This is an appalling decision, and a blatantly hypocritical one in view of the
recent history of CA's Supreme Court. This is NOT
Constitutional, or "Equal Justice under the Law." Rather, it is the
heavy hand of Secularists and those *hostile* to traditional moral values and
STANDARDS, putting an extra *burden* or weight upon the supposed 'scales of
Justice,' in favor of the "Secularists." I say
"hypocritical" because they allowed (or picked?) a gay federal judge,
Vaughn Walker, to rule against the Will of the People, the VOTERS, in a decision
overruling California's Proposition 8. "The People of CA had voted,
more than once, that "Marriage is a Union of One Man and One Woman."Only AFTER Judge Walker retired did he disclose "that he is
gay"!Picture those "Scales of Justice," in which (the
female figure of) "Justice" is *blind-folded,* to symbolize no
favoritism, but only 'blind' consideration of the LAW. In this case,
as in having a gay judge overrule the Voters of CA, it is the PEOPLE who have
been *Blind-sided*!Here the rights of CA judges to
"Affiliate" or "Associate" are LIMITED--but only for the
religious ones, not for the Secularist.
@PLM"I am not sending my sons off for the weekend with gay men,
thank you BSA for protecting the interests and well-being of the young men you
serve. "Being gay does not mean your are attracted to children
anymore than being straight. One of my best friends was sexually abused by his
straight brother, so maybe we should ban straight men from being scout leaders
as well. The key to protecting your sons is to ensure that you get
to know the scout leaders and make sure there is more than one adult on a trip
at all times. If a pedophile is a scout leader, do you really think they are
going to come out as gay which could potentially expose them to more scrutiny?
@Tekakaromatagifirst of all you have cause and effect a little backwards,
people of religion are not "being forced out of the public square" their
ability to discriminate against other is, similar to when jim crow laws were
overturned and whites were no longer able to discriminate against african
americans. Secondly as has been pointed out to you before the fire chief crossed
the line when he used his official title as the fire chief to promote his book
and used then went to his work and distributed his book to workers whose
employment could be threatened if they refused to take the book.
Oops, my bad. We weren't supposed to mention that goal yet. That is for
after we have met some other benchmarks first.Well, I guess the cat
is out of the bag now. We might as well move forward while we have the momentum.
It would be interesting to see how Kalifornia will screw things up when a
sitting judge, who is called by the LDS Church to be a Scoutmaster as part of
his calling in his church gets sanctioned because he's doing something with
the Scouts. He's fulfilling a religious calling. Sounds like a slippery
slope to me that denies Freedom Of Association and Freedom of Religion.
@Tolstoy:I said "The Gay Right's agenda is the new Jim Crow
and California is Missisippi in the 1890's."You asked for
the logic.The rights of a class of people are being suppressed.They are losing their businesses. (Blacks in the South who owned
businesses were driven out of business by threats. Christian business owners
have also been victims of vandalism, death threats, slanderous reviews and even
legal attacks from government officials).Forced out of public office
(see the above article).Being fired. (Atlanta fire chief and the
Firefox CEO are two prominent examples.) (Of course this isn't Jim Crow,
maybe it has more of an element of 1950's red scare McCarthyism)Stereotypes (think of all the justifications of the firing of the Atlanta fire
chief and the stereotypes of what he might have done to his gay employees solely
based on his religious views).Disenfranchised because of
stereotypes. (The judge who overturned Prop 8 assumed that because religious
people had objections to weakening of the institution of marriage that therefore
they were motivated by animus.)The New Jim Crow.
@Liberal Today --"Now that we have successfully eliminated the
exemption for the Boy Scouts, eliminating the exemption for those belonging to
churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will be next. That is the
plan."I guess you haven't had a chance to read through this
thread -- or through the US Constitution, for that matter.As has
been mentioned previously (sorry, I forget who posted it!), the US Constitution
specifically forbids such a policy.Article VI, paragraph 3:"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."So you can rest easy -- no religious eliminations for you to fear. Your
religion can be just as discriminatory as it likes. :-)
It would appear that the majority of people commenting on this article would be
just thrilled to come up before a judge who openly discriminates against
them.@JSB;You're equating gay men with pedophiles.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject; the vast majority of
pedophiles identify as heterosexual and join groups like the BSA simply for the
fact that they have access to their prey; children. The gender of the child
isn't as important to them, they simply go where the children are more
readily available. Your assertion also shows a bias on your part that one would
hope would not be common among judges.
