S.F. Judges Ordered to Cut Ties to Scouts

"San Francisco = Gay Capital of the World. There is no place more TOLERANT of Gays."

You need to read up some on Bangkok.

From what I've heard, Bangkok could be called the Sex Capital of the World - they have a big market for all kinds!

Here's official BSA policy, as stated here (excerpts follow):

The program methods and membership/leadership standards of the BSA must be consistent with the organization's set values and the tenets of most world religions.

Consistent with those values, the BSA is committed to the concept that sexual intimacy is the sole providence of a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage.

Although the BSA makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any person, the BSA believes an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the faith-based values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.

Adversaries of the BSA feel that everyone should be allowed to participate in Scouting activities. However, these are only methods that Scouting uses to deliver the values found in the mission of the movement.

The last two points bear further discussion.

First, what's the definition of "avowed"? National Council has not set any specific standards that I've seen on that. So, different Councils are using different standards for judging what comprises an "avowal". In Dale vs. Monmouth Council, B.S.A., James Dale was involved in a gay rights rally/parade, and gave an interview explaining his role and his sexual orientation. This met Monmouth Council's definition of "avowed", and they were successful at the SCOTUS level in defending that they had a right to set that definition and exclude James Dale from membership. Similar behavior would probably get you bounced in any Council. However, if you are engaging in certain homosexual behavior in public (say, kissing your boyfriend in a local restaurant), but without getting media coverage and without doing it in/on a BSA-associated event (say, kissing your boyfriend goodbye in front of the whole Troop in the church parking lot just before everyone takes off to summer camp), you'll get away with it in some Councils, but not in others. It's instructive to note that in all such cases as Dale, it's been the local Council that has moved to revoke or deny membership. Neither the local unit, the sponsoring organization, nor National Council have made the first move.

Secondly, people opposing the BSA's policies have tried to make a case against the BSA by pointing out that denying a young man BSA membership denies him access to the BSA's activities and could cause him to be ostracized or excluded from a significant part of the social fabric in their community. Such people fail to note that conducting these activities are not the objective of the BSA; it's objective is the development of fitness, citizenship, and character in young men and women, and these activities are the method for getting to the objective, not the objectives themselves. Homosexuality and atheism are judged by the BSA as so contradictory to it's objectives as to require those who practice them to be excluded from it's activities, as they would confound the BSA's objectives.

Yep! This is what the Dark Ages were like.

Wonder if we could spirit Jim and his servers out of there beforehand

LOL! I have wondered the same thing!

excuse me??????? This is absolutly none of your business, period!

Again, first of all, I agree with the boy scouts right to associate with whom it wants, as long as it's a 100% private organization. For that matter, if you hypothetically found that being black conflicted with your values, you should be free not to associate with black people. However there is a few things in your post that I simply fail to understand:

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.

why? If, as you say, you belive that most of the despicable child molesting incidents were inflicted by straight pedophiles, why would it be a greater problem to have a gay activist sleeping with them, than anyone else? In fact, as you yourself note:

If they lie, there is little we could do to eliminate them.

it seams to me that the gay activist would be less of a danger, than a someone else; if I, strictly hypothetically, was a pedophile, who wanted to molest some boy scouts, would I admit it to the BSA??? Ofcause not, I'd be crazy to. I'd pretend to be a straight, god-fearing christian man, who would only help and support your children. It seems to me, that expelling gay activists (whatever you mean by "gay activists"), because of "common sense", at best do you little good, and at worst lulls you into a false sense of security: The number of child molesters in the BSA (and there are most likely some), is probatly exactly the same now, as before the BSA activated it's policy concerning gays.

[W]hy would it be a greater problem to have a gay activist sleeping with them [Boy Scouts], than anyone else?
For the very same reason you don't have "straight" guys sleeping overnight in tents with Girl Scouts, silly.

would you sincerily be concerned about this? Please understand, I don't disagree with your right to. I simply fail to grasp the basis of your arguments. Do you actually think it would constitute any real danger to have straigh men raise Girl scouts??? If that is so, I suppose the only thing we can do is to agree to disagree; I don't understand your point of view and apparently you don't understand mine.

I wish we could throw california out of the Union You may get your wish, Mother Nature AKA the Pacific Plate, will soon see to it.

Speechless Don't be, I expected this of SF. SF is afterall the center of homosexual activism in the country, and homosexuals have declared an all out war with the Traditional Values of the USA.

as before the BSA activated it's policy concerning gays.

Herein lies the basis of your lack of understanding. Our policy has never changed. It was tested by a outed Gay who got sorta in your face with the local council and tested the policy.

Apparently you still think I am a homo-phobe but let my explain my statement about the campout and activist gay.

The parents of our boys expect us to do everything physically possible to protect their children. The responsible staff would be irresponsible to not take action. What do you think parents see when they look at pictures from the Disney gay party and any single gay event that is publicised? I will answer that! They see inappropriate behaviour. Grounds for dismissal under BSA guidelines. As has been explained to you, the BSA does not actively hunt out gay people who are associated with the program, but if they become known through participation in a gay pride parade or make a public display as this young man did in the SCOTUS case, the parents expect action or they will withdraw support. That is what I meant by activist and acting to protect our kids.

