SteveIN
Apr 9 2002, 01:43 PM
Last night I returned to my alma mater to listen to a short talk presented by James Dale, the New Jersey Eagle Scout who took the Boy Scouts to court about his beingn removed from leadership because he's gay. It was interesting that he thought the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the BSA's favor actually hurt the organization more than helped--evidently there's less money being sent to the Scouts because they had to essentially frame themselves as an anti-gay group to win the case. (I'm paraphrasing shamelessly, however).
Dale's talk was anecdotal and at times a bit derivative, but it was still inspiring. The amazing thing to me is that he had just recently come out at Rutgers when he was suddenly thrust into the national spotlight because of his case against the BSA. To handle that much national scrutiny, to handle being called a sodomite by a New Jersey judge, to be at the center of a topic that still gets talked about took a lot of guts. I know I couldn't have handled it. He also nicely tied in the idea of the Boy Scouts not knowingly allowing gay people in their institution and similar policies for the military and the whole marriage debate.
I've never been involved with the Boy Scouts in any form. Are there any scouts or scoutmasters on the board (or former scouts/scoutmasters as the case may be)? Is there a generational split in members' thoughts about the BSA policy--older members pro-policy, younger members anti?
Anyway, I'm pretty proud of 'shOUT, the organization for gay students at Wabash: it's brought in James Dale, Joe Steffan, and Tom Ammiano since it was started in 1991-92 and will look to bring in more.
SteveIN
"Long shall we sing thy praises, Old Wabash!"
MSUBobcat
Apr 9 2002, 03:01 PM
You know, I just realized, in all my years of life, through high school, college and now after college, I have met more gay Eagle Scouts than straight ones. Hummmmmm. And this is in Montana too. Go figure.
MikeOC
Apr 9 2002, 03:19 PM
Count me in as another gay Eagle Scout. And I have also met my fair share of guys that are just the same.
racerboy
Apr 9 2002, 03:44 PM
My BF was an eagle scout, and he was really bothered by what happened with Dale and the scouts. He was very disappointed and doesn't have anything to do with them anymore. We also know quite a few other gay eagle scouts.
jqueer
Apr 9 2002, 04:01 PM
I only know one gay eagle scout, and I tend to head the other direction whenever I see him coming. But most of the eagle scouts I know are thugs, so I suppose it's a good thing none of them are gay as well.
DCBucky
Apr 10 2002, 01:21 PM
Count one more gay Eagle Scout here. I too was hurt by the whole BSA anti-gay campaign -- starting with their claim that "morally straight" in the scouting oath means "straight" -- what b.s.! But I think they won just a pyrrhic victory. The BSA was wrong to think that gays can't fit into their association -- there have been gays, there will be gays (kinda like the gays in the military issue). Don't get wrong -- I understand (and even partially agree with) the SCOTUS ruling -- essentially that private groups can define who their members are -- the BSA is just too nearsighted.
I was torn when some pro-gay scouting groups asked us to turn our awards back in to the BSA. No way -- I earned it, I'm gay, I'm an Eagle!
[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]
DCBucky
Apr 10 2002, 01:47 PM
To bring a sports element into this is Justice Stevens in his dissent on the case:
"... BSA has generously welcomed over 87 million young Americans into its ranks. In 1992 over one million adults were active BSA members. The notion that an organization of that size and enormous prestige implicitly endorses the views that each of those adults may express in a non-Scouting context is simply mind boggling. Indeed, in this case there is no evidence that the young Scouts in Dale’s troop, or members of their families, were even aware of his sexual orientation, either before or after his public statements at Rutgers University. It is equally farfetched to assert that Dale’s open declaration of his homosexuality, reported in a local newspaper, will effectively force BSA to send a message to anyone simply because it allows Dale to be an Assistant Scoutmaster.
For an Olympic gold medal winner or a Wimbledon tennis champion, being "openly gay" perhaps communicates a message--for example, that openness about one’s sexual orientation is more virtuous than concealment; that a homosexual person can be a capable and virtuous person who should be judged like anyone else; and that homosexuality is not immoral--but it certainly does not follow that they necessarily send a message on behalf of the organizations that sponsor the activities in which they excel. The fact that such persons participate in these organizations is not usually construed to convey a message on behalf of those organizations any more than does the inclusion of women, African-Americans, religious minorities, or any other discrete group. Surely the organizations are not forced by anti-discrimination laws to take any position on the legitimacy of any individual’s private beliefs or private conduct.
.... That such prejudices are still prevalent and that they have caused serious and tangible harm to countless members of the class New Jersey seeks to protect are established matters of fact that Boy Scouts nor the court disputes. That harm can only be aggravated by the creation of a constitutional shield for a policy that is itself the product of a habitual way of thinking about strangers. As Justice Brandeis so wisely advised, "we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles."
twin58
Apr 10 2002, 05:52 PM
[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
I understand (and even partially agree with) the SCOTUS ruling -- essentially that private groups can define who their members are -- the BSA is just too nearsighted.
The argument is not whether a private organization can determine who gets to be a member. The problem is that the BSA is nowhere near as private as it claims to be.
Last year, as it does every four years, the BSA held its Jamboree at Camp A. P. Hill in Virginia. As usual, it got a sweetheart deal on the fees, sticking me with the bill again.
BSA's situation is like that of the Virginia Military Institute, which gladly took tax dollars from women and then told them that could not attend.
Ump25
Apr 10 2002, 09:30 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Wurm
Apr 10 2002, 09:55 PM
Hmmm .... aren't they SUPPOSED to use their personal feelings to reach their interpetations of the questions before them
William Brennan - appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
John Paul Stevens - appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford
and you left out the best one - Harry Blackmun - appointed by Tricky Dick himself (and Blackmun was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Ike)....
Too bad more recent Repub prexys have given us such mental midgets as the porn-video-addicted Clarence "Coke-Can" Thomas and confused-on-dogma Opus Dei klaxon Antonin "screw the Pope I know what's right on the death penalty" Scalia ......
Oh well .....
Edited for Justice (name repeated, that is)
[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]
copman
Apr 10 2002, 10:01 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:
William Brennan - appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
John Paul Stevens - appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford
and you left out the best one - Harry Blackmun - appointed by Tricky Dick himself (and Blackmun was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Ike)....
So WURM _ Are you a Democrat or WHAT>? Sounds like you hate ALL Republicans.
Wurm
Apr 10 2002, 10:33 PM
Well, I *DID* really like Nancy Reagan's Astrologer
jqueer
Apr 10 2002, 11:07 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
[QB]It is well-known that this over-the-hill, ultraliberal old fart always injects his personal feelings into his arguments. Reminds me of Brennan and some of the other kooks on the Court. QB]
And to me, Scalia is a right wing zealot who's so holier than though that he won't even let his religion get in the way of forcing his moral principles down the throat of the nation.
Kennedy and Thomas are lackeys without an original thought between them.
Justices are only impartial and wise as long as they agree with you, otherwise they're just biased bigots wasting space on the bench
copman
Apr 11 2002, 03:25 AM
[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
Justices are only impartial and wise as long as they agree with you, otherwise they're just biased bigots wasting space on the bench
That's why we have left and right leaning justices on there, for check's & balances -Ain't it grand- Its America.
MSUBobcat
Apr 11 2002, 08:21 AM
Hey guy's? What happened to the Hot Boy Scout that this thread was originally about? I haven't seen mention of him in awhile.
William1865
Apr 11 2002, 09:51 AM
Why doesn't someone just start an alternative to the Boy Scouts that explicitly welcomes any and all followers, regardless of anything? Set it up like diversity training or a sensitivity workshop. If the demand is really there, it should be successful. If not, tough.
twin58
Apr 11 2002, 10:14 AM
Why don't the Boy Scouts stop picking my pocket and telling me what a favor they're doing me?
William1865
Apr 11 2002, 10:48 AM
[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
Why don't the Boy Scouts stop picking my pocket and telling me what a favor they're doing me?
I love it how leftists have no problem with funding any number of nutcase artists or left-wing political advocacy (see below), but let a Boy Scout walk down the sidewalk and suddenly its some sort of abuse of the public trust. Twin should get a merit badge for melodrama. Police! Police! I was just mugged by a Boy Scout! At any rate, the notion that anyone is losing a specific amount of money because the Boy Scouts merely exist is absurd.
Anti-Taxpayer Groups Funded by Taxpayers
DCBucky
Apr 11 2002, 12:55 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
the sooner this aged piece of crap dies, the better.
Well until we have more Justices who write opinions like this: "that openness about one’s sexual orientation is more virtuous than concealment;
that a homosexual person can be a capable and virtuous person who should be judged like anyone else;
and that homosexuality is not immoral" ...
I say ¡Viva Justice Stevens!
copman
Apr 11 2002, 01:01 PM
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Why doesn't someone just start an alternative to the Boy Scouts that explicitly welcomes any and all followers, regardless of anything?
The Rainbow Scouts? Like a lot of 12 yr old boys are gonna want to join that group!
DCBucky
Apr 11 2002, 01:18 PM
Wurm
Apr 11 2002, 01:47 PM
How simple can it be? A organization like the BS (how appropriate) that requires its members to hold specific religious beliefs, while having every right to set its rules, should NOT expect to receive public funding, and should not be surprised when people object to the special access rights that they are granted in many shools and other jurisdictions. End of story.
You might ask Mitt Romney, former BS and Scouting leader, why he turned down militant right wing presure to allow BS'ers to participate in the Olympics in uniform - not even the LDS'ers asked for that!!!!!
Also, I didn't know that the quetion of public funding of the arts was a left vs. right issue. I, a consumer of some aspects of the "fine arts", do NOT support public funding or subsidies - pay as you go, baby! I'd rather see some of that money spent resoring meaningful music education in the primary grades.
twin58
Apr 11 2002, 01:56 PM
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Why doesn't someone just start an alternative to the Boy Scouts that explicitly welcomes any and all followers, regardless of anything?
Those plucky Canadians have beat you.
http://www.scouts.ca/Not a group, but a website.
http://www.scoutingforall.org/Be sure to read
http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2002021201.shtml>>
BSA Adopts First-Ever Resolution Condemning Gays and Atheists
Scouting for All Responds
Petaluma CA-The Boy Scouts of America have adopted a resolution dated February 6, 2002, in which gays and atheists are deemed unfit and unacceptable role models for scout youth. Although the Boy Scouts have had an unwritten policy concerning gays, this is the first time in their 92-year history that it has become an actual resolution.
<<
[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]
twin58
Apr 11 2002, 02:26 PM
[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
http://www.equal.org/chapters/jdale.jpg
Warning, gay Lucent employees! Do not open your 401(k) quarterly statements!
[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]
Ump25
Apr 11 2002, 09:18 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump25
Apr 11 2002, 09:22 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Wurm
Apr 11 2002, 10:28 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
No, they're NOT supposed to use their "feelings."
My bad - I didn't word my thought well. I meant "use their human feelings, along with their learned scholarship, to interpert the CONSTITUTIONAL aspects of their decisions. I regard myself as a strict constructionist and abhor judicial activism as much as you do (BTW we learned about the separation of powers in 5th grade)
At the same time not every decision that goes against your or my point of view can be explained away as "runaway activism". I'm a lot more troubled by the increasingly overt political basis of many recent decisions, and the fact that a block of justices seem to have their minds made up before the arguments are even heard.
I did most of my reading about the court in the 70's and 80's as the Warren court transitioned into the Burger court, and the feeling I always had was that there was a sense that the justice chosen to write the lead opinion had a real chance (with the aid of their clerks and staff) to change their colleagues' original stances, to bring them arounf to seeing the constitutional basis of their opinion. This seems to be lost on the Rehnquist court, where the hardened bloc on the extreme fascist right and the somewhat less firm loony liberal bloc has made it a battle for the shifting core in the middle.....
[quote]The fact that Brennan, Stevens, and Blackmun were appointed by Republican presidents is irrelevant. First of all, Ford was a liberal Republican anyway. Secondly, Nixon--when asked what his greatest mistake was during his presidency--replied that it wasn't Watergate; rather, it was his appointment of Blackmun.
Of course, it was just a bit of trivia that surprises many people. Byron White, a Kennedy apointee, ended up pretty conservative (and pretty much a follower not a leader during his term). Of course Gerald Fjord, a 34-year House member and Rep minority leader, is liberal if you peg him against Hitler, Atilla the Hun and Jesse "Has He Died Yet?" Helms.....
