Skip to comments.Boy Scouts face setback in Supreme Court
Posted on 10/17/2006 7:11:14 AM PDT by presidio9
click here to read article
Legally 'Yes'. I think that the Intramural Sports programs at certain universities are required to allow male students in sports that have no male counterpart. The point is that most males do not seek to compete with women when it comes to athletic endeavors.
I work with a woman who's daughter is on her HS wrestling team. She's actually proud of the fact that her little emancipated princess is "undefeated" because no coach with any sense of decency will let a teenaged boy get in the ring with her. One kid even forfeited a 56-match win streak because of her.
"...I didn't have a ready reply..."
How about, "Well, that just means there's plenty for everyone else! Sign up for our mailing list and we'll keep you informed about our KY sales events."
Summary Breakdown of the 109th Congress Scouting Survey
Scout and leader 15/42/57
Grand total 52/209/261
Eagle Scouts and Special Recognitions
Eagle Scout 8/17/25
Distinguished Eagle Scout 7/4/11
Silver Beaver Award recipient 3/7/10
Silver Buffalo Award recipient 0/1/1
Grand total 18/29/47
Isn't the current policy of the Boy Scouts the results of them being sued way back when for not "discriminating" and allowing pedophiles to be leaders of Boy Scout troops? Note, I don't make a distinction between Homos and Heteros - there are far more Hetero pedophiles than Homos. When it comes to trying to protect children and promote Christian values: Damned if you do and Damned if you don't....
The Girl Scouts also have no problem with Lesbians being Scout leaders. Go figure.
On that first, at one time, you couldn't. But now, you can, according to a link I saw yesterday.
Scouting ties boys with men, other boys, authentic manly virtues, service, reverence and the earth. I suspect that 'with men' part sounds bad to many people these days, an indication of the success of new-age male bashers.
Sorry, but this story is about the SCOTUS refusing to hear the case, letting the California Supreme Court decision stand. The California court already ruled, unanimously, and the SCOTUS won't review the decision.
That IS the problem with conservative judges. They do not legislate from the bench. They look at the facts and the merits of the case and then make their decision. Those who think that a conservative court is going to turn back years of liberal excess are delusional. Liberals use the court as a battering ram, conservatives use it as a mediating tool, big difference. The best we can hope for from a conservative court is that they don't make matters worse, not that they will clean up the mess that is already here.
Wow. That's a majority of each house of Congress...
Not to mention that one Eagle Scout served as President...8^)
"I work with a woman who's daughter is on her HS wrestling team. She's actually proud of the fact that her little emancipated princess is "undefeated" because no coach with any sense of decency will let a teenaged boy get in the ring with her. "
There are several girls on HS wrestling teams here in Minnesota. No defaults, either. They have to wrestle the boys. Sometimes they win...sometimes they lose.
It's an accepted practice here, as are girls as placekickers on football teams. One team here has two girls as placekickers, and they're darned good. Several wins have come from their efforts.
When a previous decision is clearly in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has an obligation to take the case and overturn the unconstitutional ruling.
Overturning liberal judicial activism is not legislating from the bench. It's protecting the Constitution.
Yes. Why would an organization like the Boy Scouts of America even want to be associated with a cess pool like Berkely, California?
I would seriously wonder about any boy who lost a wrestling match to a girl of the same weight as him. Boys have a tremendous advantage in upper body strength.
Also, when I wrestled in HS, there was a lot of grabbing going on between the legs. It is entirely innappropriate for HS girls to be wrestling with HS boys.
Well, would you abandon those that have the values that the Boy Scouts espouse?
Into the belly of beast so to speak.
BTW, for those who don't know, you can go down to your local Scout office or Troop and write out a check for a donation, you can go to their website and join their legal defense fund as well. I make contributions in spirit, in practice and with $$$'s.
There is no excuse for what berzerkely has done, but it is done, now is the time to find an alternative rather than to see the Sea Scout program there die.
On average, boys are stronger than girls of the same wieght. There are always exceptions, though.
As for the hand positions, it's just part of the sport. If you think that's bad, you should see what goes on in classical dancing. Not all young guys who dance are gay, and there's all sorts of hand positions that might be considered wrong, but not in dance.
Frankly, I just don't worry all that much about such things. It's not as if boys aren't groping girls every chance they get anyhow. If a girl can compete in her weight class and wants to participate, I just don't have a problem with it. Few girls will opt for the sport, though.
What you said.
I wonder very hard about the girl that does. And her parents.
The truth of the matter is that the Scouts are protecting their young boys from potential sexual predators.
John / Billybob
Wish I'd have been standing by you when he said it. I would have said, "That's okay - you're going to need your money for AIDS treatment anyway."
LOL. Nicely put.
I fight a lonely battle to save the word "discrimination." I guess everyone should have one lost cause.
As long as that rule applies to all private groups.
GS can have a male leader as long as there is a female assistant leader. It works. I have a male asst GS leader and he is great- a very involved dad.
Have you got any idea how many cub/Boy Scout dens and packs are being led by women?
"Girl Scouts" has not "been lost".
Its just that it has become a lot more locally-led and therefore we can detach ourselves from the liberals in the national organization.