Hypothetically, gays could and and likely are participating in BSA. If they participate in a lewd act or for that matter if anyone associated with the program does, it is grounds for dismissal.

Now, my friend, I must caution you on you inference that BSA could just as well be free not to associate with black people. This is way out of line and I am still fuming!

For one thing, this would be against the law. For another it would be racist and ludicrous!

You are comparing our rules of proper conduct to racism. To me that is totally over the top. If you want to make a comparison, try a atheist. We would handle them in the same fashion as a activist gay. Or, how about a chronic alchoholic or a person who has a foul mouth. These would be proper behavioral comparisons.

I just got this in the mail and thought I would post it.

Summer, 2002

www.defendscouting.com

A Message From Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, Chairman of the Scouting Legal Defense Fund

Dear Reader;

We have just passed the two year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale upholding the right of the Scouts to set their own standards for scout leaders and exclude openly homosexual men from serving in that capacity.

What a two years it has been!

In that short space of time, the Scouts have come under greater attack than ever before in our history and have probably gotten more national attention and publicity than in the preceding twenty years combined. Unfortunately, not all of the coverage of these attacks has been accurate or helpful. One of the missions of the Scouting Legal Defense Fund is to provide the public and the media with balanced, accurate and fair coverage of the attacks on Scouting through a variety of means, including this newsletter and our Web site, www.defendscouting.com.

As a result of these attacks, the Scouting movement is actually stronger in many ways than it was just a few years ago. But these attacks have also hurt Scouting in other ways, especially where anti-Scouting activists have convinced local United Way organizations to cut off funding their local Scout councils.

Thanks to the help of many of you in updating our United Way Watch List, we now have identified 65 local United Ways that have taken this action or appear to be in the process of reducing funding. This lost United Way funding runs into the millions of dollars but, fortunately, Scouting supporters in many local areas have more than made up these losses through direct contributions. We are currently working on a couple of projects to help with this problem.

We are also approaching the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In my over 40 years of public service, there have been few events that have had a more significant impact on our nation. For one thing, millions of Americans are now more focused on the things that are really important, including how critical the strength and resilience of our national character is to meeting the challenges we face now and in the years ahead.

For almost a hundred years, the Scouts have been effectively building our national character one boy at a time. Certainly, there has never been a time in our history when we have had greater need for what the Scouts do.

That is why I commend all of you who are doing so much to defend Scouting in your local areas. I hope you realize how vitally important your efforts are, not just to millions of boys today and in generations to come, but also to the very future of our nation.

Keep up the good work!

Ed Meese

Chairman, Scouting Legal Defense Fund

P.S. Please let us know what is happening to Scouting in your area and help us spread the word by forwarding this newsletter on to others who will help defend Scouting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCOUTING NEWS FROM THE SCOUTING LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

--Defense Fund Begins Effort To Evaluate Compliance With Helms-Hilleary Scout Amendment

The Defense Fund has kicked off a project to evaluate and encourage national compliance with the Helms-Hilleary Amendment adopted as part of the comprehensive federal education legislation signed into law last year. This amendment cuts off federal education funds to any school district that discriminates against the Scouts because of their position on prohibiting openly homosexual men from serving as scoutmasters. As the first step in this effort, Robert B. Carleson, Executive Director, has requested from the U.S. Department of Education a copy of the information and guidance for compliance with the Helms-Hilleary Amendment provisions that it has sent to local school districts and state offices of education. “There are persistent reports that in the past few years several thousand schools around the country have taken discriminatory actions against the Scouts that may violate the Helms-Hilleary provisions,” he said. “We plan to make this information available to local councils and Scouting supporters across the country along with other materials that will help them determine whether their local schools are in compliance.”

--Defense Fund’s United Way Watch List Grows

The Defense Fund’s Watch List of local United Way organizations that have cut off funding to local Scout councils or appear to be in the process of doing so has grown to 65 as a result of input from “Defend Scouting Newsletter” readers. “We appreciate the efforts of our readers to keep us informed of what is happening to Scouting around the country,” noted Defense Fund Executive Director Robert B. Carleson. “This is a serious and growing problem. We maintain the Watch List to publicize these United Ways in hopes that Scout supporters in their service areas will contribute directly to their local Scout councils. We also hope that the threat of being added to the Watch List will have a deterrent effect on United Ways that are considering cutting off their local councils.” The Watch List is the most comprehensive and accurate publicly available list of local United Ways that have taken this action against the Scouts but keeping it that way requires help of newsletter readers. Any reader who thinks a United Way should be listed but is not should contact the SLDF. By the same token, any United Way that is listed but feels they should not be should also contact the SLDF by e-mail or at the Alexandria, Virginia address.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TO SCOUTING AROUND THE COUNTRY…

--San Francisco Court Judges Prohibited From Associating With Scouts

San Francisco Superior Court judges have voted to prohibit any judge on the court from associating with any organization such as the Boy Scouts that “discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding members on the grounds that their sexual orientation renders them ‘unclean,’ ‘immoral,’ or ‘unfit.’” Homosexual activists in the San Francisco Bar Association have been lobbying for the policy and have pledged to try to impose it statewide. Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative public interest legal defense organization, has pledged to represent any judge who wants to challenge the policy. The organization’s president, Brad Dacus, calls the policy “unwarranted and outrageous” and notes that it is so broad that it could prohibit judges from being members of any religion that teaches against homosexuality. No news article available.

