Merlyn_LeRoy

>>Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

AZMike writes: Eisenhower stated "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." Like it or not, we are a country that was formed by religious people and based on religious ideas. It's a good addition to the Pledge, I think. Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

SeattlePioneer writes: The problem is that you will NEVER make some atheists happy until you exclude religion completely from the Scout program. Even if true, how does that justify excluding all atheists? Hey, some black steal; certainly that's justification to exclude all blacks, right?

Here: Lately: http://lezgetreal.com/2012/06/george-takei-to-join-glaad-in-pride-march-condeming-boy-scouts/

So no SMs who have been divorced? Why are gays, who for the most part and most of history couldn't get married, suddenly to blame for straights getting divorced? And why is the solution to exclude gays/outlaw same sex marriage instead of the bleeding obvious -- exclude divorcees/outlaw divorce?

You don't even need a newer-than-new testament, moosetracker; Paul said that celibacy was preferable to marriage.

reenioPeltteaS writes: Those who don't favor government power in controlling and defining marriage should oppose gay marriage, because right now government doesn't control that. Yes, in SeattlePioneer's Bizarro world, people who DON'T like government control should oppose gay marriage (while presumably being OK with government control of straight marriage). So SeattlePioneer, I assume you want straight marriage laws removed? While liberals like to talk expansively about a RIGHT to marry, bring up polygamy and they will usually offer up excuses to continue to prohibit that. I have no problem with legal polygamy; of course, it would require consent of all current members of a marriage.

SeattlePioneer writes: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court got too big for it's britches a long time ago. Well, you can protest outside the US supreme court sometime; if you want to discuss US legal issues, you either have to take into account supreme court rulings, or you can babble like an idiot.

If there was a right to marry, the supreme court would issue a ruling saying it's a right. And they have. Deal with the real world sometime.

>>what kind of logic is that? Millions of Americans don't follow your god; why would they care what you say your god says?

The Loving decision didn't decide that there was a generalized right for human being to marry whomever they wished. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" Sorry, you're wrong. That decision simply decided that states couldn't ban marriage based on race. Because marriage is a right. There is no generalized right to marry. Now you're just making up legal-sounding meaningless phrases. You may as well claim that free speech isn't a "generalized" right because you can't get up and recite the phone book in the House while congress is in session. But that doesn't change the fact that free speech IS a right under US law, and marriage IS a right under US law.

> Repeating it doesn't make it so. Correct, which is why your repeating that it isn't a right doesn't make it so. What makes it a right are supreme court rulings stating that marriage is a right. Which I've cited. You've got zip. Every state law decides which very narrow group of human relationships are eligible for legal marriage. Loving v. Virginia struck down all state laws that used race to outlaw some marriages. Because it's a right. How many human relationships have you had in your life? All of them. How many of those persons could you have married? Were marriage really a right, you would be able to marry anyone and everyone. If marriage is NOT a right, why has the supreme court ruled that Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"? Of course, that's not the case. Of course, it IS the case that marriage is a civil right under US law. Because that's what the US legal system says. You got nothin'.

What kind of logic is that? Homosexuality has been deemed immoral for over 4000 years because God says so through scripture. What kind of logic is that? Millions of Americans don't follow your god; why would they care what you say your god says?

> More politics written into law by the Supreme Court. Well, since all rights are the result of politics, so? In fact, only a tiny percentage of human relationships are eligible to be recognized as legal marriage. Irrelevant. In fact, only a few people over seven feet tall marry. So what? It's an exclusive club Wrong. Under US law, it's a RIGHT. You can't just redefine a right and continue to make sense. You simply aren't dealing with reality any more. to which homosexuals which to join. In my opinion, that's a reasonable political issue and if legislatures and voters wish to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals, they are entitled to do so. Only for privileges. Marriage, under US law, is not a privilege, it's a right. Your argument is invalid.

SeattlePioneer writes: Homosexuals are free to lobby government to be added to the short list of human relationships recognized by legal marriage, but there is no "right" to marriage: it's a legal privilege dispensed to only a few of the enormous variety of human relationships. Marriage IS a right under US law, as stated by the supreme court in Loving v. Virginia: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Nothing to worry about SeattlePioneer, we all know how public opinion never changes: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/20/us/politics/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011-blog480.png

By "limited to insults", I mean that I can only use the insults that BSA national uses against gays and atheists. That's certainly "scoutlike," I trust.

fred8033 writes: Merlyn_LeRoy - Shame on you. You should observe the scout law in this forum Ah, so I'm limited to insults by saying gays are "unclean" and "immoral", and atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens? That kind of scout law?

Beavah writes: Like any ideal, the reality is more complex and subject to human frailties. Hasn't been an issue in any BSA cases. No different from hopin' that people who claim to be rational atheists can formulate an argument without callin' people names or other childishness. Like phony hick accents.

Beavah writes: Quite right, Merlyn. It's poor strategy if your goal is societal acceptance of gays or atheists or whatnot. No, fighting for equal rights is about the best way to gain respect. The BSA's reputation has been going downhill since Dale, but atheism (and acceptance of atheism) is growing. If instead your goal is ideological purity in government institutions, then it is a perfectly reasonable strategy. The Constitutional question has never been argued, so all either of us can do is speculate, eh? No, you can "speculate" all you like, but reasonable people know that public schools can't practice religious discrimination. Yeh should not expect that da court system act like a tin pot dictator and shove your desired policy down others' throats. That's not what courts are for. And that's not what they do, you ignorant hick. Courts strike down laws that violate the constitution, they don't make up laws, they apply laws that are legal and throw out laws that aren't legal.

Beavah writes: Merlyn, in gettin' charters moved from public schools to churches, guaranteed that the BSA would maintain its current policy. That's what we call "poor strategy." No Beavah, I've explained to you a number of times and you still can't understand. Religious discrimination against atheists by public schools is absolutely unacceptable, and I helped stop it, no thanks to the dishonest BSA. You still operate under the delusion that it would be legal.

John-in-KC writes: So, Merlyn, there's the person you have to influence: The President and the legislative body of BSA's single largest chartered partner. No, I helped get rid of the BSA's single largest chartered partner years ago, because they couldn't legally charter BSA units. I just like pointing out irony, like how some of the Jamboree subcamps were named after atheists, and now, how the honorary BSA president is in favor of gay marriage.

BS-87 writes: When laws get passed requiring all public use pools, including hotels, have a permanent chair lift installed for handicap accessibility, this is touted as a great victory for equality. What it does is prevents people who enjoy something from enjoying that thing because it's not something all people can enjoy. Wow, that's about the most twisted, backwards reasoning I've ever seen. Presumably SOME people can't use public pools without chairlifts, but they don't count in your world; but since the chairlifts are for handicapped people, you call foul because you can't use the lifts. I can't begin to describe the size of the crocodile tears I'm shedding for you, poor, poor dear.

Beavah writes: If as Merlyn says da gay community only cares about the rights and not the word, then they get can come up with their own brand and word, eh? And their own thousands of new laws paralleling all the current laws that mention "marriage" that have been written over the last 250 years or so, plus all the common-law rulings going back further. Or Just get the government to recognize same-sex marriage. You can call it anything you like, Beavah, if words bother you so much. But legally, it's the only not insane way to do it.

Judging from the comments, public sympathy is against the bishops: http://news.yahoo.com/girl-scouts-under-scrutiny-catholic-bishops-181843252.html