The Bigot Scouts
6/8/12 13:45![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBoy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays
"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.
Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.
As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy."
---
I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.
Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld
"Every four years, the Boy Scouts of America holds a National Scout jamboree ... The US Government spends an average of $2 million a year towards hosting of the jamboree.
"Winkler v. Rumsfeld was a case regarding the United States Armed Forces and their support of the Boy Scouts of America's National Scout jamborees."
Based on all this, Winkler and other plaintiffs (with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union), sued. Their argument was that the Department of Defense's use of taxpayer money for funding jamborees of what they called "a private religious organization", is a violation of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.
The DOD's spending for those jamborees was ruled a violation of the Constitution. Then the decision was reversed after an appeal (the argument being that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place). So the jamboree was allowed to continue.
Then the location for the future national jamborees was moved to W.Virginia, on private land. This was supposed to settle the issue once and for all. BUT...
"However, future involvement of the military in supporting Jamborees at The Summit is likely due to the recruiting and training opportunity it affords them."
In addition, W.Virginia, both the state government and various local government agencies, are providing both direct and indirect support for said "summit", in the form of tax breaks and other bonuses, plus the DOD is providing personnel and equipment to build the trails around the summit location - and all that, for the benefit of the non-gay Boy Scouts...
The most stunning thing here is that this policy is now practically being legitimized by the involvement of DOD, hence the federal government. Now, I may not agree with the views of the Boy Scots, but I can also see where the argument about them being a private company, might be coming from; although not necessarily being particularly happy about it. But don't the Scouts receive government grants in the meantime? Why is that? Does the federal government support a discriminatory policy against homosexuals - or not?
The other weird thing is that in its 2000 ruling, the SCOTUS used the 1st Amendment to exclude gays from being a scout master... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment?
And one last question. The disgrace that this organization has brought upon itself with this policy notwithstanding, why would the Boy Scouts even make homosexuality an issue at all? Was it anywhere near being one of the core principles on which that organization was founded? They're beginning to look more and more like the Bigot Scouts of America at this point.
Thoughts? Rants? Opinions? Macros?
"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.
Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.
As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy."
---
I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.
Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld
"Every four years, the Boy Scouts of America holds a National Scout jamboree ... The US Government spends an average of $2 million a year towards hosting of the jamboree.
"Winkler v. Rumsfeld was a case regarding the United States Armed Forces and their support of the Boy Scouts of America's National Scout jamborees."
Based on all this, Winkler and other plaintiffs (with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union), sued. Their argument was that the Department of Defense's use of taxpayer money for funding jamborees of what they called "a private religious organization", is a violation of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.
The DOD's spending for those jamborees was ruled a violation of the Constitution. Then the decision was reversed after an appeal (the argument being that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place). So the jamboree was allowed to continue.
Then the location for the future national jamborees was moved to W.Virginia, on private land. This was supposed to settle the issue once and for all. BUT...
"However, future involvement of the military in supporting Jamborees at The Summit is likely due to the recruiting and training opportunity it affords them."
In addition, W.Virginia, both the state government and various local government agencies, are providing both direct and indirect support for said "summit", in the form of tax breaks and other bonuses, plus the DOD is providing personnel and equipment to build the trails around the summit location - and all that, for the benefit of the non-gay Boy Scouts...
The most stunning thing here is that this policy is now practically being legitimized by the involvement of DOD, hence the federal government. Now, I may not agree with the views of the Boy Scots, but I can also see where the argument about them being a private company, might be coming from; although not necessarily being particularly happy about it. But don't the Scouts receive government grants in the meantime? Why is that? Does the federal government support a discriminatory policy against homosexuals - or not?
The other weird thing is that in its 2000 ruling, the SCOTUS used the 1st Amendment to exclude gays from being a scout master... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment?
And one last question. The disgrace that this organization has brought upon itself with this policy notwithstanding, why would the Boy Scouts even make homosexuality an issue at all? Was it anywhere near being one of the core principles on which that organization was founded? They're beginning to look more and more like the Bigot Scouts of America at this point.
Thoughts? Rants? Opinions? Macros?
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 19:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 20:20 (UTC)Oh, I agree.
>The line between the two issues was muddy to me. You can tie the two together but they are not the same issue.
In this case, the OP isn't artificially tying the two together. they are tied together by events.
Lets explore:
Concept 1) Government support of non-profits.
Concept 2) Discriminatory membership or hiring practices.
Now, you can be for, or against Concept 1. That's a matter of opinion and preference and political ideology. However, Concept 1 connects very directly to Concept 2, in that there are specific laws on the books that say when you DO #2, you're not allowed to GET #1.
That's the OP's point. Why is there still government preferential treatment of the boy scouts, when such treatment violates current statutes?
(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 04:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 05:26 (UTC)Municipalities are allowed to grant non-profit preferential treatment to overtly religious organizations, so long as the use they are putting the public resource is no itself overtly religious. Soup Kitchen? Fine. Soup Kitchen with a sermon? Not so much.
It's the same mode of treatment as for discriminatory membership, and for the same reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 05:34 (UTC)As for discrimination it may be the same mode of treatment but it is not for the same reason. Discrimination and establishment of religion are two different things, are dealt with differently, and effect people in different ways. This is where it is muddy for me. And honestly I don't think you have tied to two together. Nor has the OP.
(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 09:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 09:38 (UTC)