Skip to comments.
Washington Times ^
| Nat Hentoff
Posted on 01/13/2003 12:15:43 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
As urged by the bar associations of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, the state of California may become the first state in the nation to force all its 1600 judges to resign from the Boy Scouts. The California Supreme Court is seriously considering issuing this edict.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
posted on 01/13/2003 12:15:43 AM PST
All 1600 judges should be impeached.
posted on 01/13/2003 12:23:29 AM PST
by Jim Robinson
(FReepers are the GReatest!)
This is OK, as I bet most Kalifornia judges wouldn't be allowed in the Boy Scouts anyways...
posted on 01/13/2003 12:23:52 AM PST
(Kill a commie for mommie)
posted on 01/13/2003 1:08:14 AM PST
(Join the DC Chapter at the Patriots Rally III on 1/18/03)
Pssst, hey Nat! They couldn't care less about the 1st Amendment.
posted on 01/13/2003 1:11:22 AM PST
I'm bet that they'll just look the other way when it comes to those judges that are members of NAMBLA though.
posted on 01/13/2003 4:49:07 AM PST
by Alpha One
This does open up the very real question of whether this could be interpreted as requiring California judges to quit any church that views non-celibate homosexuals as sinful and doesn't allow them to be clergy. That would include almost every mainstream religion in the U.S., and not just the Christian denominations either.
posted on 01/13/2003 7:46:11 AM PST
The same people who complain about the Catholic Church and its priest sex scandals....also complain about the Boy Scouts method for preventing the same thing from happening to them.
Having been a youth and an adult member of the Boy Scouts for 15 years (and an Eagle Scout), I know that this is one of the minor rules (and there are a ton of rules that deal with everything under the sun) in place to protect the Scouts and to prevent abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America.
But, as in many colleges and universities, political correctness often triumphs over the fundamental diversity of beliefs that the First Amendment protects
Pinheaded intellectualism, the cradle of the leftist trend for National Socialism and cult indoctrination. Diversity is code for tyranny.
For your consideration, edification (and violent regurgitation!), we present the newest PC BSA Merit Badge, introduced in California recently. Look for them in YOUR neighborhood soon:
The proposed RIMMING, SNORKLING and GERBIL STUFFING badges are still being designed and will be -- er -- OUT soon.
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
The BSA has the right to set membership standards
the SCOC has the obligation to do the same.
The two are not equivalent. The BSA is a private organization. Whereas judges are holders of public office. The BSA can, in fact, set it's own membership qualifications, with little interference from the state. Whereas the membership qualifications for public office are a matter of public law, including the U.S. Constitution. If the qualifications set forth are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, then they are invalid and cannot be enforced.
It seems to me that a large number of judges probably belong to organizations that discriminate very heavily against homosexuals; namely, almost all mainline churches. Would this law, then, prevent a California judge from being Roman Catholic? Or Baptist? Or a member of the Armed Forces?
posted on 01/13/2003 11:24:15 AM PST
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
The point is that the BSA's membership standards are not subject to public and governmental review, whereas any standards the SCOC sets for the state's justices are.
Since the law already exists, and presumably has not been challenged or defeated on a constitutional basis, then removing the exemption for private youth organizations wont be legally problematic.
I'd think you're right about removing the exemption for private youth organizations in and of itself not being legally problematic. What I'm thinking about is the entire regulation. Probably no one has paid much attention to it up to now; judicial membership in anything other than something like the KKK probably has just been ignored. But with the attendant publicity in changing this judicial canon, and the clear intent to actually enforce it, I suspect that there'll be a challenge. There is at least one California judge who is a registered member of the BSA and who has volunteered to be a test case.
posted on 01/13/2003 11:41:48 AM PST
To: kattracks; RonF; madg
Here we are yet again with the intolerant Gaystapo out in full force. The idea here is this: if you are someone who believes it's imprudent to send your teenage son out on overnight camping trips with men who have a disordered sexual attraction to males (which it is), you're a bad and evil person; if you are someone who believes that homosex is immoral and against the will of God (which my Church teaches, and which I and millions others believe), you're a bad and evil person; if you are someone who doesn't want your son taught, explicitly or implicitly, that male/male anal intercourse, or putting a man's sexual organ in your mouth is healthy, or good, or natural, or something to experiment with (none of which they are), you're a bad and very evil person. What the homosex movement doesn't realize is that they're continuing to turn honest and good people against them - people who are perfectly content to let them live their lives as they see fit. The end result of these tactics, of course, will be to cause judges who were in the Boy Scouts to deeply resent the homosexual movement - as well as many people who simply don't want their freedoms taken away from them by dictatorial leftist government. This is just what has happened with a great many parents who have been tagged as bigots for their beliefs by the intolerant homosexual activists. Homosexuals would be a thousand times smarter (which they are incapable of) if they simply let the Boy Scouts be. But as they attack the Boy Scouts relentlessly, they only earn themselves more enemies. Very stupid; very foolish.
The same people who complain about the Catholic Church and its priest sex scandals....also complain about the Boy Scouts method for preventing the same thing from happening to them. Having been a youth and an adult member of the Boy Scouts for 15 years (and an Eagle Scout), I know that this is one of the minor rules (and there are a ton of rules that deal with everything under the sun) in place to protect the Scouts and to prevent abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America.
You're part right, BBS. I'm a Catholic and have been involved with the Boy Scouts through my two sons' involvement for a number of years. I am completely and totally disgusted by what my Church has allowed to occur. My sons are far safer in Boy Scouts than with a Catholic priest. The three measures Boy Scouts takes - prohibiting known homosexual scoutmasters, trying to keep more than one adult with kids at all times, and encouraging boys to watch films about homosexual abuse, would greatly benefit my Church as well (but my Church is so far too cowardly to impose such). But it is not solely the lawsuits that Boy Scouts worries about - it is the kids themselves. Boy Scouts puts kids first (and bravely and patiently takes the massive intolerant abuse from homosexuals); the Catholic Church puts the welfare of kids last.
To: yendu bwam
posted on 01/20/2003 8:40:26 AM PST
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
Ramble on, madg, ramble on...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson