If BSA v. Dale were reversed...

[Horizon]

BrentAllen:

 

While it is true (based on some data sets) that people alter their place on the conservative / liberal scale as they age, you are incorrect about the trend regarding the acceptance of homosexuality. The trend continues to show more acceptance of gays and lesbians over time, and the voting polls of California showed that it was those over 65 that were majority opposed, with those under 65 in favor.

 

More data here:

 

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080603-Homosexuality.pdf

 

"ACCEPTANCE: In 1973, when the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago first asked people about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex, 73 percent described them as always wrong and another 7 percent as almost always wrong. When the organization last asked the question in 2006, 56 percent called them always wrong and 5 percent almost always wrong. NORC interviewers have asked the same question about extramarital sexual relations over the period, and they find no liberalization in attitudes. As for pre-marital sexual activity, in 1972, 37 percent told NORC interviewers that premarital sexual relations were always wrong. In the latest poll, 27 percent gave that response, while 46 percent said they were not wrong at all (See Comparisons section of this document). Forty-three percent in 1977 told Gallup interviewers that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. In July 2003, after the Supreme Courts June 26 decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, 48 percent gave that response. In May 2007, 59 percent gave that response. Acceptance can be measured in ways other than legality as other findings in this document show."

[sherminator505]

"The right to free association is now considered un-American? Wow. I didn't get the memo."

 

Wow! I guess this is the part where I should say something like "I'm surprised you need a memo to tell you that!" But I'm not surprised, as you appear to be using a broken moral compass. You know, the kind that always seems to be pointed squarely at you.

[Beavah]

As people get older, they tend to get more conservative.

 

Except about Medicare and Social Security, eh?

 

Da trends yeh report are interestin', but in the long run they don't matter Horizon.

 

With our newfangled sexual mores, da West is showing drastically declining birth rates compared to the rest of the world, eh? Whatever view we hold on these matters isn't goin' to be more than a historical blip. The traditional family folks are goin' to out-procreate us. And with the limited resources of the world, eventually da competition is goin' to overrun us one way or another. It was da immigrant communities in California that made the difference in Prop 8, eh?

 

What's the bumper sticker... "I'm Pro-Life, and both I and my children vote."

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Horizon]

Beavah:

 

Your comment about birth rates is off a bit too. Birth rates in all educated, first world nations are lower than the 3rd and 4th. More specifically, it has been shown that education and work opportunities for women are heavily correlated with a lower birth rate. Obviously, access to various means of contraception also has an impact.

 

Immigrant communities drop their birth rate in the 2nd generation, if not in generation 1.5 (depending on when they entered the US, and how you classify someone born outside, yet raised in the US).

 

However, if all of that was creating a generation of pro-life conservative voters, we should have started seeing that in polls. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has written on this (he calls it the Roe Effect). He assumes, however, that an abortion by a mother reduces the number of children that particular mother would have had. That is not necessarily true, which could impact his projections of a change in voting patterns. It also raises the issue of whether or not children will vote like their parents.

 

In the same sense, the younger generations are also less likely to care about someone's sexual orientation, even if they are conservative. The DADT lawsuit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. There is a new, younger brand of conservatism that is more heavily associated with libertarianism out there now (see the book "South Park Conservatives" for an overview). They have the anti-government and fiscal constraint down, but in California they are voting FOR prop 19 (legalize marijuana) and they voted against prop 8 (anti-gay marriage).

 

 

[Beavah]

Nah, yeh missed da point, Horizon. What happens in the U.S. doesn't matter. We're a minority culture in da rest of the world, eh? Especially on this issue. And we're goin' into a demographic decline similar to Japan's, except we're enterin' it with much less in savings and much more in entitlements. So both demographically and economically, we're not goin' to be the deciding force on this issue. Much like da Anglican community's struggle with it, eh? It's da Africans who are close to callin' the tune.

 

B

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Da BSA has the option to set its criteria for leadership positions within its own organization. Other organizations may set different criteria.

 

Reversing Dale in da courts means no local option for any private organization.

 

Depends on what reasoning is used to reverse Dale, and how it's reversed. I'd say the most likely way to reverse it is to state that the BSA is not a private organization, but a public accommodation. "Real" private organizations can still discriminate.

 

Dale should have gone against the BSA in the first place based on the BSA's decades-long practice of chartering units to government organizations. There's no such thing as private clubs that can discriminate in ways prohibited to the government while simultaneously having the government own & operate such private clubs.

[BrentAllen]

Horizon,

You may correct. Then again, I may be correct. Only time will tell.

 

You argue the midpoint of the pendulum has shifted. I argue the pendulum is just swinging.

 

This piece, in the NYTimes, dives into the issue. The author argues that 20 years of liberal advancement has been erased in 20 months. I would agree, and I think today's election results will validate that point.

 

Op-Ed Columnist

How We Got HereBy ROSS DOUTHAT

Published: October 31, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opinion/01douthat.html?ref=opinion

 

From the early 1990s through the 2008 election, Americans grew steadily more liberal. Voters became more supportive of government spending and more sympathetic toward the poor. They were increasingly secular and increasingly likely to favor gay marriage. They were more worried about climate change and more inclined to support universal health care. And not surprisingly, they were more and more likely to identify as Democrats.

