Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blacklisting the Boy Scouts
Pacific Legal Foundation ^ | March 2003 | Mark Pulliam

Posted on 03/07/2003 9:10:09 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture

Blacklisting the Boy Scouts

By: Mark Pulliam

The Boy Scouts of America are under attack—again—this time from an unlikely source: the organized bar.

Notwithstanding the 2000 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, affirming the constitutional right of the Boy Scouts to exclude avowed homosexuals as adult leaders, the battle is not over. Groups opposed to the traditional values espoused by the Boy Scouts continue their campaign of intimidation and pressure. In California, several local bar associations are seeking to ostracize the Boy Scouts by prohibiting state court judges from participating in the organization on the ground that its ban on homosexual leaders makes it a “hate group” akin to the KKK. San Francisco’s judges have already formally cut ties with the Scouts.

The contention that the Boy Scouts should be shunned by respectable people—literally treated as outcasts—is profoundly misguided, for several reasons. First, the Boy Scouts are an American institution—a national icon. Over 3.3 million youth members, and more than 1.2 million adult volunteers, currently participate. Generations of Americans (more than 110 million youths since the Boy Scouts were founded in 1910) have participated in scouting.

In 1916, the U.S. Congress issued a special charter to the Boy Scouts in recognition of their public service during World War I. Nearly 40 million copies of The Boy Scouts Handbook have been printed since 1911, making it one of the most popular books of all time. Eight sitting U.S. Senators, 13 Representatives, and countless other distinguished Americans are former Eagle Scouts. More than half of the current Congress participated in scouting, and many still do, as adult volunteers and leaders. It is ludicrous to depict the Boy Scouts as disreputable or out of the mainstream.

Second, the ongoing assault on the Boy Scouts is inspired solely by an agenda-driven and content-based disagreement with the group’s core values, and in particular with the Boy Scouts’ exercise of its constitutional right to exclude homosexual adult leaders. Under any other circumstances, the attempt to punish—and suppress—a group for its legitimate constitutional rights would be viewed as vindictive or even oppressive. But a double standard is at work.

Throughout the 1990’s, gays, atheists, and the ACLU brought a series of highly-publicized but ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits against the Boy Scouts. Despite losing all of these lawsuits, including the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which recognized the Boy Scouts’ rights of free association and expression, liberal groups press the fight in other quarters. These “sore losers” are on a mission to destroy the Boy Scouts.

The latest attack on the Boy Scouts comes from the bar associations for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara counties, which have petitioned the California Supreme Court to revise the ethical rules governing California’s 1,600 state court judges to prohibit them from belonging to the Boy Scouts. If this outrageous proposal is adopted, a state judge would violate the Code of Judicial Ethics—and be subject to censure or removal from office—by membership (or active participation) in the Boy Scouts. This is a third flaw in the latest attack on the Boy Scouts, for in 1998 the California Supreme Court presaged Dale and ruled that the Boy Scouts’ exclusion of members and leaders who do not share its moral beliefs did not violate the state’s civil rights statute, the so-called Unruh Act. In other words, the California Supreme Court has already decided that the Boy Scouts do not impermissibly discriminate.

Fourth, and finally, the purported justification for blacklisting the Boy Scouts is legally baseless, bordering on frivolous. Lawyer groups should know better. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics provides that “[a] judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.” Acknowledging that Canon 2 would literally forbid judges to belong to religious and military organizations, the ethics rules specifically exempt such membership, as well as “membership in a nonprofit youth organization,” in order to “accommodate individual rights of intimate association and free expression.” The anti-Boy Scouts bar groups want to repeal the exception, which was created to protect judges’ freedom of association and expression, in order to make the group off-limits for state court judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the Boys Scouts—and adult members who happen to be judges—have a constitutional right of expressive association. The proposed blacklist would abridge that right. To even entertain blacklisting the Boy Scouts, in the face of Dale, demonstrates an appalling contempt for the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment rights.

The California Supreme Court should emphatically reject the misguided blacklisting proposal.

San Diego attorney Mark S. Pulliam is a member of Pacific Legal Foundation’s Board of Trustees. This commentary is adopted from a longer article that appears in the March 2003 issue of the California Political Review, for which Mr. Pulliam serves as legal editor.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclu; atheists; blacklisting; boyscouts; bsalist; court; dale; eaglescouts; firstamendment; homosexuals; traditionalvalues

1 posted on 03/07/2003 9:10:09 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
prohibiting state court judges from participating in the organization...

