Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[littlebillie]

There is a group promoting "responsible" or moderate drinking for alcoholics. Haven't seen them in any parades yet, but they're organized. Do we need a stated, written policy about this?

 

And regardless of who gets admitted and who doesn't, when does the membership get to vote on it? the volunteers? the kids? just a question on the nature of ad hoc unilateral position statements issued without referenda.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Rooster, you are exactly right. Homosexuals were targeted for exclusion en bloc because they are a highly visibly and easily distinguishable group. In other words, as I noted in my first post, it was a political decision.

 

Look at it this way, if you were going to write a policy which would ensure that Scout leaders are of high moral character (or at least providing guidance to local units), wouldn't you include more in that policy than just a ban on homosexuals?

[Rooster7]

Littlebillie,

 

There is a group promoting "responsible" or moderate drinking for alcoholics. Haven't seen them in any parades yet, but they're organized. Do we need a stated, written policy about this?

 

Do alcoholics go unnoticed in BSA? Do they receive tacit approval by non-alcoholic sympathizers? Not in my troop. Has this pro-drinking group targeted BSA? Do they indicate their displeasure with BSA as being alcoholic-phobic? If so, then BSA should create a written policy. Otherwise, its unnecessary.

 

And regardless of who gets admitted and who doesn't, when does the membership get to vote on it? the volunteers? the kids? just a question on the nature of ad hoc unilateral position statements issued without referenda.

 

Their charter and/or the leadership of the same run private organizations. They are not democracies. Nor should they necessary be so. Its not un-American. If it were, they wouldnt be protected by the Constitution. As you know, BSA is a private organization and is free to define itself, and by whatever means they chose as they see fit. If you dont like the rules of a private organization, you are free to leave. Or, you can attempt to make your way into its infrastructure and let your voice be heard. Regardless, BSA is under no legal or moral obligation to submit itself to a member vote. Even so, my bet is most members like the organization as it is.

 

TwoCubDad,

 

Rooster, you are exactly right. Homosexuals were targeted for exclusion en bloc because they are a highly visibly and easily distinguishable group. In other words, as I noted in my first post, it was a political decision.

 

Yes, by the homosexual activists who decided that BSA did not have a right to define itself. Homosexuals came after BSA, not the other way around.

 

Look at it this way, if you were going to write a policy which would ensure that Scout leaders are of high moral character (or at least providing guidance to local units), wouldn't you include more in that policy than just a ban on homosexuals?

 

I would include only as much as is necessary. Have you ever written policy statements? If so, you would realize, the more you write the more you will need to write some more. In other words, people use written policy statements to find legal loopholes. The more you put on paper, the more people will try to use that document to achieve their own selfish goals vice the goals of the organization. Apparently, BSA hired some lawyers who were smart enough to know that. So, until some other immoral group starts to target BSA, it is probably prudent for them to write as little as necessary. Fortunately, most folks seem to understand the Scout Oath and Scout Law and how they should be applied within the framework of a troop.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[littlebillie]

"Homosexuals came after BSA, not the other way around."

 

Ummmm - weren't the original position statements made in the 1970's? And haven't we seen lifelong scouters come out since then, folks involved in Scouting before the proclamations? These are folks who were gay AND Scouts before there was ever a position on the subject. Some of these 'activists' saw their entire contribution devalued by a "position statement". "Came after" the BSA - or stood up for themselves, and what they had stood for?

 

Spin is everything.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Homosexuals came after BSA, not the other way around.

 

How do you get that? The BSA banned gays, and enforced the ban, before any gay person or group took any legal action. If you're claiming the ban always existed, it did not. If I recall the history from the "Dale" decision, the first evidence the BSA was able to come up with that gays were banned was an internal memo from the late 70's. I don't think there was any public statement until the early 80's, which I believe was in response to the first lawsuit.

 

To look at the most "celebrated" case, that of James Dale, the BSA definitely "came after" him, not the other way around. He was minding his own business and apparently, had never even mentioned his orientation to anyone connected with his troop. He was involved in a seminar somewhere and word apparently got back to council, and the next thing he knew he got a letter terminating him from the BSA. He started to follow the BSA appeal process up the line but was told that it was basically futile, so he filed a lawsuit. He came one Supreme Court justice away from winning, too.

 

Rooster also says:

 

Have you ever written policy statements? If so, you would realize, the more you write the more you will need to write some more. In other words, people use written policy statements to find legal loopholes. The more you put on paper, the more people will try to use that document to achieve their own selfish goals vice the goals of the organization. Apparently, BSA hired some lawyers who were smart enough to know that.

 

I have to laugh at that one, because in fact the BSA lawyers (who I agree are smart, and I would add, crafty, clever and shrewd as well) have found it necessary to rewrite the "policy statement" a number of times over the past 25 or so years, before they "got it right." If you read the "Dale" case and the various things that the BSA has posted on its Web site over the past 2+ years that I have been following this (not sure if they are all still there), you will see that both the scope of the ban has changed at least once (from "known or avowed" to just "avowed")and that the "justification" for it has been revised a number of times. The first few times it was for legal purposes, and then after the Supreme Court decision, the changes were for public relations purposes.

