Kahuna

Great info! Thanks for posting. I've already picked up one book and have two more on order.

Jeez, I really get so sick of everybody knowing everything. It just makes me feel so inferior and stupid sometimes. I will say again, there is no Key Three in Sea Scouting. If you have something you want to call a Key Three, fine, but it isn't. I'm not mixing things up when I speak of wardrooms, squadrons and flotillas. No, they are not the same thing, nor are they necessarily as you describe. Council and region practice determines if those things exist and and what they are called. There is no Key Three in Sea Scouting.

What Eamonn says is correct. The District Key Three is just as he said. There is no Key Three as pertains to Sea Scouting. If you have a lot of ships in your council, you can have a wardroom, a flotilla or squadrons, but those have nothing to do with the Key Three, council or district.

Incidentally, I buy council history books for research. If anybody has one they would like to sell, please send me a private email.

Nope, I talked to the 100th anniversary point man, a DE, and he asked me if I wanted to do one. They have really nothing to even start with, so I gave it a pass. It's really a shame. We are one of the larger councils in the country and the website history doesn't even list the names of the Scout Executives.

>>Between my Post office complaints, my travel history, and my FBI file, I'm surprised I wasn't mentioned by name.

Brown socks . . . My best recollection is they were part of the old green Exploring uniform. At least back in the day when that uniform could be worn by older boys who were part of Scout troops. Some of you will know better than I exactly when that uniform went out of the manual.

>>I wonder if that is true. BSA maintained segregated scout camps in the south into the sixties.

>>you seemed to have started with the incorrect premise "same-sex marriage opinions like the Iowa supreme court opinion are not based on equal protection", which is wrong

"cutting remarks" Exactly. And pretty juvenile at that. I find that your premises are wrong, your conclusions do not follow and your insults are gratuitous. Just one final question, Merlyn: Are you a lawyer or a law school graduate?

Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true.

What I said above just applies to the definition of equal protection as it is stated, for example, in Black's Law Dictionary. So I assumed that, to the extent the Iowa Supreme Court differed from that, they were in error. After your highly rational and logical response, I actually went and read the opinion (if you think it was a 30 second read, you obviously haven't even seen it) and sure enough the court writhed and contorted and came up with an equal protection issue to justify their decision. There was a lot rationalization in there as to how the public benefits from stabilizing gay relationships, which may be true but has nothing to do with equal protection. As I see it, they were wrong. I still maintain what I said earlier: There is no equal protection issue as to gay marriage. Once again, I have no objection to gay marriage, but I don't think it's a constitutionally guaranteed right, even in Iowa. I still haven't read the Iowa Constitution, but the court referenced the pertinent sections in the opinion and I didn't see anything it that would differ from the U.S. Constitution as to equal protection.

>>Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true.

So, if I want to marry my sister it's an Equal Protection issue, because I can't marry the person I love? BTW, Merlyn I said I didn't know anything about the Iowa Constitution, so if read the opinion it wouldn't make much difference.

While it's true that interracial marriage and other racial civil rights issues were forced in most cases by courts, there is an essential difference. In the case of race, there is an Equal Protection issue based upon witholding rights from a class of people based upon their race. In the gay marriage cases, there is no Equal Protection issue. Gay people have the same rights as anyone else. NO person can marry a person of the same sex. Other marriages are forbidden as well. NO person can marry an animal, a sibling or more than one other person. I don't much care either way whether gays can marry, but legally it isn't the same issue.

>>They should interpret the laws. Period

>>BSA will also need to change to reflect the changing values of society

Never.

That's a great video. Thanks for posting the link.

>>While the wearing of military medals can be done (I believe the old social custom was "morning dress" and up)

In the U.S., the wearing of military medals on civilian clothes is specifically authorized by law (providing the wearer is entitled to them). ScoutNut is correct, and while the wearing of BSA medals is governed by the insignia guide there is no penalty for violating it. I would be governed by my heart and majority vote of the three of you. The BSA uniform police may disagree, but they can't arrest you or take your badges away.

Everybody has to be somewhere.

>>Kahuna - I thought Title Four was the Flag Code, encompassing all Sections therein>And isn't the Venturing salute already the full hand salute - no finger-bending necessary?

>>The Flag Code is not binding on civilians

I just discovered that Section Nine of Title Four, USC was changed in the past year to allow both veterans and active duty members of all services to render the hand salute to the U.S. Flag and during the playing of the national anthem while in civilian clothes. The veteran need not be wearing a VFW or other organization cap. Just thought that was interesting.