Posted on 08/09/2002 10:49:31 PM PDT by ppaul
SAN FRANCISCO - Don't try to be a judge in San Francisco if you work with the Boy Scouts. Judges in San Francisco are being barred from associating with the Boy Scouts because of the Scouts' opposition to homosexuals being in leadership positions.
The new policy, adopted by the city's Superior Court, prohibits the court's judges and commissioners from participating in any organization that excludes members "... on the grounds that their sexual orientation renders them 'unclean,' 'immoral' or 'unfit.' "
Bob Knight, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Culture and Family Institute, said the policy is ludicrous and offensive.
"In other words, the Boy Scouts are supposed to be so evil for protecting boys from homosexuality that you can't be a judge if you have anything to do with them," Knight said.
National Scout spokesman Gregg Shields said the Boy Scouts will take no action since it is not directly affected.
"In a piece of irony here, the people who are aggrieved or the people who are having their rights trampled here would be the judges themselves," Shields said.
Nonetheless, he called the policy "indefensible" and "inappropriate."
"The judges of the court are supposed to be devoted to fairness and impartiality and respectful treatment of all who appear before them," Shields said. "And yet, they've chosen to publicly reject lawfully held private views."
In fact, attorney Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute, a religious-liberties group based in Citrus Heights, Calif., argues the new restrictions go far beyond the Scouts.
"We're dealing with a policy that prohibits judges' involvement or participation with any organization that teaches homosexuality as being immoral," Dacus said.
There's a move to take the policy statewide in California. Dacus' group has offered to represent any judge who objects.
Link to article HERE.
...the looks on their faces won't be much different than that.
Just in case you do not know, let me explain what I understand to be the BSA policy.
As you know, what is done in the privacy of ones own bedroom is none of anyones business as long as it occurs between two consenting ADULTS. Keeping this in mind, when a applicant for a position uder the scouting rules is KNOWN to be gay, we then exercise the right of free association and find that this is not the kind of person we want to lead our boys for a multiplicity of reasons, including liability and morality. We don't want to know what this persons bedroom antics are were or might be and the question is not asked but if we know then it stands to reason that we would not knowingly put our boys in that environment.
All this being said, why and how would we know? The answer is that the individual flaunted or makes public his sexual preferences and is therefore activist and disqualified from serving the boys. We have enough problems protecting our boys from harm due to all manner of dangers from human failings such as molestation from perverts either gay or straight. To knowingly allow a gay activist to sleep with our boys would be a travesty.
The only people who would be hurt by this would be the boys.
The Bedrock of Scouting Values Speech
In our pluralistic society, I find it interesting that some who champion individualism, tolerance, and diversity the loudest are the strongest critics of values that are different from their own. If pluralism ... if diversity ... if tolerance are truly important in a pluralistic society, then even though we may find fundamental disagreement with an individual or an organization, we must recognize and respect the right of that individual or organization to their opinions, their values, and their lifestyles.
Many of Scouting's critics confuse our mission and our methods. If the Boy Scouts of America was merely a recreation or social organization that taught kids how to camp, and nice things about crafts, and getting along with their neighbors, it would not have thrived for more than 90 years, nor would it deserve the support and popularity more than of 100 million alumni and members. Scouting is so much more. Scouting's mission, as an educational organization, is to provide children with fundamental values that prepare them for life. And, yes, recreation is a part of Scouting, but it is not an end in Scouting. It is merely a vehicle in which children, through a learning experience can gain the insights of values and responsible life. The essence of the Boy Scouts of America is found in our Scout Oath and Law.
The bedrock of Scouting's values is literally and figuratively ... duty to God ... "On my honor, I will do my duty to God and my country ..." To Scouting, the question is NOT: Can a person be honorable without a belief in God? Rather, our commitment is that no child can develop to his/her fullest potential without a spiritual element. The Boy Scouts of America is not a religion ... it is an organization with strong religious tenets. It is a movement that is committed to developing the entire child ... spirituality is very important in that total development. That is why we hold to duty to God. Whether it is the Judeo-Christian ethic; or a Buddhist, Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, or Native American ethic; or that of any of the other great religions of our world, the Boy Scouts of America is committed to the proposition that no child can develop to his/her fullest potential without a spiritual element in his/her life.
In looking ahead to their adult years, Scouting is in accord with the teachings of the world's great religions and is committed to the concept that sexual intimacy is the providence of a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage.
Also, consistent with the world's great religions, the Boy Scouts of America is committed to respecting the dignity of individuals or values with which we disagree. In four places in the Scout Oath and Law ... when you read the descriptive terms ... you will find comments related to respect. But, respect doesn't mean abdication of one's values. Nor does it mean the forced inclusion of others' values in your life. What it does mean is the recognition of the right of people to have opinions, values, and lifestyles other than yours and for all to be tolerant of each other's differences. When the Boy Scouts won the United States Supreme Court case, you didn't see us "celebrating in the street." The issue was not to vanquish a young man who is an inappropriate leader within Scouting. The issue was the maintenance of our constitutional right and our commitment to providing those faith-based values to our constituency in a respectful manner.