Apparently you still think I am a homo-phobe but let my explain my statement about the campout and activist gay.

No. It's just that i sincerily don't understand you on some of your standpoints.

Now, my friend, I must caution you on you inference that BSA could just as well be free not to associate with black people. This is way out of line and I am still fuming!

For one thing, this would be against the law. For another it would be racist and ludicrous!

You are comparing our rules of proper conduct to racism. To me that is totally over the top. If you want to make a comparison, try a atheist. We would handle them in the same fashion as a activist gay. Or, how about a chronic alchoholic or a person who has a foul mouth. These would be proper behavioral comparisons.

Okay, first of all, I think I stated it in my first post, but it can bear restatement: I do not think the BSA have any racist standpoints, to my knowledge you never had, and I can't, in my darkest nightmares, imagine that you will ever have. But, that being said your response illustrates the misunderstanding that prevents us from agreeing, namely that being a gay activist (as you call it) is a behavioural trait, anymore than beeing black is. Certaintly, there are examples of gays that I wouldn't wan't to take care of any children, but there are also plenty of gay men - outspoken members of the gay community - that I simply can't understand woult be "improper" as scout leaders. I can't see how standing up for gays right to be just as free as anybody else in the US (or in denmark for that matter) can be considered a "lewd" manner. If I can read your post as that the BSA would not consider "being out" as enough reason to dismiss a gay man, but something like, say having public sex for instance, would be enough, then were much more on the same ground than previously thought :) I couldn't agree more with such a policy. However it seems way overkill to throw out all "avowed homosexuals", even with the comments presented by RomF in post #123. Simply being "avowed" hardly makes one "lewd".

What do you think parents see when they look at pictures from the Disney gay party and any single gay event that is publicised? I will answer that! They see inappropriate behaviour.

This I will grant you. At least in part of the US, I belive that parents see this as a generel picture of gay men, or at least as "out-of-the-closet" gay men. As gays are more integrated in society, and as mainstream values is integrated in the gay community (an absolutly neccesary part of gay integration), I suppose this misconception of gay men will become less and less common.

I am not sure how our council would handle the avowed issue. I would hope that it would be a reasoned decision. To my knowledge the subject has not come up within our council or any of the other councils that I have had conversations with. In reality, we really don't talk about it.

Your arguements are well said and I have taken them to heart and mind. Nuff said...........

Your arguements are well said and I have taken them to heart and mind.

Thank you, and thank you for explaining one or two things to me about the BSAs politics on this issue.

:

BWAHAHAHAH!

When the BSA was first created, blacks had a hard time joining. Within a few years, African-American Troops were created, as were segregated summer camps. Understand that we're talking about the 1910 - 1920 timeframe. BSA units are operated by sponsoring organizations, who were and are free to admit or deny membership to anyone, for any reason. The pressure to integrate units came from above, not below. Even into the 1970's one of the BSA's major sponsors, the Mormon church, denied election as Senior Patrol Leader (the highest youth leadership position in a BSA Troop) to black youth, since this position goes to the leader of the main youth leader in the local Mormon stake (parish), and that was not allowed due to Mormon racist beliefs. It was pressure from National that helped get the Mormons to change that policy.

The BSA would be quite free, legally, to ban all members of a particular race or religion from membership tomorrow. What they would risk is the loss of public, not legal, support. And it seems that while the public would be revulsed if the BSA banned blacks or Jews, causing them to lose public support, the public is perfectly willing to accept the BSA's ban on homosexuals and atheists.

Why? I figure there's three different groups involved. First, there are people who believe that gay men are much more likely to be child molesters than straight men. I've seen arguments on both sides, but this group doesn't seem to be a majority in and of itself. Second, there are people who believe that homosexuality is either immoral or at least highly undesirable, and they do not wish their sons to be set an immoral or undesirable example by adult leaders and thereby become influenced towards such behavior themselves. The concept that homosexual behavior is 100% innate, and is not a learned behavior, does not have majority support in the U.S.

Thanks for the info.

Why? I figure there's three different groups involved. First, there are people who believe that gay men are much more likely to be child molesters than straight men. I've seen arguments on both sides, but this group doesn't seem to be a majority in and of itself. Second, there are people who believe that homosexuality is either immoral or at least highly undesirable, and they do not wish their sons to be set an immoral or undesirable example by adult leaders and thereby become influenced towards such behavior themselves. The concept that homosexual behavior is 100% innate, and is not a learned behavior, does not have majority support in the U.S.

I belive this to be quite close to the truth, and also, since I belive both stands to be ilogical, I belive that eventually, as public opinion changes, so will the BSAs opinion. I would assume that the racist position of the BSA in the 1910-20's had public support back then, too? BTW, you mention three different groups? As I read your post, you only mention two?