Will Arnold Support the Boy Scouts?

CNSNews ^ | 09-03-03

[Brian S]

By Hans Zeiger CNSNews.com Commentary September 03, 2003

While the state of California was distracted by the governor's race last week, the California legislature passed a resolution haranguing the Boy Scouts for their moral codes.

By a vote of 22-15, the state Senate passed Resolution 89 that the assembly passed earlier in the year, declaring that "the discriminatory policy [barring homosexual and atheist members and leaders] of the Boy Scouts of America is contrary to the policy of the State of California."

Senator Tom McClintock, a Republican candidate for governor, is the only candidate who has registered his support for the Boy Scouts on this issue. McClintock was one of the fifteen senators to vote against Resolution 89. No other candidate has said a word.

According to Newsmax.com, Republican gubernatorial frontrunner Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to side with the Boy Scouts. But the passage of this resolution will be Arnold's test. If he really supports the Boy Scouts, now is the time for him to speak out against this outrageous declaration of hatred and moral relativism by the California legislature.

The most obvious question to ask in this matter is: what business does the California government have to be telling the Boy Scouts of America what it can and cannot do? Legally and constitutionally, it has absolutely no authority to butt its politically correct head into the moral codes of the Boy Scouts.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to establish their own criteria for members and leaders. Second, the First Amendment and the California State Constitution protect the God-given right to expressive association. Third, federal courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts is not a "business establishment" and cannot be considered anything other than a private, non-profit organization.

Despite all of that, Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, (D-Los Angeles) wrote Resolution 89 as if the state has some compelling interest to be involved in destroying the Boy Scouts; as if pressures from special interests and courts and the ACLU are not destructive enough already.

The resolution reads, in part: "The policy of the Boy Scouts to bar from membership or leadership qualified individuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation or religious belief causes harm to the innumerable boys and men . . . who, regardless of their hard work and merits, are denied the opportunity to . . . participate in any way in the Boy Scouts of America."

The resolution also includes a glorious acknowledgement of Scouting for All, a California-based anti-Scout boycott network whose president has personally called me a bigot for defending the Scout Oath and Law.

The vitriolic odium of Assemblywoman Goldberg and the majority of her colleagues against the Boy Scouts is terrifying. If the California legislature has the authority to advise the Boy Scouts on its morality, it can do the same for churches and other private organizations that believe in virtue and decency.

Goldberg recently sponsored bills to rid California's schools of American Indian mascots and to extend spousal employment benefits to partners of homosexual employees.

Goldberg told the Roseville Press-Tribune , "I think it's important for the state of California to speak up and not be silent, and to say to the Scouts, 'if you have a religious belief, that's your belief. But keep it separate from a youth-serving agency that serves kids in all neighborhoods.'"

In other words, Scouting is okay as long as it doesn't have any association with duty to God and country, moral straightness, reverence, and so on.

In all of the gravity of this matter and its larger context of this culture war, we can take Jackie Goldberg's advice insofar as she believes that California should "speak up and not be silent." Citizens of California should write and call their legislators in both the senate and the assembly and ask why this abhorrent resolution was passed. California citizens should demand that Resolution 89 become an issue for the governor's race.

We know that McClintock stands with the Boy Scouts. But Arnold is the frontrunner, and he too ought to be willing to speak up about these vicious attacks on the Boy Scouts. If Arnold remains silent while our foundations crumble, he doesn't deserve a single vote.

Hans Zeiger is a Seattle Times columnist and conservative activist, an 18-year old Eagle Scout and a student at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

[DoctorZIn]

PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

[Tamzee]

Yes, Arnold DOES support the Boy Scouts on this issue, confirmed by Dana Rohrabacher per the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966358/posts

[bt_dooftlook]

"...qualified individuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation ..."

Umm, if being straight is one of the qualifications then, arguably, homosexuals are not qualified...;)

[BlackElk]

Why doesn't Ahhhhnold speak for himself? If Buffett isn't his spokesman on Prop. 13, then why should random defenses by Rohrbacker be any more certain as Arnold's spokesman?

[BunnySlippers]

Arnold already said he supports the Boy Scouts! Huzzah! Go Arnold Go!