Scouting has never sought to impose its values on anyone. We welcome all who share them, and we respect the right of others to walk a different path. We don't expect everybody to agree with our standards and values ... but we do think it's fair to expect others to respect them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Support of Values -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Boy Scouts of America http://www.bsa.scouting.org
It is my understanding that it is fairly common in San Francisco for 'gay' bullyboys to follow mothers with children in public yelling 'breeder' at them.
The BSA is not a social club. We are a organization whos only purpose is to help boys become strong upright men, both physically and emotionally. Since the boys are our only purpose for existing, it would be impossible to deny some boys the BSA experience because of their proximity to our critics.
Actually the reverse is the right thing to do. We need to put even more resources into the problem. IMHO
Please don't misunderstand me: I don't question your right to hold your opinions, or to have whatever rules for admision that you think is best. All I say is, that I am not sympathetic to the underlying beliefs that lead you to these opinions. As I understand you don't feel that a gay man could properly teach your kids some fundemental values, supposedly(?) values of heterosexuality - the nucleus familly basically, and that being around gays in their childhood may increse the probability that kids grow up to be gays. This illustrates, pardon me, quite a bit of ignorance about the entire concept of being gay/homosexual. Being gay is not learned. Whether they are the result of genetics or the enviroment, I don't know, and I don't think anyone have sufficient information to know with any degree of certaincy. However, I can say that noone "recruited" me to homosexuallity - during my entire childhood I met one or two gays (that I know of), and still I grew up to become a gay man. This is IMHO the thing that has caused the most misunderstandings about gays; since we know, almost instinctivly, that there is no such thing as "gay recruting" we tend to get irritated with people who still think there is. Unfortionally this irritation leads some of us to label anyone, eg. the BSA, as homophobes or gay-haters, simply because they are yet suspicious about gays. Ironically this behaviour tends to make everyone else more suspicious of gays, and a vicious circle have started.
The bottomline of all this is, that even though I don't agree with your idea that gays can't act as good rolemodels for your kids, I also realize that this is not necessarily because you are intrinsically hostile towards gays, it may very well be because of a genuine concern for your kids. I can only hope that further awareness of the gay community, and of gays in general, will cure this division, and make eg. the BSA realize that there is no real reason for it's current fear of gays. I also sincerely belive this will happen in the not-so-far future.
That would be terrible for all decent Californians ... BUT ... you can bet that this agressive homosexual-political activity would be halted.
That judge deserves the honor and encouragement of all decent Americans. Standing up to these Fascists is the only way Political Correctness cand be ended.
Let me be brief. The Supreme court case was not about what we believe or donot believe about gays. Nor.....is it even about gays. What the point of the judicial arguement really was is the fact that we admit to our volunteer ranks only those who share our beliefs since much of our program is about morality and right and wrong.
Personally, I believe that a gay person is no more likely to molest a boy than the general population. This is not what we are worried about.
When a gay is activist, the very fact that he/she is accepted by the BSA would fly directly in the face of our beliefs. We desire people who share our purpose and beliefs, not those that wish to change them. To those that do, I say "go your own way, but respect us for ours."
One of my responsibilities is youth protection training. This involves spotting child abuse of any kind, dealing with it with the help of the proper authority and preventing it from happening in the first place.
My personal feeling is that common sense would tell you that a activist gay man and a bunch of impressionable 12 year olds on a over nite or full week outing do not go together very well.
Could something happen?......yes. Would something happen?..........who knows?..... Could I have prevented it if it did happen?.............Absolutely!
Most of the molestation cases that I am aware of, occurred with straight men who were peodophiles. We look hard at everyone who comes to us. If they lie, there is little we could do to eliminate them. If they engage in behavior that is against our priciples, they must go! That goes for everyone!
I hope I have explained this. Please know that these are my opinions and mine alone.
Read my post #105 for more on this. But basically the point is this. The BSA is a private organization that is open to everyone that shares our beliefs and they must adhere to BSA guidelines. Being openly gay, just like in the military, is not in line with those guidelines, nor are many other things. We must have this right to freely associate with those who share our goals in order to do what we do.
In reality, they are the least tolerant and absolutely refuse to see the point.
This drives me to total distraction on a daily basis. The legal proffession is backing this phenomenom. It is they who make it possible for one person to force his viewpoint on another while maintaining that others were forcing their viewpoint on him and a legal remedy is therefore necessary. The legal remedy is the exact indiscretion that was complained about in the first place. AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only way to defeat these socialist bast*rds is to start pulling out of that state. They don't want SUVs and Pickup trucks. Fine...They get nothing but small sedans and econodeathtraps...They can drive their electric cars, eat tofu, and medidate daily.LOL!
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.