Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
We think of the frontiers of freedom as being patrolled by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. But these days, the Boy Scouts of America and affiliated groups also stand guard. In courtrooms across the country, they're resisting a domestic strain of tyranny - the totalitarian impulse to police thought and enforce a government-sanctioned orthodoxy on social and cultural issues.The Scouts are loathed by many self-styled progressives for transmitting a code of commitment, stressing God and country, that was supposed to be marginalized by now. But they're not giving in to bureaucratic bullies who try to force them to shed "outmoded" beliefs on matters of sex and social values. Lovers of liberty - even those who might disagree with Scouting's principles - should toast their tenacity for the First Amendment and the right not to be PC.This controversy was supposed to have been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court three years ago. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a five-justice majority said that as a private, belief-based organization, the Scouts are free to craft their own membership rules; in particular, government can't order them to admit homosexuals as leaders. It follows that they're also within their rights to require that members profess a belief in God.But an alarming number of local and state officials refused to listen. In 2001, for instance, District of Columbia officials ordered the local Scouts to readmit two gays as adult leaders and pay $100,000 in damages. This decree was overturned by an appeals court, which noted that D.C. should take another look at Dale.Most of the current government assaults on the Scouts take the form of indirect coercion. There's shunning, as in San Francisco, where local judges are now barred from participating in Scouting. There's stigmatizing, as Connecticut and Portland, Ore., have attempted by excluding the Scouts from the charities that public employees may support through payroll deduction.There's also selective denial of public benefits. Berkeley leads the way by singling out the Sea Scouts for a fee to use the city's marina. After being permitted free use for 50 years, the Sea Scouts in 1998 were suddenly hit with a charge of more than $500 per month. No other nonprofit is required to pay to berth at the marina. The fee is imposed explicitly because of the Sea Scouts' affiliation with the Boy Scouts.High school teacher Eugene Evans, skipper of the Berkeley Sea Scouts' ship, pays the fee out of his pocket, so he can no longer cover membership costs for teenagers from poorer neighborhoods. Some have had to drop out.Unfortunately, a California court of appeal upheld Berkeley's punitive policy in November. The Sea Scouts have now asked the state Supreme Court to take the case. They cite the constitutional rule against "viewpoint discrimination" in the public sector. In other words, if Berkeley decides to offer free berthing to nonprofits - which it has done - it can't pick and choose recipients based on their beliefs or the beliefs of those they're associated with.Several recent "graduates" of the Berkeley Sea Scouts are now Marines stationed in the Persian Gulf. One of these young leathernecks is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Berkeley's anti-Scout policy. All are following in a long tradition of Sea Scouts stepping forward in the nation's hours of need. More than 100,000 Sea Scouts volunteered after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Chester Nimitz reportedly said that the Sea Scouts were crucial to the Navy's ability to regroup after that disaster. But if Berkeley officials feel any remorse at targeting such a worthy group, they haven't revealed it.Today, the Boy Scouts' and Sea Scouts' fight is for the survival of a free and robust private sector, a sphere where all may choose their beliefs and affiliations without preclearance, editing or censorship by the state, and without fear of official discrimination or reprisal. For defending this basic principle of a free society, the Scouts deserve a hearty salute.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...
http://www.lipserv.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=clips;action=display;num=1038084248;start=0; a thoughtful comment (he's apparently responding to someone named Jim who agrees with your position:
Okay, Jim, you asked for it.
In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that a state may not constitutionally apply its anti-discrimination statutes to the Boy Scouts' refusal to accept gays as members. (Do I think the Boy Scouts' policy is wrong? Yes. Do I think that nevertheless the Court ruled correctly? Yes.) That ruling if of course binding on all states and localities--even Berkeley.
Berkeley wants to give non-profit organizations free use of its marina facilities, but it wishes to exclude those non-profit organizations that do not comply with local laws prohibiting discrimination. In the case Christian writes about, the trial court agrees, holding that "public entities may condition public subsidies...upon the recipient's compliance with state and local laws that prohibit discriminatory membership policies."
Before we discuss the specific restriction that Berkeley seeks to impose, it is worth noting that no city is obliged to offer free use of public facilities to anyone, but if it does so, it may not draw distinctions based on an organization's beliefs. For example, if the public library is made available for political groups to meet, the city may not say that Democrats can meet there for free but Republicans have to pay $500.
May Berkeley constitutionally prevent the Sea Scouts from being treated as other non-profit organizations are? I doubt it very much. The Supreme Court's decision in Dale made it clear that the Boy Scouts could not be penalized for violating Berkeley's non-discrimination statute because of the Boy Scouts refusal to admit gays. I see the Berkeley policy on free use of facilities as a transparent attempt to get around the Supreme Court's decision in Dale, and I think it should fail.
