SaintCad

Ed, you said: Fred makes an excellent point. No court has ever ruled that a public school chartering a BSA unit was unconstitutional. The BSA is allowed to decided who can be a member. So can the football team and the band and the swimming team and the basketball team! But the BSA is being attacked for discriminating! If you can't play football or and instrument or swim or play basketball you can't be on those teams! And they are, like a BSA unit charted by a public school, owned by the school. How come no one is suing them for discrimination? What do you not understand about "pr

"The trouble with this decision-and the reason why an appeal was filed this month with the U.S. Supreme Court-is that it gives short shrift to core values of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Sea Scouts' choice to affiliate with the Boy Scouts of America is an exercise of speech and association rights. Berkeley's duty not to punish or discriminate against the Sea Scouts for utilizing their constitutional rights is imposed by the Equal Protection Clause." I love how a supposed journalist can get this sooooooo wrong. The First Amendment freedom of association is not being violated

"And, yeah, it is interesting that those who think the BSA should allow homosexuals can "get in your face" but they don't want you to "get in their face" about homosexuality! Sounds like a case of "can dish it out but can't take it"." I never said everyone was. The generalization is yours. I write in one language & you read in another. You also never said some did you? The way you wrote the sentence includes everyone in the existential category. Just as my saying, Those from Pennsylvania . . . without a qualifier is understood to include EVERYONE from Pennsylvania. Admittedly

"If my son's troop had a scoutmaster who was not married, but living with his girlfriend, then I would privately ask him to consider whether his lifestyle was morally straight." Exactly my point. I'm a Den Leader but I am also divorced. Some would consider that to be immoral and therefore consider me a poor role-model. BUT, I am and your hypothetical SM can still be scouters - why the difference with homosexuals?

"And, yeah, it is interesting that those who think the BSA should allow homosexuals can "get in your face" but they don't want you to "get in their face" about homosexuality! Sounds like a case of "can dish it out but can't take it"." Wow! Another hasty generalization from Ed. Not everyone is hypocritical about opening up discussion about homosexuality. What is hypocritical is that you don't want BSA promoting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to YOUR son but it's OK for BSA to demonize homosexuality to MY son. I know what you'll say: 1st Amendment/private organization, etc. b

"'I think you will find that deep down, even the least homophobic parent sees gay leaders as a risk that they are not willing to tolerate.'" "Whether the risk is perceived or real, I agree." So I'm wrong when I state that as a parent of a Cubbie, I do NOT see gay leaders as a risk?! Interesting that you two are willing to make statements about what ALL of the rest of us think.

"At what point does the state have a right to intercede on behalf of its citizens even when its over the wishes of those citizens? I had thought I was taught that the state has a right to abridge the rights of the individual when the welfare of the masses were at stake." Actually the standard is "compelling state interest". While this may be interpreted as a form of Utilitarism (such as drunk driving checkpoints), it does not always have to be. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the state argued (unsucessfully) that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the life of the fetus (tha

"I am not saying all homosexuals pose a threat, but the threat does exist." Sorry, this comment sounded like you supported the ban based on safety concerns. I certainly hope that BSA policy is not set by people's ignorance that homosexuals are more prone to child abuse than other subgroups of the population e.g. heterosexual females and scouts themselves. "I think you will find that deep down, even the least homophobic parent sees gay leaders as a risk that they are not willing to tolerate." Ummmmm . . . no! I certainly don't.

"Actually, polygamy encompasses both polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)." You'll have to bear with me. Before this thread, I thought polygamy was when a lady from the 30's had two or more great looking legs. (wait for it . . .)

That is a very different scenerio. It sound like you are just trying to get the Pack to survive for one year until the new leaders can take over. What I would do is be CM for one year (and make it very clear that it is 1 year only). Assign the ACM the job of recruiting and gradually turn the responsibilities of the Pack over to the ACM. In the meanwhile, make each parent responsible for one pack meeeting per month with one other meeting per month as a pack with each den leader doing little breakout sessions for their own den's achievements. I would also suggest some pack level activities

"What I am shocked I have NOT seen it discussed as is a matter of the safety of the child. I am not saying all homosexuals pose a threat, but the threat does exist." The reason you havn't seen it discussed is because it is not an issue. If recent news is any indication, a child is more at risk with a priest or HETEROSEXUAL female teacher than a homosexual leader! Using your logic, we should also ban females from scout leadership because it is POSSIBLE for them to abuse a scout.

"Yet again I must disagree with you Ed. You can't possibly be married to the best woman in the world. She's married to me and that would make her a polygamist." Polygamy is being married to multiple women. Being married to multiple men makes her a polyandist . . . Unless both of you are women and married, in which case that is a completely different thread (actually 3 or 4 different threads). (lol)

"We had 4 Tigers, 2 Wolves and 2 Bears." Sounds like 8 parents (at least) that view Cub Scouts as a babysitting service. Where are they during all of this? One of the Bear parents should have enough experience that with help they could take over as CM.