Now that we have successfully eliminated the exemption for the Boy Scouts,
eliminating the exemption for those belonging to churches that refuse to perform
same-sex marriages will be next. That is the plan.
@PLM --"I am not sending my sons off for the weekend with gay
men, thank you BSA for protecting the interests and well-being of the young men
you serve. "Your sons have much more to worry about from married
and divorced men than they do from openly gay men. Remember, most men convicted
of assaulting boy scouts (all that I know about -- I'm allowing for some
exceptions here) have been married or divorced. And again --
straight women have been boy scout leaders for years, and both straight men and
lesbian women have been girl scout leaders for years. The sky has not fallen.
I am not sending my sons off for the weekend with gay men, thank you BSA for
protecting the interests and well-being of the young men you serve. The
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, also stayed the executions of
all death row inmates years ago. So California citizens are paying for the
upkeep of fine upstanding men like Charles Manson. When the
California Supreme Court does something that makes sense THAT would be a
@Constitutionalist --"do you think it is discriminatory for the
Girl Scouts to ban heterosexual men from being leaders..."Straight men and lesbian women have been girl scout leaders for years. And
straight women have been boy scout leaders for years. "Is it
good to give people who are sexually attracted to a certain group of teenagers
the trust of being alone with them overnight?"NO leader of ANY
gender or orientation should EVER been taking kids ANYWHERE alone overnight.
Two-deep leadership, remember? "Did this answer it?"Your post revealed your ignorance of actual scout policies -- but nope,
it did not answer my question.I'll ask again: where is this
supposed reasoning for banning gay boy scout leaders??"What
California here has done is twist the various laws in such a way as to treat the
Boy Scouts as a discriminatory group. "The boy scouts IS a
discriminatory group. But that is not what the CA judges have done. They have
only removed ALL youth groups from the list of discriminatory groups the judges
are still allowed to belong to. California is merely catching up with many other
states who have previously done the same.
@Constitutionalist: "Let me ask, do you think it is discriminatory for the
Girl Scouts to ban heterosexual men from being leaders, and taking the girls on
overnight campouts?"Actually, GSA does not ban hetero men from
being leaders. They have the same two-deep policy as the BSA, but they welcome
straight and lesbian women and straight and gay men as leaders. And
pedophiles are sexually fixated on children. Gay men have relationships with
men. Those are two different things. Assuming all gay men are out-of-control
predators is as wrong as assuming all straight men are out-of-control predators.
Scouting is focused on one narrow definition of "being a
man," and those who don't fit are harmed, not helped by their paradigm.
Having gay leaders would help boys who are gay to see positive role models, and
would help the straight kids get over their prejudices. I was a scout for a
while, but dropped it because I did not fit into their narrow definitions and
didn't see any leaders at all who were like me.
@JSB 7:20 p.m. Jan. 24, 2015 There have been a lot of gay men scout
leaders convicted to molesting boys. If I knew that my son's scout leader
was gay, my son would not be a member of that troop.
----------------- I disagree. We have (and have had) a lot of
friends who are gay/lesbian. Our sons, when they were children, teenagers and
adults, have had close contact with those friends and they (and everyone else)
were never in any danger from our friends. The only danger our sons have faced
came from an adviser to our sons' Scout troop who, although
"straight' on an adult level (and who married a woman), had a
pedophelic interest in boys (and used the Scouts as his hunting ground).
Thankfully he was caught, is now adjudged a sexually violent predator, and is
incarcerated. I would have far rather had one our gay friends
advising our sons' Scout troop than the adviser who was in fact serving in
@skrekk:You asked, "What exactly are those
'reasons'?"Let me ask, do you think it is
discriminatory for the Girl Scouts to ban heterosexual men from being leaders,
and taking the girls on overnight campouts?It seems that there is
the same degree of discrimination in a policy to keep men who are sexually
attracted to boys from escorting teenage boys on overnight activities.Is it good to give people who are sexually attracted to a certain group of
teenagers the trust of being alone with them overnight?Apparently
the California Supreme Court thinks that men who are sexually attracted to boys
should have access to them in a campout situation.Again, you asked
for some reasons why gay men -- men who are sexually attracted to boys and other
men -- should be barred from spending nights with teenage boys. Did this answer
The rules will be applied selectively as they always are. If a female judge is
a member of the Women's Judges association or a women only gym, - that will
be ok. If a judge belongs to a group the promotes boycotting the BSA or
businesses which are religious, that will be OK. But if you lean to the right,
that will not be tolerated. I have seen liberal after liberal in the legal
field condemn people for expressing a view that is critical of one religion or
other group, only to see the same person say something just as bad about
Christians or other right wing. Discrimination is ok, as long as it is the
right group you are discriminating against.According to the
Constitution we have free speech and freedom of association. If the government
can ban you from holding a job because of what organization you join, then you
do not have freedom of association.As soon as you let the government
decide what is an acceptable group or what is acceptable speech - you no longer
live in a free society.Anti-discrimination laws are simply a tool to
be applied against your enemies.
@Baccus0902:You stated, "Judges in California are being asked
what other judges in 47 states have to do.". Very inaccurate.Granted, most states have laws against discriminating. What California here
has done is twist the various laws in such a way as to treat the Boy Scouts as a
discriminatory group. There is no discrimination in the BSA, so the underlying
premise is wrong. This ruling is totally absurd.
@rivertoncougWHo do we know the judge was not biased? there is no way to
prove what may have been in his mind but the lack of proof of a bias would
suggest the answer to your question is no unless of course you have some proof
that this judge was biased and I am sorry but I would want some actual proof not
empty claims. BTW still waiting for proof that any pastor being
sued. @TekakaromatagiJim crow laws? please show me the
logical that you think ties Jim Crow Laws and this rule for judges
I don't know where someone gets their figures on marriage but LDS Marriages
in the temple have a divorce rate lower than any other category. In fact, the
success rate is 80% or higher if married in the temple. Marriages outside of the
temple with LDS individuals however do have about the same divorce rate as
non-LDS marriages.Another thing to note is that the divorce rate is
also high because of marriages of individuals two or more marriages meaning that
first time marriages are roughly 35-40% while those married more than once the
divorce rate is significantly higher at 60-80%. The average divorce rate is 50%
across the board. Judges should be able to be a member of the boy scouts, KKK
or whatever. It is not the right of a supreme court of any state to determine
what qualifies a judge.
This reminds me of the Book 1984 and how thoughtpolice govern. California
has gotten so liberal that I dont believe even one statewide office is
held by a Republican let alone a conservative.Free speech and association
as outlined in the constitution don't apply.
It seems many people have a difficult time reading. This article states this was
a rule change that actually 22 other states already follow, yet somehow this is
California going crazy."22 states, including California, include
a bar on groups that show bias on the basis of sexual orientation. California
was the only one of those states that made exceptions for youth groups"Also, the rule was made by judges for judges with the support of the
professional organization made up of said judges."The proposed
rule change was sent out for public comment last year, and the change was
supported by the California Judges Association, the court said."
The Gay Right's agenda is the new Jim Crow and California is Missisippi in
"The argument it's already being made by the left on normalizing incest
which is the beginning of the slippery slope that started with normalizing gay
marriage..."You do understand what incest means? Right? It is
marriage of consanguineous people--same blood such as fathers-daughters,
brother-sister..close blood relations. Rush Limbaugh brought up ONE case of a
father who wanted to marry his daughter..in NJ. Rush blamed it on same-sex
marriage being allowed. One has NOTHING to do with the other.Here
is the law: "No government will license or recognize incestuous marriages,
and there is no significant political movement advocating their legalization.
Although New Jersey does not prosecute adults in consensual incestuous
relationships, it does not license or recognize their marriages.Incest doesn't belong in this discussion. Although if you take the bible
as absolute truth...there had to be incest somewhere with only one set of
parents--Adam and Eve.
@JSB: Boy Scouts are to be morally clean which means they don't participate
in extra marital sex (homo or hetero).In 37 states same-sex marriage
is legal. So a married gay man should be as welcome as a married hetero man.
Celibate singles - gay or straight - should also be welcome. The
problem is that straight men - married or single - are presumed to be
acceptable, regardless of their lifestyle and actual activities, and gay men are
judged to be unacceptable- married or single - regardless of how they actually
live. The problem is a hypocritical double standard that has stopped
working for most people.
@JSB --"Gay men should not be scout leaders for the same reason
that heterosexual men should not be girl scout leaders."Straight
men (and lesbian women) have been girl scout leaders for years. And straight
women have been boy scout leaders for years."There have been a
lot of gay men scout leaders convicted to molesting boys."Every
man convicted of molesting Boy Scouts that I know about has been married or
divorced.Nicholas Groth wrote entire textbooks about sexual
predators. His studies are classics in the field.As Groth
specifically states:-- "in over 12 years of clinical experience
working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression
from an adult homosexual orientation"; -- "Homosexual males
pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an
absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males...". -- In one study of 175 men who had been convicted of sexual assaults
against (male) children, he found that NONE of the offenders showed any
preference for adult homosexual relationships. Your supposed
reasoning for excluding gay male leaders fails the test of both science and
@Riverton Cougar --"pastors are getting sued for refusing to
perform same-sex marriages."Please name a single pastor who has
been sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages."do you
consider the judge who decided Proposition 8 is unconstitutional to be
unbiased?"It isn't possible for any human being to be
completely unbiased. A female judge will have some bias when she rules on
women's issues; a Catholic judge will have some bias when he rules on
religious issues; a Hispanic judge will have some bias when he rules on
immigration issues -- and so on. All justices have certain inherent biases that
they can't avoid.However, those inherent human biases
don't prevent justices from ruling Constitutionally. As shown by the 50+
federal cases that have agreed with his decision, the California judge ruled
within the Constitution. He is no more biased than Justice Ginsberg would be
when ruling about a women's issue, or than Justice Alito would be when
ruling about a religious issue, of than Sotomayor would be when ruling about an
immigration issue.It's impossible to remove *all* biases -- but
the judicial system works hard to eliminate as many as it can.
Virtually all of the cases of molestation in the BSA case files that were
released were by straight, married men who were child molesters - not by gay
men. "Gay" is not the same as "pedophile," no matter how many
times agenda driven hate groups try to conflate the two. "Morality" has the the same problem. Some of the least moral people I
have known were pious-talking church attenders who justified their actions with
tortured logic. And some of the most moral and ethical I've know we're
agnostic or non-christian. Conflating morality with church membership gives a
pass on what people actually do - how they live, how they treat others. For those trying to play the Nazi card here - read history. The Nazi
leaders identified minority groups and convinced the "right thinking"
majority that the "immoral" targets were destroying German culture and
should be second class and then eliminated. Their targets included millions who
were not Jews, including hundreds of thousands of Gays and Lesbians. Their
rhetoric and positions are echoed by the radical right Anti-gay groups today.
@Riverton Cougar 2:35 p.m. Jan. 24, 2015The SA specifically
discriminates against gay men for no reason other than that they are
"out' as gay (if they weren't "out", there would be no
difference in "danger to the boys" but issue). That is prejudicial
discrimination. I said nothing about the LDS (my) Church. They are
perfectly free to set the requirements for administration of their ordinances
and I have no problem with that. That is their business, and nobody
else's. I support the right of churches to make that determination. As I
said in my prior comment -- membership in a Church, regardless its policies, is
not a bar to being a judge in California, and that is right."Is
it possible that the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 was biased
towards gay marriage? " No. I've read the transcript and the
judgment. The judgment was well-based on law and fact (the anti-SSM side
didn't prove its case). That's judicial correctness, not bias.
@hermountsyou ask the question "We have a judge here in my LDS
ward in CA. Would he have to resign id he were called to be the
Scoutmaster?"Think about this for just a moment. Scoutmasters
are called by whom? Do you not think that person would be aware that said person
is a judge and be aware of the ruling? Do you think it would be the thing to do
to give up your job for a church calling?as it stands, roughly 1/2
of the LDS marriages end just like their non LDS counterparts. Marriage
isn't supposed to be a test drive. I'd be more concerned with why
people get married (sealed) only to divorce than I would worrying about what
someone else is doing. As for the ruling I say Bravo!
Hello LDS please remember, "The glory of God is intelligence".Why so many of you are RE-acting to the article instead of reading it and
thinking about its content before going into a diatribe of victimization,
suffering, martyrdom, and a whole of others things that even though they are not
very dignified you think it will take you to heaven.Judges in
California are being asked what other judges in 47 states have to do. Be above
any possibility of conflict of interests. Imagine that, an "Impartial
Judicary System"..... by all means: " The end is near"
DisasterStuff,Great comment! That's been on my mind a lot
lately. Thanks for the reminder! :)
re. Contrarius & skrekkGay men should not be scout leaders for the
same reason that heterosexual men should not be girl scout leaders. There have
been a lot of gay men scout leaders convicted to molesting boys. If I knew that
my son's scout leader was gay, my son would not be a member of that troop.
This isn't being bigoted. This is just good sense.