[littlebillie]

Rooster -- what does it take for a homsexual to be "avowed" to your thinking?

 

just curious,

 

lb

[evmori]

I'm not speaking for Rooster7 but avowed to me means admitting one is a homosexual whether in public or private.

 

A joyous New Year to all!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

avowed

 

\A*vowed"\, a. Openly acknowledged or declared; admitted. -- A*vow\"ed*ly, adv.

 

 

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

It seems that by the definition of avowed, the "don't ask, don't tell" method is at work here. If someone who is gay isn't stating publically their homosexuality (in the closet) and no one knows, then they can be in scouting. The same would go for adulterers, pedophiles, murderers, etc. As long as their "crime" isn't public, no one is the wiser and they can participate.

 

Now, before anyone responds and jumps on me, I'm not advocating DA/DT. I'm just saying that the definition of avowed is someone who openly declares their homosexuality. If they do, the BSA says they are banned. If no one knows and no one tells and the BSA is not aware, they can participate until they admit to being gay.

 

In this case, those who are gay and loud and proud of it and want to be in scouting have cut their own throat. Like Rooster said, if someone went around bragging openly about their infidelity, they would be kicked out too. As long as they keep it to themselves, no one knows any different.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Gee, I think I started this thread about Judges in California being barred from participating in private organizations like scouting because of conflict in descrimination cases......didn't I?

[pfann]

Look at it this way, if you were going to write a policy which would ensure that Scout leaders are of high moral character (or at least providing guidance to local units), wouldn't you include more in that policy than just a ban on homosexuals?

 

twocubdad,

 

I am no whizbang expert on this but it seems there are other rules regarding behavior/moral issues.

 

For example, alcohol is not allowed at scout events. That seems to deal at least partially with the alcohol abuse factor. Adults may not be in the same tent or hotel room as kids. That seems to cover the child sexual abuse problem. Venture crews must have separate quarters for both genders. This seems to cover the issue of premarital sex. I am sure there are more examples that I can't think of.

 

Now let's see if we can get back to the initial topic. A private organization has the right to set standards of behavior for membership participation. California may not agree with all of those standards and as a result may impose its own standards for its judges. When these two standards conflict, it seem the judges that are affected may have some big decisions to make in their lives, as we all do from time to time.

 

How's that kwc57?

 

-pfann

 

[SR540Beaver]

Much better!!! LOL

[Rooster7]

So, basically, the California Supreme Court is saying - if you are a member of the BSA, then you are prejudice against homosexuals and unfit for judgeship. If my reasoning is correct, then in a few years, I imagine they will ban evangelical Christians from the bench using the same pretence. "Political Correctness" or "Political B*llsh*t"...California is always ahead of the game. Frankly, I think the government has no business setting criteria like this for judges. This is simply a way for the California legislative branch to constrain the executive branch. They might as well hang a sign Conservatives need not apply! These legislators are imposing their collective will on future generations in an effort to manipulate the system so to maintain the status quo. It's wrong and it usurps our form of government. Our elected representatives should appoint judges. If folks don't like those appointments, then they should participate in the next election and seek to displace those in power. This kind of legislation removes the power from the people. If were not vigilantif we allow this kind of non-sense, it could become a permanent arrangement.

 

By the way, if California wont allow its judges to be members of the BSA, does that mean being an Eagle Scout is also reason for being blackballed? Does it mean, in California, Eagle Scouts should hide their status as such? What a sick world we live in

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[pfann]

Rooster7,

 

Check the original post. These restrictions on judges were proposed by the California Supreme Court as judicial branch rules and regulations. Whether they are implemented depends on whether or not the judges roll over and let it happen or do something to influnece their peers to stop this action. This is what I meant when I said these BSA involved judges will have some big decisions to make. They can sit on the bench in comfort and security and do nothing or they can stand up for what they believe in!

 

The state legislature may have a role in this process. Remember, the legislative branch controls appropriations for the other two branches of government (one of the checks and balances). If they disagree, which they should, they can stop the flow or money or legislatively limit the number and role of judges, etc. But being California I am willing to bet the sate legislature does little in this case.

 

Remember each state has different populations and different values. As an example, Oregon enacted assisted suicide legislation several years ago while voters in Michigan handily rejected the idea (just an example not that I want to open that can of worms!)

 

[Twocubdad]

Aw, come on, pfann! You know no Issues and Politics thread can go past five posts and remain on topic. I think it's in the fine print of the users agreement.

 

NJ -- I'm curious as to this policy change from "known or avowed" to just "avowed." That's a HUGE difference. Where do you find the actual policy?

[Rooster7]

Thanks for the correction...

 

You're right...I should have reread the post. Either way, I'm still against these kinds of restrictions.