than not putting heterosexual 17 -18- year olds or adult males in charge of teenage girls Why this argument is not used amazes me

This argument is used all the time by sensible people. The vast, vast majority of parents wouldn't send out their teenage girls with a bunch of men on overnight campouts. The vast, vast majority of parents understands that this is almost exactly the same thing. What makes it different is that homosexual males are even MORE likely to molest teenage boys than normal males are likely to molest teenage girls. The Catholic Church homosexual abuse scandal (in which a minority of priests [homosexuals] caused 95% or so of the molestations in the scandal [against teenage boys] is a case in point.

[yendu bwam]

Didn't we go through this a few years ago? The Supreme Court ruled that the scouts could deny membership to anyone they chose since they were a private organization. Where is this case any different? Don't judges have an obligation to consider precedent before ruling? This will just go up the ladder and then be overturned, wasting everyones time and money.

You bet. They are just trying to wear out the scouts, and to force the scouts to spend millions in stupid foolish lawsuits like this. The Boy Scouts is under attack by intolerant homosexual groups. Boy Scouts doesn't attack homosexuals or homosexual groups. Boy Scouts tolerates them just fine, and supports their right to believe what they want and to live their lives as they see fit. Would that homosexuals could show the same decency and tolerance toward the Boy Scouts. These homosexual groups are like little intemperate five-year olds who were told, "No!" when they put their hands in the cookie jar.