Scouts Seek to Overturn Ruling on Homosexuals

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 9/23/02 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - The Boy Scouts of America is seeking to overturn a decision by the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission that the scouts unlawfully discriminated against two Washington area scout leaders because they were homosexual.

A three-member panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District's highest court, is considering the case after listening to arguments Sept. 10 by representatives for the Boy Scouts and by lawyers for Michael Geller, 40, and Roland Pool, 41, whose membership in the scouts was revoked in 1992 because of their homosexuality.

In a ruling in June 2001, the D.C. Human Rights Commission ordered the Boy Scouts and the National Capital Area Council to admit both men as adult members, to pay their attorney fees and to pay them $50,000 each in damages.

The Boy Scouts argued that the District of Columbia didn't have jurisdiction in the case and that the verdict went against a decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2000 that the Boy Scouts is not a public accommodation subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

In a 5 - 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts therefore had the right to exclude James Dale as a scout leader because of his homosexuality.

Merril Hirsh, a lawyer with the law firm of Ross, Dixon and Bell, which is representing Geller and Pool, said the commission gave careful consideration to the Dale case before making its ruling.

In the Dale case, the Boy Scouts convinced the Supreme Court that they had a constitutional right to exclude someone who - in the Boy Scouts words before the Supreme Court - was so publicly associated with advocacy that it was "as if he had wrapped a banner around his neck," Hirsh said.

In the case of Geller and Pool, however, the commission found that the Boy Scouts were attempting to expand their exclusion and apply it to everyone who is homosexual, Hirsh said.

"We argued that being able to protect a First Amendment right of expression doesn't mean you can exclude everybody who is gay and lesbian," he said.

Frank Wu, chair of the D.C. commission and an assistant professor of law at Howard University, said after last year's decision that the Geller and Pool case differed from the Dale case in significant respects.

Although Geller and Pool were openly homosexual, they were not activists, Wu said on National Public Radio.

"What the three members of the commission have found was applying the human rights act will not infringe upon the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right to free expression.

"The commission also found that admitting the two individuals as adult leaders would not significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate its public or private viewpoints.

"And finally, the commission found that the District of Columbia, under the Human Rights Act, in balancing all these factors, it has a compelling state interest in eliminating discrimination of public accommodations," Wu said.

Gregg Shields, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts, said he was confident the appeals court will rule in favor of the scouts, however.

As the Boy Scouts sees it, the case is similar to the Dale case, which centered on whether the scouts have the right as a private-member organization to define their own membership and leadership standards, Shields said.

"The Boy Scouts have long taught American family values as held in the scout oath and law, and the right to believe in these values to define our membership was affirmed by the Supreme Court two years ago," he said.


E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[TxBec]

Boy Scouts bump

[2banana]

The importance of winning the senate in NOV

[DWSUWF]

Hmmm...

Adult queers going well out of their way to insinuate themselves into a group that very pointedly does not welcome them which is populated primarily by young boys...

There’s nothing in the least strange about that.

This is precisely what queers have always done.

[yendu bwam]

Boy Scouts 1) may choose who it wishes for the scoutmasters of teenage boys; and 2) is not a public accommodation. It's a private group which has its belief as to what kind of scouting program is best for teenage boys - and it in a free country, it has a right to that belief. Homosexuals have NO intrinsic right to be put in charge of other peoples' teenage boys on overnight camping trips - no more than atheists do, or alcoholics, or people who practice bestiality, or people who espouse a lifestyle that believes that adultery is a good thing. Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want.

[mgc1122]

No one wants to join their own program complete with Faggot Patrol -- rather the goal seems to be to infiltrate, disrupt and ultimately corrupt innocent youth along with an institution whose values go 180 degrees from those of Scouting.

[ibme]

Here we go again, judges making laws from the bench. Rather queer laws at that.

[Pietro]

What strikes me is that after the horrible scandal in the Catholic Church that these jurors would be so willfully ignorant to the potential harm that are allowing.

This is nothing short of an attempt to destroy the BSA as an organization.

Next they'll inform churches they must hire atheists as preachers.

[BillaryBeGone]

Next they'll inform churches they must hire atheists as preachers.

Naah. There are enough churches doing that already (e.g., ELCA and Episcopal USA). My question is this: If the queers of the country want to be "Boy Scouts" so badly, why don't they just start their own organization? Nothing's stopping them!

[tomkat]

What strikes me is that after the horrible scandal in the Catholic Church that these jurors would be so willfully ignorant to the potential harm that are allowing.

this assumes literacy among a signifcant percentage of the DC jury pool

[Pietro]

"why don't they just start their own organization"

I believe they have. It's call "Scouting for All", however, the enrollment is probably very small outside of Manhattan and Hollywood and so they need to destroy the competition.

