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."
Now onto another point, the one raised in post #13.
If people have a right to determine what kind of society they live in, aren't they exercising those very rights when they dictate to the Scouts that they must accept gays and atheists?
Had he not come to the defense of the Scouts, that would have been true.
Rather, he saw through his own bigotry in principled defense of rights. I'd say his action speaks louder than his words.
Could you explain why he'd do such a thing? I mean we're always supposed to be promoting vice. Why did libertarians oppose gays in this case?
BTW, care to take a crack at the point raised in post #13? We don't seem to have any takers yet. Maybe you'd like to give it a shot?
BTW, had any thoughts on post #13?
Well, it appears that way.
Honestly, I don't think they have an answer. I think that example in post #13 undermines everything they stand for, so it's VERY uncomfortable for them to think about, so they ignore it.
I think this example in contradiction in conservative thought (I wouldn't use the term 'principles') deserves its own thread, don't you? ; )
I read it. I won't comment on any thread where I haven't read the article.
What do you think an "initiative" is?
In this case I think it refers to a referendum.
BTW, any thoughts yet about post #13?
Congratulations.
Ironic statement.
More than you realise.
He means even you.
Blind to his own bigotry, he smeared the Boy Scouts. Typical LPer.
Not at all, -- in context, his remark is a general comment on the right to free association, --- to be 'bigoted' in a flipant sense.
Your own bigotry to libertarians is evident. - And your hypocrisy.
The reality is, these posters never take a stand on any issue without checking to see what a libertarian has said. At that point, they automatically select the opposing position as their own. Some intellectual honesty, huh?
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.
Many libertarians say that despite this, a more libertarian government would provide no remedy for demonstrably poor or detrimental behaviors (no government funded drug-treatment, reduced or eliminated welfare, no state supplied healthcare, to name a few) and therefore act as a social selection process. One that would require the best behaviors to naturally evolve from individual necessity. Do you think this has merit?
Yes, I have noticed that too. This thread is a prime example. Roscoe is already trying to get freeeee to play games with him. They have no "positions", they just want to disrupt.
Some intellectual honesty, huh?
Yep. The pinnacle of intellectual honesty.
That's true, but there are many Libertarians who disagree, in principle, of course.
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.