The fact is that the Sea Scouts' policy about gay membership does not violate any local discrimination law, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Sea Scouts have not violated the Berkeley anti-discrimination statute, then what reason is there for Berkeley to deny them the same free use of facilities that is offered to other non-profits? None that I can think of that passes constitutional muster. I don't like organizations that discriminate against gays, but even more, I don't like local governments that try to thumb their noses at Supreme Court decisions. I didn't like it when it happened in the South, in the wake of the school desegregation cases, and I don't like it when it happens in Berkeley. So I'm rooting for the Sea Scouts to win their appeal.
If memory serves James Dale flaunted nothing. He was, by all accounts, a good scout. An Eagle scout, a dedicated and popular assistant scout master who did not bring up his sexual orientation at any time to any member of the troop. He never once harmed or threatened any of the scouts under his supervision. He never once connected his membership in the Boy Scouts with his private life. Never once discussed homosexuaity in any manner with any of the boys. In fact, the only way the leadership of his troop found out about it was when he was quoted in a college newspaper as a member of a gay and lesbian organization. So I fail to see where his actions warranted his dismissal, other than the fact that he was gay, of course. Had he been living quietly in sin with his girlfriend then he would still be a scout leader. If he had been an alcoholic then he would still be a scout leader. If he was divorced or a wife beater then he would still be a scout leader. It doesn't seem quite fair to me.
I hardly call being quoted in a college newspaper as a member of a gay org. not flaunting immorality. Nor are you correct that any of those other "sinners" would still be a scout leader, with the exception of being divorced.
Child leaders and mentors should be good, moral examples. I can't even fathom why you can't agree with that.
If virtual kiddie porn -- sadly ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS -- were the guy's hobby, but he kept it to himself except for bragging about it in a college newspaper, do you think he should be a leader? What if he kept his extramarital affair to himself except for bragging about it in the newspaper? Puh-leease! Parents have the right -- no, the OBLIGATION -- to choose leaders for their children who are moral. No one has the RIGHT to lead other people's children in anything -- especially if their claim to fame is their immoral lifestyle.
I don't have a problem with that but I fail to see where James Dale was not a good moral leader. He never brought up his personal life during the course of his boy scout activities but instead kept the two completely separate. Had he talked about his sex life with the boys, had he worn a boy scout uniform to a gay pride parade, had he acted improperly to any of the boys in his care in any way whatsoever then we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would have been yelling for them to boot him out along with the rest of you. But James Dale did none of those things. He didn't cruise restrooms, he didn't drool over kiddie porn, he was kicked out for who he was not what he did. And I'm a little uncomfortable with what that is teaching the boys. A scout is loyal and helpful, except when a person is gay? Accuse a fellow scout of being a homosexual in order to get him kicked out of the troop? Stigmatizing anyone makes me uncomfortable. Pre-judging anyone without bothering to know them makes me uncomfortable. Based on all the accounts I've read having James Dale as an assistant scout master to any son of mine would not make me uncomfortable.
AMENDMENT XIV: ... No state shall make or enforce any law...
Who he was (is) a human being, = Who he is (or "was") is a human being...
It's very relevant. As a private organization, it's nonprofit status is irrelvant -- private organizations should not be funded or subsidized with public funds. I don't care if it's the Sea Scouts, the KKK, Free Republic, or the Smith Family Reunion -- non-profit or not, if it isn't open to the public, then they have no right or reason to expect public support.
Divorce is not always a sin; it results from a variety of causes; and it is never held up as an example for kids to follow or taught to be in any way equal to non-divorce. It is acknowledged by all to be a failure. If Dale would like to acknowledge his immorality and change his ways then I imagine the BSA would reconsider.
A speeding ticket? There is a legal punishment for that, and the leader, I am sure, would freely tell the kids that he was wrong.
Your examples are apples and oranges. Gayness is a behavior that should not be held up as a positive example for children. Drunkeness, divorce, and speeding maintain their low moral status already.
I don't know about that. Jesus was pretty blunt on the subject in Mark 10:11-12, "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." A man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, period. No ifs, ands or buts. Do you want an adulterer leading your children?
Gayness is a behavior that should not be held up as a positive example for children.
So when did James Dale make an issue of his sexuality or suggest to his scouts that it was an example to be followed. By all accounts he never mentioned any sort of sexual behavior to his scouts under any circumstances.
Drunkeness, divorce, and speeding maintain their low moral status already.
But none will get someone dismissed as a scout leader.
Isn't Berkeley a subdivision of the state? If not, are you saying that a city can treat blacks differently from whites, and violate equal protection in other ways, because it is not a state?
No, I'm saying that the 14th Amendment of the Constituion of the United Stats of America does not necessarily apply to the City of Berkeley.
(From the article: Berkeley leads the way by singling out the Sea Scouts for a fee to use the city's marina.)
They would more appropriately be constrained or governed by the Constitution of the State of California. I'm sure there is language in there that would prevent the City of Berkeley from, as you say, "...treat blacks differently from whites, and violate equal protection in other ways...".
What they are doing is wrong and unconscionable. But the 14th Amendment, as it is written, does not seem to me to apply to this particular situation.
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.