                          ....is not blacklisting.
2 posted on 03/07/2003 9:18:01 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
GO SCOUTS.

It's a sad day in this country when the state attacks a fine organization like the scouts.
3 posted on 03/07/2003 9:30:14 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Bump.
4 posted on 03/07/2003 9:40:29 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Registered member troop 386, Pony Express District, Golden Empire Counsel.
5 posted on 03/07/2003 9:47:50 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
read later
6 posted on 03/07/2003 10:35:50 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
In California, several local bar associations are seeking to ostracize the Boy Scouts by prohibiting state court judges from participating in the organization on the ground that its ban on homosexual leaders makes it a “hate group” akin to the KKK.

Odds are 90% of these "lawyers" and "judges" are fags.

7 posted on 03/07/2003 10:38:12 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Let's Roll Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Here in Florida you can be a specialty license plate for the Scouts, that says "Scouting Teaches Values". I smile everytime I see it.
8 posted on 03/07/2003 11:15:47 PM PST by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
"Odds are 90% of these "lawyers" and "judges" are fags."

Yes and the only reason they exist is to ensure that convicted child molesters get probation. Ellie Nestler had the right idea. When all else fails vote from the roof tops.

9 posted on 03/08/2003 3:48:05 AM PST by SSN558 (Be on the lookout for Black/White Supremacists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Again I say, the inmates are taking over!

Subject: The Death of Common Sense
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:35:58 -0600


Today we mourn the passing of an old friend, Common Sense. Common Sense
lived a long life, but died in the United States from heart failure early
in the new millennium.

No one really knows how old he was, since his birth records were lost
long ago in bureaucratic red tape. He selflessly devoted his life to
service in schools, hospitals, homes, and factories, helping folks get
jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.

For decades, petty rules, silly laws, and frivolous lawsuits held no
power over Common Sense. He was credited with cultivating such valued
lessons as to know when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird
gets the worm, and that life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge,
not the kids), and it's okay to come in second. A veteran of the
Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological
Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends
including body piercing, whole language, and "new math." But his health
declined when he became infected with the
"If-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it" virus.

In recent decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of
well intentioned but overbearing regulations. He watched in pain as good
people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers. His health rapidly
deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero tolerance policies.

Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing
a classmate, a teen suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after lunch,
and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his
condition. It declined even further when schools had to get parental
consent to administer aspirin to a student but could not inform the
parent when a female student was pregnant or wanted an abortion.

Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became
contraband, churches became businesses, criminals received better
treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck their noses in
everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports. When an
individual, too stupid to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot*,
was awarded a huge settlement, Common Sense threw in the towel. As the
end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept
informed of developments regarding questionable regulations such as those
for low flow toilets, rocking chairs, stepladders and auto emissions.

Common Sense finally succumbed when, while the United States was fighting
a war on terrorism, a federal judge declared the Pledge of Allegiance to
be unconstitutional.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He
is survived by two stepsiblings: My Rights, and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
...Source Unknown
10 posted on 03/08/2003 5:20:11 AM PST by chgomac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
....is not blacklisting.

Really? What is Blacklisting?

Definition
Blacklisting refers to being put on a list of those who are avoided because they have met with disapproval by a particular group or because they are being boycotted (the other, more acceptable term for blacklisting) for socially reprehensible conduct -- whether real or perceived. The official definition of boycotting given in the FindLaw Legal Dictionary is, "to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a store, business, or organization) usu. to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions ...

Sounds like the term blacklisting is dead on. Isn't it embarrassing that people who profess to hate hate, are the most outwardly hateful people there are. If I were gay I would be ashamed of this activity, but you can be in denial if you wish.

11 posted on 03/08/2003 5:32:00 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Why should the state have the right to insist on what a judge does in his personal life????? I guess it would be OK to say a judge can not be gay by this logic. Gays should think about such hypocritical actions.
12 posted on 03/08/2003 5:38:03 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *bsa_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
13 posted on 03/08/2003 7:36:37 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Keeping judges from the BSA is not calling for boycotts, putting the BSA out of business, or denying the BSA the ability to make a living, which is what blacklisting is.
14 posted on 03/08/2003 10:21:11 AM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Why should the state have the right to insist on what a judge does in his personal life??


1. The local bar association isn't the state.
2.  I personally don't think any group should be labelled a hate group, such as the KKK or the NAACP.  But whether they are labelled hate groups or not, I don't think anyone should be coerced to join or leave any group, for that matter.  My complaint is that this is a misuse for inflammatory purposes of the word 'blacklist..'