And I'd correct Tricky - his two biggest mistakes were 2) Not taking Checkers to the dog pound in 1952 and 1) Not burning the tapes
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
I don't fault Scalia, either, for his opinion on the death penalty and judges' personal feelings; and I'm shocked that as a leftwinger, you would have a judge use his/her church's teachings to dictate what his/her decision would be
Scalia must have some real dilemmas rolling around in his head. As a high-level member of Opus Dei, Regnum Christi and P2, he has intimate contacts with Wotyla's gang down in the Vatican. So when edicts come down like Evangelium Vitae, Scalia "takes the fifth" by holding that because it wasn't said ex cathedria, it therefore is not dogma. Fine, but what about the moral and spiritual implications??? And Scalia repeatedly cites an incident in the "Romans 13" section of a certain historical book as endorsement of the d.p., comletely ignoring the incident in the "John 8" section of the same historical book where J.C. himself stopped an execution (a "legal" one under the laws at the time of the story).....
BTW I'm no "doctorine" lefty, but remember that "political graph" test someone put up a few months ago - I scored more to the right on responsibility issues, more to the left on individual freedoms - does this make me a Libertarian?
[quote]Federal judges .... [are] there to decide if something is contrary to what the Constitution says, and if this great document is silent, then it should be the States--via the 9th and 10th Amendments--that have the final say.
Excellent point - I'd only add that beyond the States, it is the PEOPLE who retain the ultimate power.
Edited to fix quote formatting
[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]
MSUBobcat
Apr 12 2002, 07:46 AM
The people have the power to elect the lesser of the evils when they are voting for their local, state, and national REPRESENTITIVES. After that all power is lost. Hang on and enjoy the ride.
We don't live in a Democracy, where every vote counts. We live in a Republic, where we hope to God that the people we put into office will make decisions the way we would, but the fact of the matter is that we really have no control over the way they vote.
DCBucky
Apr 12 2002, 07:59 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
If you want this written into Law, then elect people who pass such laws specifically. Until then, stop getting unelected, lifetime appointees to do your job unconstitutionally.
These are things that aren't gonna be written into law: "that openness about one’s sexual orientation is more virtuous than concealment;
that a homosexual person can be a capable and virtuous person who should be judged like anyone else;
and that homosexuality is not immoral"
I just prefer judges / lawmakers / human beings in general who hold these views in their hearts to those who don't. Whether it then affects how they rule on a given case, so be it.
Second, I'm not sure -- I'll pull out my copy of the Constitution in a second -- so I apologize in advance if I'm wrong -- but I can't remember from my 8th grade civics class which Article said that justices had to use strict interpretation, not use their personal feelings or not "legislate" from the bench -- so I'm not certain what "lifetime appointees to do your job unconstitutionally" really means.
btw -- it's a shame this board wasn't around during the "Bowers v. Hardwick" decision -- that would have made for some interesting discussion here .
[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]
twin58
Apr 12 2002, 11:56 AM
[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
btw -- it's a shame this board wasn't around during the "Bowers v. Hardwick" decision -- that would have made for some interesting discussion here.
I can think of two listers here who would have been arguing that it was great, brilliant, magnificent....
Joe in Philly
Apr 12 2002, 08:59 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
No shit, Justice Stevens.
It is well-known that this over-the-hill, ultraliberal old fart always injects his personal feelings into his arguments. Reminds me of Brennan and some of the other kooks on the Court.
Considering that he won't retire, the sooner this aged piece of crap dies, the better.
What a tolerant thought. I'm so glad that conservatives are such paragons of evenhanded discussion. Not like those hatemongering liberals.
[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]
Ump25
Apr 12 2002, 10:39 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump25
Apr 12 2002, 10:41 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump25
Apr 12 2002, 10:45 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Joe in Philly
Apr 14 2002, 08:04 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
You are SO right, Joe.
Does anyone hear a whooshing noise, like something flying over someone's head?
Ump25
Apr 14 2002, 11:37 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Joe in Philly
Apr 15 2002, 09:48 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Nope. Does anyone know the meaning of the word "sarcasm?"
I know someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."
Ump25
Apr 15 2002, 10:40 PM
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
jqueer
Apr 15 2002, 11:16 PM
Just posting so at least one out of ten posts in a row will be from someone who doesn't care.
And yes I realize it's only been eight posts, but somehow, "so at least one out of nine posts" just doesn't have the right ring to it.
twin58
Apr 16 2002, 06:52 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Hehe. I love it when I'm right.
Be sure to let us know if it ever happens. Meanwhile, bone up on the correct use of the subjunctive.
[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]