 

This trend wasnt just a blip created by the Bush administrations unpopularity, as some conservatives hopefully suggested. It was a significant, long-running shift, pushed along by deeper demographic forces. Reliable conservative constituencies (white Christians, married couples) were shrinking. Liberal-leaning ones (Hispanics, single parents, the unchurched) were expanding. And the next generation seemed to be in the bag for liberalism. Younger voters werent just more liberal than their parents (as young people usually are); they were more liberal than the previous generation had been at the same age, suggesting a more enduring shift.

 

But since Barack Obama took the oath of office, the countrys leftward momentum has reversed itself. In some cases, nearly 20 years of liberal gains have been erased in 20 months. Americans are more likely to self-identify as conservative than at any point since Bill Clintons first term. Theyve become more skeptical of government and more anxious about deficits and taxes. Theyre more inclined to identify as pro-life and anti-gun control, more doubtful about global warming, more hostile to regulation. And, not surprisingly, theyre more likely to consider voting Republican on Tuesday.

*********************************************************************************************************

 

I still argue we are a center-right country. I'm pretty sure we will be after today. I also think the marijuana issue is going to fail in California. What does that tell you?

[NJCubScouter]

Brent, I think it has very little to do with "liberal" or "conservative." It has to do with the economy. People are angry and afraid and they want to blame the president who's there now, never mind if it's his policies that got us here or not. If John McCain had won the 2008 election -- first of all, if McCain were president now, I sincerely believe the economy would be considerably WORSE right now than it is, though I obviously can't prove it; and while I'm here, if McCain were president, it's likely that no health care bill would have been passed, and the majority of people would be screaming -- SCREAMING -- for health care reform that would make President Obama's bill look positively conservative by comparison. Where was I? Oh yeah, if McCain were president right now, the Democrats today would be expanding their majorities to two-thirds veto-proof majorities in each house, instead of losing one majority and in danger of losing the other.

 

So in my opinion, it's not about deep-seated ideology and people changing their fundamental belief systems. It's about, when things are really bad and show no immediate sign of getting much better, people want to throw out the people in charge -- never mind if the "new boss" really has any hope of changing what people are really upset about.

 

[acco40]

Conservative? Liberal? Who defines these terms? If conservatives believe in less governmental regulation then they assuredly would be against regulating abortion and regulating the use of marijuana. Yet, those are considered liberal positions. Why?

 

I deplore these labels. Let's discuss the issues and not practice what the news media entertainers do by telling folks what "liberals" believe and what "conservatives" believe.

 

Citizens of the US are considered to be very traditional and have more sexual "hang-ups", compared to the remainder of the world. Yet, in the U.S.A, our views on homosexual beings and practices have changed from years past. These have been influenced by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, growth in media outlets, violent reactions to openly gay folk (i.e. Matthew Sheppard, et. al.), movies, etc. Time will tell if this is "enlightenment" or further travel down the "road to ruin."

 

Now, how would the BSA change if homosexuals were permitted to participate? Well, if the Scout Oath, Scout Law and Declaration of Religious Principle, methods, aims, G2SS, YPT, etc. remained the same - not much. By its own admission, the BSA position on homosexuality has nothing to do with safety, pedophilia, etc.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[BrentAllen]

NJ,

I think you are going to see tonight that ObamaCare is one of the big reasons Democrats take it on the nose tonight.

 

Obama made a couple of promises on his health care law:

1. If you like your plan, you won't have to change, your plan won't change.

Well, I really like my plan, and it is changing on Jan. 1. I won't be able to use my HSA to pay for over the counter medications, without a prescription. I will need to get a prescription for Tylenol, allergy and cold medicine. I'll probably have to schedule an appointment with my dr. to get those prescriptions. This is ridiculous.

 

2. Costs will come down.

My costs are going up close to 25%. You can't add more people to a program without the costs going up. When families will leave their kids on thier plan until they turn 26, costs are going to have to go up, to pay for that extra coverage. When we add insurance for all those people who are either on welfare or unemployed, costs and taxes are going to go way up.

 

I think the Dems are going down in flames tonight.

[GernBlansten]

Brent's right.

Liberals are going down in flames tonight.

When climbing out of a deep hole, and you don't see the light at the top, sometimes its best to just jump back down to the bottom of the hole where you started. Sometimes.

[GernBlansten]

And keep digging.

[BrentAllen]

Wow! Even I am surprised by this.

 

Iowa Judges Sacked Over Gay Marriage Ruling

 

DES MOINES, Iowa Iowa voters have voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.

 

The vote Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

 

The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.

 

They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

 

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary.

 

 

[Beavah]

You're surprised, BrentAllen?

 

I'm not. I was surprised that da Iowa court jumped that far out on a limb given da nature of their electorate. IMHO courts that do that should have da rug pulled out from under 'em. It should be hard to do, mind - sometimes yeh want a court to make a tough call. But it should be doable.

 

It's a check and balance that we lack in da federal system, because by and large da founding fathers did not trust the "masses". They figured allowin' the mob's emotions to swing the House of Representatives back and forth was enough.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

"Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary."

 

That statement right there should send chills down your spine. The courts are now bought and controlled by the big spenders and special interests. So much for blind justice.