15 posted on 03/08/2003 10:25:48 AM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
First off, the bar is partitioning the state to make this a state ethics rule. Secondly, it is most definitely a boycott (or at least an attempted state-imposed boycott) and thus also blacklisting in its ugliest form. It is the bar who is behavior is inflamatory and should be subjected to criticism not the author.
16 posted on 03/08/2003 9:59:53 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
My complaint is that this is a misuse for inflammatory purposes of the word 'blacklist..'

Why? Do liberals own the copyright to it?

17 posted on 03/08/2003 10:01:37 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Beats me. But the bar association forbidding judges from being in the BSA is not a blacklisting. No one is being kept from making a living.
18 posted on 03/08/2003 10:20:52 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I am glad you choose to define terms in a way to help rationalize your position.
19 posted on 03/08/2003 10:24:09 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"Why should the state have the right to insist on what a judge does in his personal life????? "

Molsesting women and lying about it under oath is "private". Violating Politically Correct GroupThink is not.

20 posted on 03/08/2003 10:29:35 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Blacklisting an organization means setting it up for being boycotted. Blacklisting an individual sets them up to not be hired. Is the bar association calling for a BSA boycott?
21 posted on 03/08/2003 10:34:19 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
False.

Main Entry: 1black·list
Pronunciation: -"list
Function: noun
Date: circa 1619
: a list of persons who are disapproved of or are to be punished or boycotted

22 posted on 03/08/2003 11:00:10 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
And the BSA are being punished...just how?
23 posted on 03/08/2003 11:08:58 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Merriam-Webster's definition as opposed to your false and unsourced "definition": a list of persons who are disapproved of or are to be punished or boycotted

And the BSA are being punished...just how?

You didn't read the article?

"In California, several local bar associations are seeking to ostracize the Boy Scouts by prohibiting state court judges from participating in the organization..."

24 posted on 03/08/2003 11:28:21 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It is a boycott to anyone except for someone who is hellbent on defending gays no matter what.
25 posted on 03/08/2003 11:55:18 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It is a boycott to anyone except for someone who is hellbent on defending gays no matter what.

Actually, I 'm more concerned about the atheist kids who can't be boy scouts because they haven't subscribed the reigning superstition.
26 posted on 03/09/2003 10:29:09 AM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Actually, I 'm more concerned about the atheist kids who can't be boy scouts because they haven't subscribed the reigning superstition.

I want to know why such a superior intellectual being would even want to associate with such idiots as the Bible-thumping scouts then. Really, it sounds like such a kid would be so much better off then having to learn a bunch of religious-based ethics.

27 posted on 03/09/2003 10:39:44 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I want to know why such a superior intellectual being would even want to associate with such idiots as the Bible-thumping scouts then.

There's no requirement in the BSA to be a Christian, or have read, discussed, or even touched a Bible.

28 posted on 03/10/2003 5:49:08 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
All I can say is, "If you are a parent who has somehow not involved your young kids in with BSA, this is a great time to get with the program."
29 posted on 04/02/2004 11:03:24 AM PST by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
If there isn't a merit badge for defending freedom, the BSA ought to create one. Freedom to associate, freedom to assemble... And, of course, a series of merit badges in pre-law...
30 posted on 04/02/2004 11:06:09 AM PST by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
prohibiting state court judges from participating in the organization... ....is not blacklisting.

I would pose that question to the judges who are currently involved in the BSA in some capacity and see what they consider it to be.

I do not know what else you could call it.

It puts the BSA in the same bucket as a communist organization.

31 posted on 04/02/2004 11:10:27 AM PST by Cold Heat (Notice! Looking for a replacement lawyer with only one hand! (who can't say "on the other hand")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
The latest attack on the Boy Scouts comes from the bar associations for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara counties, which have petitioned the California Supreme Court to revise the ethical rules governing California’s 1,600 state court judges to prohibit them from belonging to the Boy Scouts.

This is an election-year grand-stand stunt with zero chance of succeeding. It's just another attempt to divide and conquer, and divert people from focusing on voting out the democRats. Ignore it. (But join the BSA and get a bumper sticker post-haste.)

32 posted on 04/02/2004 11:10:51 AM PST by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
As an Eagle Scout, I would remind the author of this article that the only "former" Eagle Scout is a dead one.

Once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout for life. Kind of like the Marines....or something.
33 posted on 04/02/2004 11:14:04 AM PST by BaBaStooey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson