Posted on 07/14/2015 1:01:05 PM PDT by MacNaughton
WHY THE BSA MUST RECONSIDER THE ADULT LEADER STANDARDS
The existing BSA national policy that prohibits gay adults from serving as leaders is no longer legally defensible. However, the BSA’s commitment to duty to God and the right of religious chartered organizations to select their leaders is unwavering. Those two principles can coexist with a new policy that will pass legal scrutiny and protect religious freedoms.
Evolution of the Law
After many years of litigation, the Supreme Court of the United States in 2000 upheld the BSA’s right to exclude homosexual leaders in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). In a close decision, the Court found that the BSA’s First Amendment constitutional right of expression outweighed the state of New Jersey’s interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based upon sexual orientation. The case involved a volunteer who was denied the ability to serve as a leader because he was a homosexual.
Only three years after deciding Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its own 1986 decision and declared that state anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional. In the years that followed, public accommodation and employment laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation proliferated. As of the end of 2014, almost half the states and over 140 local governments had enacted laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Those laws and court decisions expanding gay rights indicated a change in the level of state interest in prohibiting discrimination and in the balance of how that interest would be measured against private organizations in the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Over the last three years there has been a sea change in the law with respect to gay rights. Executive orders now prohibit federal agencies, contractors, and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. State laws prohibit judges from joining organizations that engage in invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Same-sex marriage is now protected by the federal constitution, and benefits for same-sex couples have become the norm. Several conservative states have retreated from religious freedom legislation – most recently Indiana and Arkansas – due to the business community wanting to avoid appearing anti-gay.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court concluded that same-sex couples have a right to marry protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That decision will serve to accelerate local, state, and federal anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals. More importantly, the decision will further raise the level of legal protection based upon sexual orientation as well as the level of scrutiny of employers and places of public accommodation whose policies discriminate against homosexuals.
The Threat of Litigation in Multiple Jurisdictions
The BSA no longer has a policy stating that homosexuality is immoral and unclean, which was the basis for the BSA prevailing in Dale. Rather, the BSA’s policy is that it does not have a position on the issue, it does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation, and sexuality is not an appropriate matter for discussion in the Scouting program. In 2013, the organization changed its youth membership standard to allow gay youth to be members.
Many Scout councils openly oppose the current adult standard preventing homosexuals from serving as adult leaders. Some units and councils quietly acknowledge that they have gay adult leaders notwithstanding the national standard.
The Supreme Court’s opinion recognizing the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage will likely be interpreted by many courts as formally announcing that the balance that led to the BSA prevailing in Dale has conclusively changed. It would be a losing effort for the BSA to continue protecting its policy.
Anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision, activists, state officials and agencies, and litigants announced challenges to the BSA’s adult standard. The first event foreshadowing the approaching legal battle occurred when the Greater New York Councils publicly announced in March of this year that it had hired and registered the first openly gay Eagle Scout for a summer camp staff position in open defiance of the National Council’s membership standard. It is also clear that the employee in question is prepared to take his case to court, and national gay rights advocates are representing him pro bono.
Soon after the announcement by the Greater New York Councils, the New York Attorney General initiated an investigation of the BSA’s employment policies. New York is historically a leader in challenging national organizations that discriminate and the courts of New York are renowned for their defense of state anti-discrimination laws and policies. Attorneys general in other states are also believed to be eyeing the New York investigation, and their national association over the last several years has become a model of interstate collaboration in litigating against target defendants in areas of common interest.
Not long after the New York Attorney General’s announcement, a lesbian who was denied employment with the Denver Area Council in 2014 filed an action with the Colorado state agency charged with enforcing its anti-discrimination laws. The woman is represented by attorneys noted for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.
An Ohio volunteer’s BSA registration was revoked in March of this year after he announced to the media that he was a gay Scout leader and that the BSA was taking no action against him. He has publicly stated that he intends to contest his removal. Camp staffers in California and Oklahoma have also complained to the media that they were denied employment because of their sexual orientation.
In addition to facing litigation in multiple jurisdictions, the BSA must also be mindful of the other means by which the federal government has and will use executive power to deter private action. During the Supreme Court argument on same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General was asked whether a Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage could affect nonprofit organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation under the Bob Jones University case. That case held that the IRS could revoke the nonprofit status of an organization for discriminating on the basis of race. In response to the question, the Solicitor General stated “it is going to be an issue.”
Litigation in Dale and other constitutional cases has been costly. The resources required to litigate simultaneous cases in multiple jurisdictions would be staggering. More importantly, overly-broad court decisions could limit the BSA from maintaining any membership standard until an appellate court reaffirms the BSA’s and religious chartered organizations’ constitutional rights with respect to the duty to God.
Let there be no doubt, the BSA will steadfastly defend the right of religious chartered organizations to select leaders whose beliefs are consistent with those of the religious organization.