Religion may be protected for now, but even now it's not fully safe as
pastors are getting sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages.Also, my question (also asked by others, such as spoc) remains unanswered: do
you consider the judge who decided Proposition 8 is unconstitutional to be
unbiased? If he wasn't biased, how do you know? If he was biased, why are
people backing the decision from a biased judge?
California bars judges from Boy Scouts membership Again you got it
all wrong. The California prohibition is not about banning membership in the
Boys Scouts. It's about banning membership in organizations that
discriminate against other Americans. If you dislike this rule them maybe we
better bring back the KKK. Besides this a ruling that covers it's members
only, not the general public. It's sort of like the religious freedom
liberties that far right is advocating.
"We just want to marry, we aren't threatening your freedoms at
all"A few years later:"...Unless you're a
judge, government employee, business owner, person contracted by the government,
pastor or bishop, student from a school that receives any public help (aka, most
all schools)."Give it a few years. How long will the list get?
We have a judge here in my LDS ward in CA. Would he have to resign id he were
called to be the Scoutmaster?
We have front row seats to the events spoken of in the Book of Mormon and Bible.
Good is called evil and evil good. But don't lose hope. All of these things
must come to pass. As they unfold, remember faith, hope, and charity. Keep faith
in Christ. Have hope in the future plans that he has for us. Extend charity to
all, even your enemies, until the King of Kings returns.
Midwest Mom,By your logic, any judge who self identifies with either side
in a case should not only recuse himself from the case but should be barred from
public service. Just where exactly does that put the judge who, as an admittedly
biased participant in the LGB community, struck down prop 8? Should all women be
barred from judgeship just in case they might have to hear a case involving a
woman? Come to think of it, if gays are the only judges who can give an unbiased
opinion, perhaps being gay should be a qualifier to be a judge! In essence, that
is exactly what they have said.
*** JSB says: "Boy Scouts are to be morally clean which means they
don't participate in extra marital sex (homo or hetero). Homosexual scout
leaders are not permitted for obvious reasons."***What
exactly are those "reasons"? Even the BSA itself in its member voting
guide last year found that the ban had no rational reason, but there wasn't
sufficient support yet to repeal it.
It seems that most of the posters in this thread haven't even bothered to
read the article. Cmon, people -- **47 states** already have similar bans.
California is only catching up to what other states have ALREADY been doing --
they aren't doing anything new.@Riverton Cougar --"Well, one irony is you claiming to be part of the law profession and you
are very obviously biased and prejudiced"Furry never claimed to
be a judge. Lawyers can be just as biased as they want. ;-)"Shouldn't the CA Supreme Court simply not allow anybody who is a
member of a religion with similar values to be a judge, then?"As
others have already pointed out, religion has more Constitutional protections
than just about anything else. Constitutionally, we are not allowed to factor in
religion.@JSB --"Homosexual scout leaders are not
permitted for obvious reasons. "What obvious reasons would those
be?Please note that the Girl Scouts have allowed both straight male
and lesbian female scout leaders for years. Oddly enough, the sky has not
fallen.So please tell us -- exactly what are these "obvious"
reasons you speak of?
I love how the left agrees with this and the right does not. Again this is an
assault on the morals of this country. If you think this is right then you are
being ignorant of the right of association as stated by the Constitution of the
United States. This is unconstitutional and would never hold up if taken to the
Supreme Court of the Untied States. Again the least moral state in the United
States leads the way to utter destruction of the Constitution. I hope you love
have a king or Emperor as your head of state.
the sooner these "justices" aren't on the supreme court, the
This will be held unconstitutional, what a crock
"The only remaining exception to the general rule is membership in a
religious organization,"And it's only a matter of time
before this exception is gone as well.
The California judges are not saying there's anything wrong with belonging
to the Boy Scouts. They're saying that judges, who need to decide cases
impartially, may not belong to ANY organization that discriminates against other
citizens. To do so would create an appearance of bias, just as belonging to a
White Supremist group would create the appearance of bias.In many
respects, judges have less freedom of association than other citizens, for
exactly this reason. Imagine, for example, how an LDS plaintiff would feel if
he or she knew that the judge belonged to a group that discriminated against
Mormons. To avoid such problems, judges are restricted from engaging in all
sorts of political and community activities.