We still pledge "to serve God and our Country". If some lib atheist doesnt want their kid to say that, they don't. The rest of us go on.
>>Have you got any idea how many cub/Boy Scout dens and packs are being led by women?
Tons of Cub Scout dens, since dirt. Less common in BS, but still there, would be my guess.
Still, despite a few high-profile cases, adult women getting sexually involved with early teen/preteen boys is pretty rare. Men are the ones to worry about.
I don't see any of these things as "legal setbacks"... evidence of perverted local governments who think dillusionally that fags around boys doesn't equal sexual abuse far too often.... but I wouldn't say they are legal setbacks.
I think it speaks volumes about the moral clarity lacking in these places.
Just like not all muslims are terrorists, nearly all terrorists are muslims.. same is true for pedophiles and predators when it comes to boys. Not all fags are predatory pedophiles, but nearly all predatory pedophiles are fags. May not be PC, but its the truth, and its a truth the Scouts will refuse pretend not to exist.
If city councilman likes his prostate tickled by another mans genitalia so be it, but he and his buddies won't be in scouts.
They will never accept self destructive, mentally ill, abhorent behavior as morrally exceptable.
acceptable.. damn..long night.
Some clarification: by scout mothers. Just like the great majority of male scout leaders are fathers of a scout in the unit.
We left a church denomination because, even though the congregation wasn't too apostate, the top (national) leadership was. For us, association counts. Can we agree the national GS leadership has gone left?
You certainly may.
Now - you are free to righteously walk away from Girl Scouting because of "association" and find another similar values-based organization that teaches your daughter it is good to serve God and country, to help other people, to be a sister to every other Girl Scout and to enjoy camping.
95 years and still singing!
I've always thought of it as your having (and exercising) the right to exclude people from your organization for whatever reason you wish to you want to exclude them for, gives others the right to exclude you from using facilities, standing on the very same right that you stood on to justify your right to exclude.
The governments in question recognized the value of the scouts and entered into contracts to ensure their continued role as a beneficial force in their localities.
The governments in question are violating their contracts.
These lawsuits aren't whining lawsuits about "gimmie this" and "gimmie that". They are about contract violations. ALL OF THESE RULINGS AGAINST THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ARE WRONG.
The Boy Scouts of America have not changed. The governments have changed. These changes in no way obviate them from meeting their contractual obligations.
If the American Nazi Party can hold a parade which isn't illegal, but is unpopular, where's the difference?
I believe you're being somewhat disingenuous with that argument. Of course the Boy Scouts are "discriminating" by excluding homosexuals. Dale simply ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of the Boy Scouts to engage in that particular form of discrimination. Nothing in this decision is inconsistent with that ruling: the Boy Scouts have the freedom to associate, but the state is under no obligation to grant them preferred status if they engage in certain types of discrimination.
The Boy Scouts made their bed when they decided to fight this battle, and now they have to lie in it.
They weren't given a "perpetual lease". They were granted permission via a resolution which stated:
[T]hat said berth and mooring facilities shall be used by the Boy Scouts of America in accordance with all rules and regulations established by the City of Berkeley relative to the Berkeley Yacht Harbor, and said *permission* herein granted is subject to revocation by a 30 day written notice. (emphasis mine)
It is unfortunate that the record on appeal did not put the question squarely on the necessary facts so the Court would be compelled to take the case.
John / Billybob
Nobody's keeping the Scouts off the property. The city is only refusing to grant the Scouts a *subsidy*. The Scouts are still allowed to use the property as long as they pay to do so.
No, sir, I do not miss that point at all. I am quite familiar with unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and I know that it would not control the present case. The doctrine is an inconsistent mess, (particularly after FAIR*) and it is extremely unlikely that the Court would even consider applying it to a freedom of association case like this.
As I said earlier: this isn't a surprise to anyone. The Boy Scouts had to decide if it was more important to retain their right to exclude homosexuals, or more important to retain their many government benefits. They chose the former. Now the government is treating them just as it would treat any other organization that does not abide by their nondiscrimination policies.
Tell me, why do you think the Boy Scouts deserve preferential treatment in these matters? You may feel they are an excellent organization, and you may be right, but that does not by itself elevate them above the state's nondiscrimination requirements.
*During which, as I recall, you took a very strict spending clause position, emphasizing the right of the government to spend its money according to its own preferences.
How about: "Dude, don't be so gay!"
The Boy Scouts refuse to allow homosexuals as members or leaders because they are homosexual. That is the definition of discrimination, but as a private organization they do have the legal right to discriminate. That's what the Dale decision said and nobody is disputing that right.
But in accordance with California law, Berkley is exercising it's right to refuse to subsidize any organization, public or private, that discriminates. That is their right under the Constitution. And unless the Boy Scouts can show that they themselves were unfairly discriminated against by the Berkley council then the case stays where it belongs, as a state matter. If the people of Berkley disagree with the court decision then they can change the law. Not that that's going to happen, of course.
From what I've heard this was more of a hand-shake agreement between the city and the scouts. There was no legal contract, just an understanding. Unfortunately if Berkley decides to void that understanding then there isn't a lot the scouts can do legally.
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.