No one seriously doubts that the BSA’s and its chartered organizations’ right to maintain duty to God is protected by the First Amendment. Chartered organizations are also protected by the Constitution in their exercise of religious freedom. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that right of religious organizations in its same-sex marriage opinion: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
The inescapable consensus in the legal community is that a protracted legal battle to defend the BSA’s current standard excluding gay adult leaders is unwinnable. Many local councils, leaders and supporters now openly disagree with the standard. Both create a level of organizational risk that is too high given the potential results. As such, BSA National President Dr. Robert M. Gates has called upon the BSA’s National Executive Board to seize control of its own future, set its own course, and change the policy in order to allow religious chartered organizations—those religious organizations that sponsor units—to determine the standards for their Scout leaders, instead of leaving the matter for the courts or lawmakers to decide.
Moreover, by embracing the opportunity, the BSA can reduce the level of distraction and continue to focus on its mission of serving youth. Moving toward a policy that accepts and respects different perspectives and beliefs allows religious organizations—based on First Amendment protection of religious freedom—to establish their own standards for adult leaders and will help preserve the Boy Scouts of America for generations to come.
441 Victor here.
If you didn’t kick the kick-start lever with sufficient “manly force” that big ol’ cylinder would kick back very hard, and it might just throw you over the handle-bars
Here is the translation for those who are not proficient in BS:
“Blah Blah, Gay Love, Blah Blah Blah, we welome NAMBLA. Blah Blah Blah, lawsuit, and blah blah blah, bend over children...”
The BSA will never get another $ from me for ANYTHING. The Girls Scouts and their support of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are right there with them (and have supported homos for a long time - and now welcome cross-dressers and boys who self-ID as girls....).
First words out of the leftists after SCOTUS made their decision on the “constitutionality” of homosexual marriage was “It’s now the law!”
Did that with abortion also.
SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not change it to fit the liberal agenda!
Judges don’t make law, legislatures do.
No way can SCOTUS or Fed gov override State Sovereignty.
If the states don’t do it, it ain’t done!
The homosexuals infiltrated the Girl Scouts, now they are trying to insert their sick lifestyle on the Boy Scouts.
It's a fine example they're setting for kids: fold up like a camp stool the first time anyone squawks.
Scouting stands for nothing anymore.
Trying? They have succeeded.
I’d suggest you get out ASAP. The sex abuse cases are going to multiply lie lice on a bum. Anybody in a leadership position where that happens will be in the lawyers’ cross hairs, regardless of his individual responsibility. It will be a wild fire, just like the trumped up mass satanic child sex abuse cases of the 1990s, except here the plaintiffs will be able to prove actual complicity by the organization’s top leadership in the face of clear warnings and the disaster suffered by th RC Church when it harbored queers in youth ledership positions. In many cases thosevwho voted to change the policy are likely to be held personally liable for thebtotally foreseeable consequences of the new policy. IOW, right now you’re now in the same position as a golfer in a thunder storm on top of a high hill who’s holding a driver as high in the air as he can.
abuse scandals are
I stepped down as SM earlier this year and now an ASM, but...
I’m currently the Eagle Project Coach for 2 of our Scouts and possibly a 3rd...due to be completed sometime this year. All 3 of these Scouts bridged into the Troop around the same time, and I’m the last leader left of the original group they knew...
In addition, a friend of mine asked me earlier this year to be on his Wood Badge Staff...ends in November...at this stage, I’d be doing him a grave disservice to withdraw.
December 31st will signal the end...the Charter expires then.
BSA Must Reconsider the Adult Leader Standards
A statement of capitulation via incrementalism and normalization.
In short, the principles on which we were founded have been abandoned by society, so we might as well go along with everybody else.
They talk about the change in the standards but neglect to mention it’s a self inflicted wound.
Yep
It’s pretty clear they don’t have to do it, but if they don’t they will be sued by the homoxexuals and homosexualists and Obama will say they (the sodomites) look like his sons.
The Boy Scouts will not be “preserved,” they will become a playground for the preverts.
Electric Starters are for Pussies. LOL
I loved those BSA’s and Triumphs back in the day.
Gorgeous Designs. Wish I could have afforded them back then.
Tell me you still own it so I can be full of Jealous Rage.
Though today, if I had a son...NEVER. And if and when that time comes, I would advise against Girl Scouts STRONGLY for my granddaughter.
I was a Scout in the 1960s. I weep for what’s become of them.
Scanned your posts, but didn’t see it.
Found this via google:
States with Legal Same-Sex Marriage Prior to the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court Ruling:
8 by State Legislature
Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)
3 by Popular Vote
Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)
So we have 11 states that lawfully legislated same sex marriage and 39 that did NOT.
The will of the people was overridden in 26 other states via judicial activism prior to the unlawful SCOTUS ruling:
Alabama (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)
Same sex marriage is definitely NOT the LAW of the land!
The current ruling is judicial tyranny, not law.
Thank you, dearest Jim and AMEN!
Judicial Fiat.
As I understand it, all of those marriage laws have been struck down. So, until those legislatures rewrite those laws, they really have no authority to be using that old law at all.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that they need to do a rewrite.
If it were me, I'd vote not to have licenses at all for anyone. That's 'equal treatment under the law'.
Where does it say that the state is required to issue marriage licenses?
I agree.
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.