Scouts unbowed by Berkeley bullies

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.

It seems sparklingly clear the city of Berkeley is ENTIRELY within its rights

That just isn't true. The Boy Scout policy that you - and Berkeley don't like - is a form of free belief and free speech, so recognized by the Supreme Court. Berkeley can't discriminate against the Scouts because of what the Scouts believe and what they say.

So the fact that other groups believe differently, and therefore get the subsidy, while the Scouts are denied the subsidy because of their beliefs, is discrimination that violates the First Amendment.

Berkeley could cut off all subsidies to everybody - - that would be fine, since it doesn't have an obligation to provide subsidies. But it can't withhold subsidies selectively because this or that group holds beliefs, and policies based on those beliefs, that differ with Berkeley's official beliefs as expressed in its antidiscrimination rule.

There is also not a speck of evidence that a citywide policy was enacted because of one or two ships in a thousand-berth marina.

Good morning.

Puh-leeze, one or two ships? Berkeley intended the policy to impress on people everywhere they need to accede to their politically correct agenda of "gay brotherhood". It's not about one boat, it's about thousands of Scouts and their parents.

The timing of the events is more than a "speck" of evidence, it's a truckload.

This has nothing to do with their ideology or “moral outlook;” it’s all about money.

This cannot be a serious contention - it's too weak on the face of it. The only "money" aspect of this is the people of Berkeley who see leftists using their tax money immorally over and over. They see hundreds of Scouts shafted on a political correctness issue: Scouts whose parents pay many, many tens of thousands in taxes. They see those tens of thousands being used to support every kind of leftist claptrap the town clowns can dream up.

If it was about money and wasn't about "moral outlook" why wouldn't the BSA be out recruiting gay leaders? After all, they have a higher average income, right?

Clearly it's a moral issue, and they're simply trying to protect young boys from influences they consider undesirable. And because the leftists have no morals, and don't believe in live and let live (unless it's in total conformance with their rules) they punish them.

It’s a money issue because the SS SAYS that it’s a money issue:

What you cite is a statement by a lawyer justifying the Sea Scouts position in a legal document. Have any Sea Scout leaders or parents said anything like this? "Gee, we'd really love to have gay leaders take our boys on overnight boat rides, but that nasty insurance cost is keeping us from broadening their horizons."

Lawyers'd throw in anything including the kitchen sink if they thought it would help them win the case. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

It's a moral issue. People want to protect their children from unwanted influences.

I can vividly recall a 5th grade parents meeting on sex ed, attended by nearly all of the class parents. Among them were a lesbian couple, who were concerned that the (Lutheran) school might be offering unwelcome viewpoints. Having heard of some of the propagandizing being done in schools today, I was concerned too - although for an opposite reason, as some of the school employees were rabid leftists. Fortunately the presenters satisfied all of us that the class would be strictly on basic body mechanics (with techniques like fisting left out), and that the moral lessons would be left to home.

But Berkeley wants to punish people who want to protect their children. Godlike, they know what's good for everyone. Everyone must be accepted. Everyone's sexual practices are "OK", no matter what. Everyone must think the same or they'll be punished.

Despicable.

Are you claiming that attorneys PERJURED themselves before the court?!! That’s a very serious charge… how do you support it?

Oh, my stars ! To think that an attorney would ever stretch a point, or add something his or her client didn't explicitly authorize !

C'mon, get real.

Appellants did agree to a modified version of a "don't ask, don't tell" program, in which appellants stated that they considered such matters as sexual orientation to be a private matter, which they would not ask anyone to divulge, and appellants agreed to obey any laws actually forbidding them from engaging in any illegal discrimination.

If it is not made obvious by overt action or vocalization, how in hell are they supposed to know who's homosexual? Is it tattooed on their foreheads? Are they really interested in sworn statements by eighteen witnesses signed in blood that the person in question has been under constant observation for the last X years and there's absolutely no chance they're homosexual? Should they be requiring lie detector tests under truth serum?

madg, most people don't care. They don't want to know about it. It is the homosexual activists who demand to be simultaneously flaming and beloved. Who demand that everyone approve of their stridency and constant advocacy.

Sea Scouts are interested in scouting. A boy or girl who kept their pants zipped and their mouth shut about subjects unrelated to scouting would likely be welcomed. There's no need to call for a sexual Torquemada to insure heterosexuality. Don't ask, don't tell makes good sense.

Homosexual activists are interested in homosexuality, see sex in everything, and wouldn't be able to get past that. They also wouldn't be able to live without constantly throwing it in the faces of everyone else, whether thay want to hear about it or not. And demanding (not seeking, mind you) approval.

So you just want to INFER that perjury occurred without actually demonstrating it. Uh-huh… okay.

Perjury was your term, not mine. I haven't read the entire court record, but your point was that it was "all about money". Mine is that it was not.

The rest of your message is amusingly ironic. Here I am, a gay guy, going on and on in this thread without saying anything about sex… and there YOU are, talking about keeping pants zipped and the like… yet you claim that it’s the GAY people that can’t refrain from talking about sex!

Pardon me if I resort to colloquialisms in trying to bring the conversation back from the "it's all about money" direction you were trying to take it. It's not about money, and the point is clear - it's about morality. I could have said "avoid overt expressions of sexual behavior" but I think you know clearly what I meant.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a reasonable policy. You were criticizing the Scouts because they'd offered that. The original BSA suit was about a guy who had to run around advertising his "preference" and make a big deal about it. I know it's against the current PC rules today to be gay and not announce it in the first five seconds after meeting somebody, but that's the very behavior that was deemed undesirable.

"You have to love me and approve of me and make me feel good - and by the way, I pick my nose in public and eat it."

C'mon.

Thanks… I needed a good chuckle this morning! ;-)

We always try to please.

they’re not being treated differently

sure they are - - they have to pay a fee; others don't. It's true that the SAME RULE is applied to everybody -- ie, don't discriminate, or associate with the BSA, or you'll have to pay a fee -- but that's an unfair rule, that punishes free expression and freedom of association.

What if a rule said, DON'T engage in gay conduct, or you'll pay a fee to use the city parking lot. You could say, nobody's being treated different because the same rule applied to everybody, but in fact people are having a fee imposed on them because they're gay.

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.