[uncbob]

Homosexuals have NO intrinsic right to be put in charge of other peoples' teenage boys on overnight camping trips - no more than atheists do, or alcoholics, or people who practice bestiality, or people who espouse a lifestyle that believes that adultery is a good thing. Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want.

Ain't no different than not putting heterosexual 17 -18- year olds or adult males in charge of teenage girls

Why this argument is not used amazes me

[Greeklawyer]

"... so they need to destroy the competition. "

The objective of the homosexual practitioners is to anestitize public opinion to homosexual behavior. Thus, when it is established homosexual orientation/behavior is either geneitic or environmental the public at large will not care and be indifferent.

The homosexual lobby is moralphobic. They are threatened by statements of right and wrong which contradict homoseuxality as benign.

[fone]

>>>Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want<<

I think they call it NAMBLA. sICK bA$TARDS.

[Non-Sequitur]

Didn't we go through this a few years ago? The Supreme Court ruled that the scouts could deny membership to anyone they chose since they were a private organization. Where is this case any different? Don't judges have an obligation to consider precedent before ruling? This will just go up the ladder and then be overturned, wasting everyones time and money.

[KuernoDeChivo]

I think I'm starting to understand the meaning of the term "2 man pup-tent"!

lol! 'not a friend of scouting any more if that's what it's all about.

Kuerno

[upchuck]

From The Overhauling of Straight America: "We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

Looks this is just another step towards the ultimate shoulder shrug.

Remove all liquids and foodstufs from your surrounding area (so as to prevent spew) and then check out Scouting For All Queers and Faggots.

[fone]

Thanks for the warning before the link. If they only understood what the rainbow really represents. . .

[yendu bwam]

Ain't no different than not putting heterosexual 17 -18- year olds or adult males in charge of teenage girls Why this argument is not used amazes me

This argument is used all the time by sensible people. The vast, vast majority of parents wouldn't send out their teenage girls with a bunch of men on overnight campouts. The vast, vast majority of parents understands that this is almost exactly the same thing. What makes it different is that homosexual males are even MORE likely to molest teenage boys than normal males are likely to molest teenage girls. The Catholic Church homosexual abuse scandal (in which a minority of priests [homosexuals] caused 95% or so of the molestations in the scandal [against teenage boys] is a case in point.

[yendu bwam]

Didn't we go through this a few years ago? The Supreme Court ruled that the scouts could deny membership to anyone they chose since they were a private organization. Where is this case any different? Don't judges have an obligation to consider precedent before ruling? This will just go up the ladder and then be overturned, wasting everyones time and money.

You bet. They are just trying to wear out the scouts, and to force the scouts to spend millions in stupid foolish lawsuits like this. The Boy Scouts is under attack by intolerant homosexual groups. Boy Scouts doesn't attack homosexuals or homosexual groups. Boy Scouts tolerates them just fine, and supports their right to believe what they want and to live their lives as they see fit. Would that homosexuals could show the same decency and tolerance toward the Boy Scouts. These homosexual groups are like little intemperate five-year olds who were told, "No!" when they put their hands in the cookie jar.

[yendu bwam]

I believe they have. It's call "Scouting for All", however, the enrollment is probably very small outside of Manhattan and Hollywood and so they need to destroy the competition.

'Scouting for All' is not an organization of scouting for homosexuals. It is an intolerant organization which is trying to force the Boy Scouts to accept something it doesn't believe in. If Scouting for All really cared about homosexuals, as it says it does, it would start its own scouting organization for them. It doesn't, and it hasn't.

[kitkat]

"Ain't no different than not putting heterosexual 17 -18- year olds or adult males
in charge of teenage girls

Why this argument is not used amazes me"

Good heavens, uncBob, why didn't the rest of us think of that? YOU ARE SO RIGHT!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Make sodomy a crime. It was a crime until about 1970 here in La La Land. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld laws declaring such conduct a crime. (I believe it was the State of Georgia under attack.)Hell, a drive to enact statutes controlling such conduct is a natural for this site. A large number of States having such laws on the books would be a major set back to the "agenda." Based upon centuries of legal experience with this crime the laws could be narrowly drafted.

[mondonico]

"What the three members of the commission have found was applying the human rights act will not infringe upon the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right to free expression. "The commission also found that admitting the two individuals as adult leaders would not significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate its public or private viewpoints. "And finally, the commission found that the District of Columbia, under the Human Rights Act, in balancing all these factors, it has a compelling state interest in eliminating discrimination of public accommodations,"

Now wait just a minute. (1) Isn't there a right to free ASSOCIATION, which means that private individuals, and by extension the Scouts, don't have to associate with homosexuals if they don't want to? (2) Didn't the SCt. decide that the Scouts are a private organization, not a "public accommodation"?

