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."
As I've said before, I'll say again: libertarianism would work fine in a society comprising highly moral, self-disciplined, God-fearing people.
On balance our society no longer meets that criteria, and on the whole the Libertarian Party is ruled by men and women who spurn and ridicule such indispensible notions as Judeo-Christian based morality.
The Libertarian Party has a fine automobile, but no engine; a comely body, but no soul. All it is fit for is self-indulgent rust and decay.
Treat people like children and they'll act like children. Treat them like subjects and they'll act like subject.
Or they'll revolt.
The Libertarians didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts as evidenced by this statement from the article:
"Even bigots have rights," said [Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus].
Yuck. What an anti-religion bigoted thing to say, that those who think men smearing each other with excrement is wrong are somehow 'bigots.' Are we 'bigots' if we think rape is wrong? Or stealing? Or suicide? Or excessive taxation? Or government corruption?
I just wanted to point out that we aren't about promoting homosexuality, or sinful behavior in general, as we are constantly accused. I doubt gays in California right now would suggest we do.
The reason this occured isn't because a blind squirrel found a nut. It's due to principled defense of liberty for everyone.
Baloney. Tolerating evil makes one just as guilty as the doer of evil. The ideologues like to chime in that evil is so awful and terrible that the only worse thing is the societal discouragement of evil.
But there are issues, deeply threatened issues, that we can agree on, like free association and 2nd Amendment rights.
Even we can agree upon some issues. When it comes to these agreeable issues, we should bury the hatchet. These California libertarians and republicans set a good example.
Our government no longer meets that criteria, and on whole the Republican/Democratic parties are ruled by those who spurn & ridicule freedom.
Their success is continued by willing slaves.
Do you prefer to be called Toby, or Kunte-Kinte?
Your statement seems contradictory, although perhaps I am not understanding it. Do "people" have the "right" to determine that landlords and employers in fact don't have the right to rent to and hire whom they choose? If so, do they then have the right to decide, if they are so inclined, that the Boy Scouts can't refuse to associate with gays?
Or does the right to hire and employ and choose Scoutmasters as you choose trump the "people's...right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in"?
It seems to me that the two "rights" cannot both simultaneously exist.
The point of the article is that libertarians defend intolerance, at the private level.
Be as intolerant as you like. I don't mind. Kick people out of the Scouts, don't rent to them, don't hire them, don't sell to them. We defend your absolute right to do so.
You don't need government to practice intolerance. When personal intolerance is practiced through government force against people who haven't initiated force or fraud, the result isn't merely intolerance. It's oppression.
Excellent point!!! Thanks for bringing that up.
So, for the record, in this case, you side firmly with the people of Santa Barbara and their duly elected officials to " determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say".
Gotcha! Just want to let everyone know what side you are on, CJ.
And Act Up should be forced to have homophobes as their den leaders.
Given the subject of the post, I assume you are referring to homosexuality. Since you say we cannot tolerate evil, what do you propose be done? Jail all homosexuals? Shoot them?
Are you saying that a person's morality is meaningless unless he backs it up with government force?
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.