@FurrySo you say that this is all about being unbiased and
unprejudiced? Well, one irony is you claiming to be part of the law profession
and you are very obviously biased and prejudiced against BSA and the LDS church
(calling them discriminatory). Is it possible that the federal judge who struck
down Proposition 8 was biased towards gay marriage? Don't bias, prejudice,
and discrimination go both ways? Or is it only bias if it is contrary to your
beliefs?Secondly, according to Contrariuser government officials
should not participate in (or appear to affiliate with) such discriminatory
groups like the BSA. Shouldn't the CA Supreme Court simply not allow
anybody who is a member of a religion with similar values to be a judge, then?
After all, in your mind the church is not upholding nondiscrimination laws by
not marrying gay couples.
Judges shouldn't belong to pretty much any groups to encourage impartiality
and justice for everyone.
*** Californian#1@94131 says: "According to this ruling, membership in a
religious organization is now the only exception. How long before that also
disappears, trampled by the juggernaut of political correctness?"***Perhaps you should read Article VI of the constitution which
states "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States."
I'm a little surprised by the absence of any legal analysis in either the
article or the comments thereto. In certain religious organizations serving in
the Boy Scout organization is a religious position. Prohibiting any individual,
be they a judge or any other public employee, from occupying a position in their
religion is clearly a restriction on the exercise of their religion rights.
This might well be impermissible under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Given the recent SCOTUS rulings on cases related to the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA)such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor Church v.
EEOC this decision would seem ripe for a challenge.
Do you know what the problem gays have with the boy scouts? Their oath, which
states that a Scout must be "morally straight" among other things. Gays
loathe that language. After all, teaching boys to be morally
straight is wrong according to the left. And we can't have a judge
associated with a group pledging to be morally straight! Question:
can a California judge belong to NAMBLA or to GLAAD? Probably.
In Germany in the 1930's, "religious" people watched rather
blithely as Hitler nationalized all the churches so he could claim support from
religions as he carefully orchestrated the slaughter of the Jews. Now, we have
judges, supported by immoral and intolerant citizens, that are going down the
same path. Now, your religious beliefs can be held against you for public or any
other position where intolerant, bigoted citizens are in charge. The BSA is a
private organization that believes, as it should, that sexual relations outside
of marriage are wrong. Marriage is only between a man and a women, regardless
of what liberal, immoral, progressives want to believe. Those who promote
immorality, bigotry, and racism are now pushing their intolerant views upon the
citizens and gaining power in our judicial system. We are truly living in a day
when evil is called good and good is called evil.
I was born in California before smog and it was a beautiful place to grow up.
My Boy Scout troop met in the Pasadena City Hall and the scoutmaster was a
fireman. Judges, policeman and school teachers were held in the highest esteem.
Now the whole place is a cesspool of politics. Give it back to Mexico, if they
will take it.
California became an oligarchy of judges sometime during the latter part of the
They can't do that. It will be overturned by the Supremes IF it is
challenged. We call it Freedom of Association.
Boy Scouts are to be morally clean which means they don't participate in
extra marital sex (homo or hetero). Homosexual scout leaders are not permitted
for obvious reasons. How does this make an organization anti-gay?
More silliness from the land of fruits and nuts. Three US Supreme Court
Justices are former Boy Scouts. I you want to see society falling apart, watch
Well, it looks like it is getting closer to the time that the LDS Church is
going to quit the Boy Scouts. I believe they are getting ready, although I have
no real information on what is happening. If there is a church run program, we
won't have to worry about the ridiculous rules that are passed by judicial
or legislative demand.
The left's irrational war against scouting continues…I wish I could
say "only in California", but unfortunately most of the country has gone
mad now. -__-
*** drich says "The California supreme court just violated the judges first
amendment right of the the constitution Of the United states."***Wrong. Judges are free to be members of discriminatory religious groups
like the Southern Baptists or Mormons, even religions which are profoundly
racist, homophobic and misogynistic.But while I understand the
constitutional reasons for those religious protections, I'd argue that such
religious associations are rather problematic - no defendant or plaintiff should
ever have to appear before a judge who chooses to belongs to a group which
explicitly discriminates against them. And the track record is clear in this
area as the erroneous rulings from Mormon judges like Randy Smith and Robert
Jones in the 9th circuit reveal in the marriage equality cases. In fact
that's why equal civil rights have come very slowly to the bible belt,
because so many judges are involved in discriminatory organizations and share
those benighted views.
This is not about morality, or about any specific moral position. It
is about freedom of association and freedom of speech.The Boy Scouts
are not the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party, but these "judges" have
lumped them in with what we all know to be purveyors of hate. It is
also about whether public officials are even allowed to have any moral
principles or beliefs at all that differ from what has been dictated to us by
special interest groups and turned into public policy by spineless politicians
owned by those special interest groups.According to this ruling,
membership in a religious organization is now the only exception. How long
before that also disappears, trampled by the juggernaut of political
correctness? California judges who are faithful members of Mormon, Catholic,
Evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish, or other faith groups that defend
marriage can now consider themselves an endangered species.