If you don't like the policies of the Boy Scouts, go form your own group--the Rainbow Scouts, or whatever.

[BraveMan]

The commission also found that admitting the two individuals as adult leaders would not significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate its public or private viewpoints.

How can anyone with a logical thought process arrive at this conclusion? Did the BSA not chase James Dale all the way to the Supreme Court? Geller and Pool, although openly homosexual, were not activists, therefore the Council must accept them as Scout Leaders?

Twisted logic. Right is wrong and wrong is right . . .

[lady lawyer]

It wasn't a jury. It was a "Human Rights Commission." A bunch of political appointees, in all likelihood queer activists.

[FryingPan101]

Bravo! You know, my husband, my brothers and nephews were all Boy Scouts. I don't recall them filling out any paper work in response to a query regarding their sexual orientation. Why in the world do the Boy Scouts of America have to be in this continous battle? Let the Homosexual community form their own units. They've already stolen a wonderful word from our vocabulary. Gay. Why don't they take another one and call themselves the Joy Scouts. MHO.

[Elsie]

Although Geller and Pool were openly homosexual, they were not activists, Wu said on National Public Radio.

---

What??

You have to wear a LABEL???

---

If ANYONE is OPENLY anything, then, by DEFINITION, you are an ADVOCATE & ACTIVIST!

You can be FOR something and not DO it......

But you can NOT be doing something and NOT be for it!

(Unless, of course, someone is FORCING you to do it. But, we don't want to FORCE someone to do ANYTHING: do we?!)

[yendu bwam]

Why in the world do the Boy Scouts of America have to be in this continous battle?

Because homosexual activists 1) feel they have a fundamental right to put homosexual men in charge of your teenage boys on overnight camping trips; 2) are extremely intolerant of other peoples' beliefs; and 3) are extremely intolerant of other peoples' concerns about their own children. These homosexual groups are selfish, intolerant, dishonorable and dangerous to your children. You're right. Boy Scouts shouldn't have to fight this battle. But when you're dealing with people like that, it becomes necessary.

[Elsie]

 

It looks like someone took a dump!

 

 

 

"Narrow is the way, and few there be that find it......."

 

At the end of THEIR path, we see the little pine tree, right up against the big one.

   

Steven asks all viewers to read page 46 of the new Boy Scout Handbook following ... morally straight ... it reads ... "You should respect and defend the rights of all people" ... Steven says, "now ask yourself, are the Boy Scouts of America violating their own Scout Oath when they discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people?"

Hey Steve!! 

You don't have a RIGHT to be a Scout!!!

[EdReform]

Bump

[diamond6]

"Naah. There are enough churches doing that already (e.g., ELCA and Episcopal USA). My question is this: If the queers of the country want to be "Boy Scouts" so badly, why don't they just start their own organization? Nothing's stopping them!"

That would be too easy. They just want to infiltrate into every facet of society that promotes Godly values and take them over. They are obsessed with getting acceptance from us. Actually, Dr. Dobson says that they pretty much know that the adults of this generation won't put up with it, so they are trying to get the children i.e. Public schools, Big Brothers, Foster Care, Adoption etc etc. Its just sickening and we are all letting it happen.

[diamond6]

If people want to help, give to ADF or Traditional Values Coalition. They are in the forefront of this battle. Dr. Dobson is associated with ADF and TVC is located in Orange County.

[bert]

Steven should never have passed his Eagle Board of Review. Somebody slipped up.

[uncbob]

What makes it different is that homosexual males are even MORE likely to molest teenage boys than normal males are likely to molest teenage girls. The Catholic Church homosexual abuse scandal (in which a minority of priests [homosexuals] caused 95% or so of the molestations in the scandal [against teenage boys] is a case in point.

I agree with that but one of the reasons girls aren't being molested by priests is because parents would be very leery of having their daughters going onernight with male priests etc
In case of boys they weren't as concerned ( that was then but I am sure things have changed )

[EdReform]

"These homosexual groups are selfish, intolerant, dishonorable and dangerous to your children."

Extremely dangerous to your children. As has been shown with the Boy Scouts, homosexuals are desperate to get access to children.

All parents need to understand that homosexual behavior is sick.

