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 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.
LOL! I have wondered the same thing!
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.
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.
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 Funds United Way Watch List Grows
The Defense Funds 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 organizations 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.
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.
Your arguements are well said and I have taken them to heart and mind. Nuff said...........
Thank you, and thank you for explaining one or two things to me about the BSAs politics on this issue.
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?
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.