A slippery slop indeed
@ mr. brightside 8:17 a.m. * "People from religions with close
associations to the Boy Scout program will have to choose between being fully
engaged in their religious communities and being a state judge. My guess is that
it will discourage a few from being state judges altogether." *This is what the radical activists want. They don't want judges with
judicial wisdom who will use their education and common sense to render just
rulings. They want rubber stamps to enact a specific agenda.
Blue is correct, and I have the same background. What he describes matches my
experience. Religion was a small part and before the LDS church carried the
charge I was LDS in a catholic scout group, no conflict. Now religion is front
and center with some scouting on the side.47 states, this isn't
news.Some of the comments miss the point entirely, as usual, and
associate morality with a membership card, instead of ones actions.
Blue, Yes the LDS church influences the BSA. Without the church I wonder
what the membership of the BSA would be. But you also need to look outside of
Utah where the LDS church is in the minority.
@ Blue, Salt Lake City, UTMy story exactly. I participated in and
was supportive of the Scouts right up until the moment I realized it had been
hijacked by the LDS church.
A good day for the BSA! The elimanation of tyranical judges, from a tyranical
While individuals can enjoy free association, I think that what the Supreme
Court was trying to say was that the Boy Scouts is an organization that has been
in the courts connected to lawsuits regarding the ability of gay people to be
included as leaders. If a judge is known to be a supporting member of the Boy
Scouts, then anyone who is gay would feel that they could not get a fair trial
in front of such a judge. Religions mostly allow a gay mindset, as long as the
individual doesn't act on the impulsion; whereas the Boy Scouts, as a
policy, do not allow a gay person to be a leader, regardless of personal
practice. You may not like it, but I think that what the California
Supreme Court is saying is that they are trying to avoid the appearance of
What a ridiculous ruling by the California Supreme Court. Just another sign of
the erosion of our constitution, the right to associate with whom we please, and
the right to have moral beliefs. I believe this sort of thing only stifles the
good will of people who want to be tolerant toward the deviant life style of the
gay community. In the long run such unreasonable stances only divides the gay
and the straight communities.
There is nothing unusual or even exciting about this. Judges are held it a
really high standard for impartiality, as they should be.They can
rejoin when they step down.
Unfortunately there is a rather large segment of the U.S. population that does
not really believe in free speech or freedom of association. If you do not
follow their political ideology or do not agree with their view on any of a
number of topics, you do not have the right to free speech. I recently had a
conversation with a lawyer who was criticizing Charlie Hebdo for printing
cartoons making fun of Mohammed. The lawyer, however, defended the Book of
Mormon musical. They believe in their own right to free speech, bot not those
who oppose them.Unfortunately, the vast majority of the country has
been asleep. They have been warned repeatedly over the years - but those
issuing the warnings were dismissed as being paranoid, etc.The Book
of Mormon warns what happens when we have wicked judges. Many of our judges
have no problem compelling people to participate in conduct which even 10 years
ago was considered to be immoral by the vast majority of AmericansThis is why citizens should fight anti-discimination laws. They will be
So, should vegetarians be allowed on the bench that, when the majority are
You have the right to free speech if you are gay. If you are hetero sexual not
I wonder how many Supreme Court Judges past and present were actually Boy
Scouts? Most people in high ranking positions of moral authority got there
because of organizations like the Boy Scouts who taught them a good work ethic,
service and a sense of right and wrong. Laughable.
Where would we be with Prop 8 and SSM if California had banned judges from
serving who were Pro-Homosexual??hmmmmm....boy, there would have
You guys seem to be forgetting the difference between private citizens and
official representatives of the government. Yes, of course private citizens have
freedom of association and so on. But **representatives of the government** must
be prepared to uphold the laws of the land, INCLUDING nondiscrimination laws.
And the judiciary is held to an even higher standard -- they must not only avoid
actual impropriety, but even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.Note that
this ban is nearly 20 years old (the only change is that it has now been widened
to include nonprofits), and that **47 states** have similar bans. Despite the
provocative reporting of the DN, this is nothing new or exciting or exceptional.
A Supreme Court, state or federal, can easily get things wrong! The California
Supreme Court seems to be a hold over from Nazi Germany.
