California bars judges from Boy Scouts membership

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • TriciaCT Trumbull, CT
    Feb. 5, 2015 4:55 p.m.

    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.

  • OneHumanFamily Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2015 2:44 p.m.

    @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?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 27, 2015 2:26 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    first 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.

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Jan. 27, 2015 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 27, 2015 9:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 27, 2015 8:45 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Jan. 27, 2015 8:43 a.m.

    @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. :-)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 27, 2015 8:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Jan. 27, 2015 8:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 26, 2015 2:20 p.m.

    @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.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 26, 2015 8:34 a.m.

    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 headline.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 26, 2015 8:07 a.m.

    @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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 26, 2015 7:43 a.m.

    @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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 26, 2015 4:17 a.m.

    @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 that capaicity.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 11:54 p.m.

    @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 it?

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 11:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 8:54 p.m.

    @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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 4:49 p.m.

    @rivertoncoug
    WHo 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.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    Jim crow laws? please show me the logical that you think ties Jim Crow Laws and this rule for judges

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 25, 2015 3:41 p.m.

    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.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 3:31 p.m.

    This reminds me of the Book 1984 and how thought
    police 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.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 25, 2015 12:46 p.m.

    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."

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 25, 2015 12:00 p.m.

    The Gay Right's agenda is the new Jim Crow and California is Missisippi in the 1890's.

  • Nuschler121 Atlanta, GA
    Jan. 25, 2015 10:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 25, 2015 10:35 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 25, 2015 10:15 a.m.

    @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 on-the-ground experience.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Jan. 25, 2015 10:10 a.m.

    @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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 25, 2015 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 7:49 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar 2:35 p.m. Jan. 24, 2015

    The 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.

  • LeDoc SLC, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:20 p.m.

    @hermounts

    you 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!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:20 p.m.

    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"

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:01 p.m.

    DisasterStuff,

    Great comment! That's been on my mind a lot lately. Thanks for the reminder! :)

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:20 p.m.

    re. Contrarius & skrekk
    Gay 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.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:14 p.m.

    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?

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:03 p.m.

    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.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:01 p.m.

    "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?

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    Jan. 24, 2015 5:48 p.m.

    We have a judge here in my LDS ward in CA. Would he have to resign id he were called to be the Scoutmaster?

  • DisasterStuff Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 5:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 4:37 p.m.

    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.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Jan. 24, 2015 4:28 p.m.

    *** 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.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 24, 2015 4:23 p.m.

    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?

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 24, 2015 4:19 p.m.

    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.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 3:58 p.m.

    the sooner these "justices" aren't on the supreme court, the better...

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Jan. 24, 2015 3:32 p.m.

    This will be held unconstitutional, what a crock

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 3:09 p.m.

    "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.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 2:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 2:35 p.m.

    @Furry

    So 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.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 2:19 p.m.

    Judges shouldn't belong to pretty much any groups to encourage impartiality and justice for everyone.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Jan. 24, 2015 2:16 p.m.

    *** 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."

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 2:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:50 p.m.

    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.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:42 p.m.

    Bullies.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Richie Saint George, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:10 p.m.

    California became an oligarchy of judges sometime during the latter part of the last century.

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:07 p.m.

    They can't do that. It will be overturned by the Supremes IF it is challenged. We call it Freedom of Association.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 24, 2015 12:40 p.m.

    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?

  • Westy Sheboygan, WI Sheboygan, WI
    Jan. 24, 2015 12:38 p.m.

    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 California.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 12:11 p.m.

    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.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 24, 2015 12:10 p.m.

    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. -__-

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Jan. 24, 2015 12:10 p.m.

    *** 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.

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • G-Day-M8 Where is Waldo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:42 a.m.

    A slippery slop indeed

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:34 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:08 a.m.

    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.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    Jan. 24, 2015 10:57 a.m.

    @ Blue, Salt Lake City, UT

    My 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.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 24, 2015 10:20 a.m.

    A good day for the BSA! The elimanation of tyranical judges, from a tyranical state.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Jan. 24, 2015 10:14 a.m.

    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 prejudice.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:33 a.m.

    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 Americans

    This is why citizens should fight anti-discimination laws. They will be unidirectionally.

  • Mr. Investigator South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:30 a.m.

    So, should vegetarians be allowed on the bench that, when the majority are carnivorous?

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:21 a.m.

    You have the right to free speech if you are gay. If you are hetero sexual not so much......

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:13 a.m.

    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 screaming then....

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:08 a.m.

    A Supreme Court, state or federal, can easily get things wrong! The California Supreme Court seems to be a hold over from Nazi Germany.

  • PaulSpringville SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 9:04 a.m.

    How does common sense disallow a judge from being part of a moral group?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:47 a.m.

    California Supreme Court discriminates against judges with morals.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:41 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar 11:40 p.m. Jan. 23, 2015

    I 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.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:25 a.m.

    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 and jobs?

  • mr. brightside Layton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:17 a.m.

    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.

  • drich Green River, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:13 a.m.

    The California supreme court just violated the judges first amendment right of the the constitution
    Of the United states.

  • Samuel Adams Layton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 8:01 a.m.

    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?

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:43 a.m.

    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

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:40 a.m.

    Just keep watching California, it will give us a good preview of how the whole nation will collapse.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 24, 2015 7:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Mr. Investigator South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 6:31 a.m.

    Sounds like basic common sense to me.

  • Brent Garner Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 24, 2015 5:37 a.m.

    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 tyranny!

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Jan. 24, 2015 1:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2015 11:40 p.m.

    I guess people with morals just aren't wanted in California. How dare people stand up for their religious beliefs?