[EdJay]

Hey, guys!

You can submit questions to Arnold and the others for the debate in Sacramento.

For the procedure, see http://www.cabroadcasters.org/

I think they've got the date wrong -- they say "Sept. 24" but I think it's Sept. 17.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Arnold already said he supports the Boy Scouts! Huzzah! Go Arnold Go!

I am pleased that this is about (R)nold's people putting out that he is supporting the boy scouts. They have been under attack by the fringe Left for no other reason than being a part of American values. He needs to be using his influence to putting the Left in its place.

However, there is a greater question in the CA recall campaign;
Yes or no, would you say that barring a natural disaster/terrorist attack that Governor Schwarzeneggar will not raise taxes in California?

[Tamzee]

Let's see. Buffet spoke for HIMSELF and gave his OWN viewpoint on Prop 13... which you all jumped on and insisted Arnold must ALSO believe, though Buffet never stated that at all. Arnold also IMMEDIATELY SLAPPED DOWN BUFFET and IN HIS OWN WORDS STATED that he DISAGREED with BUFFET'S PERSONAL OPINION.


And let's see... Rohrabacher was not speaking for himself, but stated plainly that ARNOLD BELIEVES THIS AND WILL DO THIS and he is working on Arnold's campaign. And Arnold also DID NOT REFUTE this.


Did I speak slowly enough for you? Do you understand the difference now? Or, wait, maybe you understood the difference already and are just trying to manufacture more garbage against him...

[BlackElk]

Sorry, I just do NOT trust Arnold or anyone else who has expressed his socially liberal views and surrounded himself with the likes of Wilson and Buffett. Politicians (not all but most) tell self-serving lies for a living. Arnold is a politician whatever he may say. He is also a political coward who understandably ducks and dodges any and all social issues of importance.

I can see that yesterday's truce was merely apparent.

On many occasions, when in Connecticut, I had to deal with another lying skunk of a leftist in GOP drag: Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. He and Arnold are two of a kind. If you do not agree, too bad. I am not going to regard Arnold as worthy of support by anyone who cares for California or for the GOP.

[BibChr]

Good responses. You're very patient, rational.

These scorched-earthers are just depressing, and getting a little scary. Such blind, black, irrational, seething, implacable hatred.

Dan

[Tamzee]

I know you won't, it's finally sunk in. You guys aren't just misinformed or on mutually-hyped bandwagon, you genuinely DON'T want to know...

...and you hate it whenever he takes a position that is, in fact, absolutely conservative.

I can't comprehend why you are all doing this or what drives this behavior, but best wishes for you on your path, honestly...

[Tamzee]

What is more scary is losing my naivete... I am feeling fairly stupid lately because I used to think ALL right-wingers stood for principles, ethical behavior and the same fundamental political values.

And we all don't :-(

[BibChr]

It's been oft-remarked. You'd think word would have gotten out. The worst and awfullest Demo's can all forget their differences and unite to cause America harm. But conservatives open fire on each other at the drop of a hat.

As I've said, Mulholland isn't even having to earn his money.

Dan

[Spiff]

It's been oft-remarked. You'd think word would have gotten out. The worst and awfullest Demo's can all forget their differences and unite to cause America harm. But conservatives open fire on each other at the drop of a hat.

It is all too easy for the Dems to do this. You see, they have no principles. They don't believe in right and wrong, good and evil.

[BibChr]

It isn't that simple. They know incrementalism, they do incrementalism -- that's who we got to be where we are.

But here's a man who can win and accomplish things we want done -- but he is deficient (and he IS deficient) in other ways.

So are we wise? Do we support him, get agreed goals accomplished, hope to move him further our way?

Not from what I see here. I see people here HATING him, MOCKING every good thing he says, MISREPRESENTING him, trying to DESTROY him.

And when they have helped Bustamante win, will they mourn their folly and viciousness?

No, I fear they'll feel good. About themselves.

Dan

[Spiff]

Whatever... Personally, I believe that people should prayerfully vote their conscience and let God sort out the rest.

[Tamzee]

Mulholland...

I can't tell you how much I despise that man LOL

[Coleus]

`