[Tired of Taxes]

The problem is that the BSA is constantly wrapping itself in government. (Isn't the U.S. president considered some sort of honorary head?) I don't know if the BSA receives public funding, but they do recruit in public schools. And, therein lies the controversy. The BSA should unravel itself from the gov't altogether and not try to have it both ways. Once they become completely private, they should be permitted to associate freely without any gov't interference. Then, if they want to deny admission to gays and atheists, that's their business. Otherwise, they're making it everyone else's business.

[Polybius]

the verdict went against a decision by the Supreme Court...

"Supreme Court? We don't need no steenkin' Supreme Court! We Dumbocrats will decide what is and what is not Politically Correct!"

[Polybius]

They are just trying to wear out the scouts, and to force the scouts to spend millions in stupid foolish lawsuits like this.

Is there a way to counter-sue the Commission for damages when they blantaly ignore a U.S. Supreme Coust decision?

[SuziQ]

How can anyone with a logical thought process arrive at this conclusion?

Aha! There;'s your problem, right there! You're assuming that the DC Human Rights Commission actually has logical thought processes!

[yendu bwam]

Wow, I really wish there were. I don't know for sure. But it sure is maddening to see the Boy Scouts have to shell out millions of dollars in legal fees to defend something that was already decided by the Supreme Court. The homosexual groups just won't stop with their stupid attacks. The only thing I can say is that I think they're doing everyone a favor by showing how intolerant they are, and by showing everyone that they are dead-set on getting access to other peoples' teenage boys. It's an idiotic strategy on their part because 1) they're helping to show that you can stand up to the homosexual screamers and 2) they're turning a heck of a lot of Americans against them.

[SuziQ]

At the end of THEIR path, we see the little pine tree, right up against the big one.

There are some who would say that the homosexual men who want to be Scoutmasters would no more likely be pedophiles than heterosexual males, but that argument is beside the point. The boys they would supervise would be young teenagers, and don't forget, the activist homosexuals are agitating everyday to LOWER the age of consent. This means that they could not be prosecuted for having sex with a teenaged boy because that boy would then be 'of age'. Disgusting!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The problem is that the BSA is constantly wrapping itself in government.

What are you talking about?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

>>>Homosexuals may start their own scouting organization any time they want<<
I think they call it NAMBLA. sICK bA$TARDS.

QED

[yendu bwam]

The problem is that the BSA is constantly wrapping itself in government.

The BSA has never wrapped itself in government. Scouts are taught government civics (unlike most school students) and the president is the honorary head of the organization. They take very little money from the government, and mostly ask to use federal lands for things like camporees, etc. etc. The amount of money spent by the government for things like AIDs prevention programs for promiscuous homosexuals far outstrips the little dribs and drabs the scouts get. The fact is, the government helps out all sorts of groups. Give me back the billions of dollars spend on constantly telling homosexuals to not have promisuous anal intercourse in gay bathhouses with anonymous partners, and all the money spent on the AIDs cases as a result of that, and I'll support what you're saying. In the meantime, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow the scouts to use otherwise unused federal lands to teach kids about nature, outdoorsmanship, etc. etc. The right answer is for the federal government to allow such to any homosexual scouting group that forms as well. AGain, homosexual men can start their homosexual scouting group anytime they want.

[yendu bwam]

In case of boys they weren't as concerned ( that was then but I am sure things have changed )

You bet. But the Catholic Church scandal makes it abundantly clear that many homosexual men prey on teenage boys. It would be idiotic and harmful to allow them access to other people's teenage boys in the scouts.

[yendu bwam]

All parents need to understand that homosexual behavior is sick.

The teenage boys I know from my sons' Boy Scout troop are well aware that one of the hallmarks of homosexual behavior is anal intercourse. This is a filthy, germ-ridden, disgusting and dangerous behavior. Putting a man in charge of teenage boys who represents this behavior is indeed sick.

[Protagoras]

The question is one of free association. Homosexuality, etc. are only obscuring the question.

If all groups are left with their right of free association intact, the details would be irrelevant.

[yendu bwam]

We Dumbocrats will decide what is and what is not Politically Correct!"

The Democrats are perfectly happy to hand over your teenage boy to the care, supervision, and living in close quarters with homosexual men. The Democrats care far more about the precious feelings of homosexual men who are turned down for scoutmasterships than they do about children. But of course, this is the same party twenty-five Congressional members of which voted to allow already born and healthy babies to die after birth if the mother had wanted an abortion, and the same party which tacitly supports all sorts of indocrination efforts in schools by the National Education Association. If you care about your children and their future, you will never vote Democrat.

[Protagoras]

Putting a man in charge of teenage boys who represents this behavior is indeed sick.

Using force to tell people who they may include or exclude from their associations is the problem. The solutions to the smaller questions will be decided upon by those in the associations.