How does common sense disallow a judge from being part of a moral group?
I have in my life been a Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Pack Leader, Merit Badge
Counselor and a Scout Leader, and have had my sons in scouting. But in the last
15-20 years I've seen the BSA shift towards a fundamentalist and
authoritarian organization now wholly in the thrall of the LDS Church and those
changes have been bad for scouting. Scouting activities increasingly involve a
political and religious tone that have no business in a non-religious youth
organization.Complain about this fact all you want, but the simple
truth is that today the BSA irrationally and immorally discriminates against
American citizens, and no judge, for whom impartiality and respect for the
constitution is critical to their performance, should be a member of that
organization. I don't regret my past association with
scounting, but I do regret what scouting today has become.
California Supreme Court discriminates against judges with morals.
@Riverton Cougar 11:40 p.m. Jan. 23, 2015I guess people with morals
just aren't wanted in California. How dare people stand up for their
religious beliefs?----------------This has nothing to do
with "morals" (unless, of course, you are saying that prejudicial
discrimination is somehow moral) and nothing to do with religion (being a member
of a church that practices prejudicial discrimination is not a disqualifier for
being a judge in California). This has everything to do with having a judiciary
that is perceived to be unbiased and unprejudiced.Quoting from the
article -- "Of 47 states that ban judges from joining discriminatory groups,
22 states, including California, include a bar on groups that show bias on the
basis of sexual orientation. California was the only one of those states that
made exceptions for youth groups." The only thing that has changed is the
fact that this one particular exception has been removed. As a member of the
legal profession, I see nothing wrong with that.
Question. How can the judiciary create such a policy that would seem to violate
the Supreme Court's rulings on the First Amendment that protect freedom of
association?If two government positions like judge and (formerly)
military member can lose their jobs based on affiliation with the BSA, what is
keeping the government from applying the same policy to all government positions
While it may or may not be the intention of this policy, a direct result will be
that some people from religions with close associations to the Boy Scout program
will have to choose between being fully engaged in their religious communities
and being a state judge. My guess is that it will discourage a few from being
state judges altogether.The religious exemption mentioned in the
article only exists because banning judges from being members of certain faiths
doesn't have the necessary political support. But going after the Boy
Scouts should make it pretty clear. If they could prevent a Mormon, or
Evangelical, or Catholic from serving as a state judge because of the
"discriminatory" practices, they would.
The California supreme court just violated the judges first amendment right of
the the constitutionOf the United states.
Those CA judges should not be Boy Scouts any more than Hamas members should be
Navy Seals or abortion doctors should be nuns. Their guiding principles are
different. Story is not surprising in the least…disappointing, to be sure,
but hardly surprising.
Forty-seven states ban judges from joining discriminatory groups.Twenty-two states, including California, include a ban on groups that show
bias on the basis of sexual orientation. First of all kudos to California
for showing they have ethics and are willing to follow them. Forty-seven states
overall and twenty-two states based on sexual orientation are significant
numbers. I was disappointed that Utah position in either regard was not
mentioned. How about an update D-News with that information?
The progressive government will continue to apply pressure to get what it wants
until the BSA caves which they eventually will.The argument it's
already being made by the left on normalizing incest which is the beginning of
the slippery slope that started with normalizing gay marriage
Just keep watching California, it will give us a good preview of how the whole
nation will collapse.
What a bunch. Of hypocrisy. It is perfectly fine for judges that believe in
gross immorality to be on the bench, But those that serve in groups that
believe in chastity and good morals they can,t. Be on the bench. Those are the
type of people we need on the bench.
Sounds like basic common sense to me.
Let me get this straight. Didn't the US Supreme Court rule that the Boy
Scouts could indeed ban homosexuals and cited the BSA's right of freedom of
assembly under the Constitution for granting this? If so, how do these judicial
bans even stand up in a court of law or has our so called judicial system
finally admitted to its tyrannical leftist bent? If so, what is next? Ban
judges from being Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, etc? All those organizations
clearly identify homosexual conduct as unacceptable? If the BSA is considered
discriminatory, why not those groups as well? Where does this end? It ends in
Saying that this is pathetic is beyond the classic British understatement. The
United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), that
the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech
because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they
join with others. Unfortunately, I doubt that any of the members of our
"tolerant" progressive community will stand up for the right of judges
to freely associate with whomever they choose.
I guess people with morals just aren't wanted in California. How dare
people stand up for their religious beliefs?