"Gee bevah, I would think the best course of action here is to support the scoutmaster, after all he is the one who best knows the scout and is the volunteer charged with the program" It seems to me that if there are protections in place to prevent a SM for unfairly holding a deserving scout back from getting Eagle, then it also works in reverse, i.e. checks to ensure that a SM is not too lenient in allowing a Scout that does not deserve it to become an Eagle. Otherwise, why have a BOR?

What about the opposite extreme of not meeting the minimum standards (i.e. subtracting from the requirements). I've seen this in Cub Scouts in requirements for Bobcat, inspection, etc. so that the Cubbie can get his patch easily. For example, in this first aid scenerio it would be equivalent to: 1) Watch den leader put on a band-aid. 2) Open a band-aid and kind of put it over a cut. (Band-aid allowed to fall off).

"Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic." So the government punishing a private corporation for not supporting a private organization is not a form of state control? And the original post had Fascism as a sidenote to the discussion.

While I'm not comparing these legislators to Hitler or Mousallini, I think there are some comparisons: "Fascists took control of all means of production" How different is forcing corporations to support private agendas? It all comes down to a philosophy of "You support our causes or we'll MAKE support our causes!" "dismissed democratically elected parliaments" Legislation by pursestrings to get around the Constitution. Sounds like an endrun around democracy to me. "forced children to join the Hitler Youth and Italian Fascist Youth organizations or face punishment." For

"I have trouble identifying the right principle here" So do I. What is the state trying to say? a) It will not do any business with a corporation unless it supports Boy Scouts? (sounds like Fascism) b) Once you start supporting Boy Scouts, you must do so in perpetuity? (don't policies change. can't someone change their mind?) c) You cannot support some youth groups and not others? (again - what if BofA chooses not to support Ku Klux Junior Klans? Is that discrimination?) d) We are whores and will write any legislation to get re-elected even if it is poorly thought out, unen

"By simply changing the definition of the word marriage you also change the concept of marriage" And this is my point exactly. In the U.S., marriage is not a religious union blessed by God, it is a civil contract between two and only two adults (limited to one man and one woman in every state except Mass.) [Ref. C.F.C Section 300, I know that this is California law but I'm sure it's similar in other states.] I don't want to demean the religious aspects of marriage, but religion is not a factor in marriage laws EXCEPT that a minister is allowed to solemnize the marriage - but look

"I'm happy to hear you don't support SSM." Actually I do, based on this country giving preferential status to married people. I personally don't have a problem with homosexuality so if two men or two women want to marry to get the same benefits a man and a woman do if they marry - fine by me. HOWEVER, I do recognize that some consider homosexuality a perversion and consider SSM equivalent to allowing a pedophile to marry a child. Although I may not agree with that position, I can respect it. "And if you think there is nothing wrong with SSM, then you are more clueless than

I love this idea. My den is responsible for Sunday breakfast for the pack during our summer campout and I'm already thinking of stuff that can be prepped ahead of time and kept in a cooler like crumbled bacon, crumbled sausage, ham, mushrooms, onions, peppers, salsa, etc. Breakfast burrito! Here we come!

"NAMBLA = North American Man Boy Love Association! Sick group!" We finally agree on something. I tried to think of the worst groups possible to show how bad this idea is when state legislatures tell private corporations how to contribute (viz. not discriminate) to youth groups. Does anyone know how "discrimination" is defined in this proposed law? Would it force a sort of all-or-none policy?

"Are there laws on the books to prevent 2 brothers from marrying each other? Or 2 sisters? Or 2 male cousins? Or do those laws only apply when a brother & sister want to marry?" Yes, because those laws are written as "degree of relation" similar to next-of-kin laws. "Would SSM laws repeal the consanguinity laws? They could if they are written to do that." But they are not! That is called a strawman argument. Let me give you an example: Me) Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman would allow brothers and sisters to marry because they are a man and a woman.

"Same sex marriage means the same sex getting married. Brother & sister aren't the same sex! And if the closest is two cousins it could be two male cousins getting married or two female cousins getting married. And that's OK? If you think it is, that is really sad." Ed, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Here's what I think you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong: You believe that proposed SSM laws would repeal current consanguity marriage laws, in effect allowing anyone over 18 to marry anyone else over 18 - even close relatives. Is that what you believ

" 'I also pointed out that SSM laws do not repeal incestuous (consanguity) marriage laws.' Providing any state where this might be made legal has such a law. Are there any states? It seems all those where an vote to amend the states constitution have voted to ban SSM!" Are you serious, Ed? Can you point out one state that allows brother/sister, father/daughter, aunt/nephew, etc. marriages? The closest relations allowed to marry in ANY state would be first cousins. And what does this have to do with same-sex marriages? Can you give even one example of a proposed SSM law that