The American heartland

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No Kahuna, you're the one who was spouting easily-unverified garbage. Here's what I wrote:

I'm only pointing out that you simply made up crap instead of taking 30 seconds to read what you were supposedly commenting on.

 

Your comment was "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."

 

30 seconds reading the opinion would have informed you that it WAS an equal protection issue.

 

But you can't even make up your own cutting remarks, you have to crib off mine.

[Kahuna 172]

"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?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No, I'm not a lawyer. Kahuna, you made a remark that was not merely wrong, it was obvious you didn't even have the slightest aquaintance with what you were commenting on. If your original statement had been along the lines of what you said later, where the Iowa SC said it was an equal protection issue and that you disagree with that, then at least you would have demonstrated that you knew something of the Iowa opinion.

 

But you didn't. You commented on something you obviously hadn't read.

 

Now you're at least familiar with the court's reasoning, and you can intelligently comment on how you disagree with how the court cited equal protection. But it appears you'd rather complain about my debating style and how I pointed out that you were commenting on something you hadn't bothered to read. If that's your debating style, I don't think much of it.

 

PS: 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. What is a premise of mine that's wrong?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Kahuna 172]

>>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

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'll take the opinion of actual judges over yours; people argued against the Loving decision saying the races were also treated equally, since whites could only marry whites and the same for blacks.

[Trevorum 24]

I'm sorry to see another thread dissolve into bickering.

 

Nonetheless, the original proposition has not been rejected, that American society is evolving in a direction none of us can control. Nor has its corollary, that BSA will also change to mirror the society in which it exists.

[vol_scouter 365]

The sad thing is that the BSA will pay a terrible price no matter what it does. As more Americans are accepting of homosexual marriage, BSA will be marginalized by those who disagree with its' stance. If the BSA changes its' stance, there will be a mass exodus in some regions. The major reason that most on my FOS list give is because of the current BSA stance. After the Dale decision, I lost one FOS but gained 2 and most increased their giving. If the BSA changes its' stance, those donors will cease to give.

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

Yeah, I agree. It was pretty shortsighted for BSA to get involved with the issue in the first place. On the other hand I suppose we should be thankful BSA didn't try to resist the civil rights movement back in the 60s.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Trevorium:

I wonder if that is true. BSA maintained segregated scout camps in the south into the sixties. How much resistance was there? When many were resisting school integration were the Boy Scouts out in front on the issue? Did anyone predict a mass exodus if the scouts were forced to integrate their camps? I wonder...

 

 

 

[vol_scouter 365]

It was not just the south that had different camps or a separate week for 'colored' scouts. Segregation was codified in the south but practiced in much of the country. I was a youth in scouting in the south during the sixties. I heard comments about not wanting to have to 'mingle' with black scouts but I do not recall many saying that they will leave over integration. I started in boy scouts in 1964 and I saw black scouts throughout my career. So some of the issue could have already been worked out by that time. The black scouts that I saw were in largely black troops.

As to whether acceptance of homosexuality will parallel that of integration, I think not. People in the south had a difficult time justifying segregation with Christian ethics. Homosexuality is a different situation. There is no Biblical support for the acceptance of homosexuality. If you doubt that assertion, I refer you to the scholarly text "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" by Robert A. J. Gagnon who is a scholar. The book is difficult reading but the last chapter is a nice summary. So people have a fundamental reason to reject homosexuality. As I said, I have many donors in my FOS list that give to the BSA only because it does not allow homosexual scouts or scouters. Many of the churches who sponsor troops would dump scouting overnight.

My guess is if the governments and the courts continue to push homosexual issues despite the lack of public support, the people will revolt by electing much different officials or more likely there will be gnashing of teeth but no real change. I predict that the BSA will try to avoid the issue as long as possible. Gradually change to some sort of local control and too finally succumb when there is little risk.

[evmori 11]

Gay marriage is an equal rights issue?? Is marriage a right? I'm don't think it is.

[Trevorum 24]

Ed,

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that, for adults, marriage is not a right but a privilege?

[John-in-KC 311]

Trev,

 

Maybe yes. After all, the State requires us to get a license before we marry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, as to whether or not BSA will change: Go look at the 1000lb silent gorilla in the room: Our largest Chartered Partner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. IMO, BSA changes, they're gone, and that's a LOT of $$$$$ support gone to the National Council.

 

From a perspective of smaller chartered partners, we'd see the Roman Catholics gone instantly. We'd see the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod gone. We'd see a lot of postmodern independent evangelical churches gone.

 

For all of them, the position is simple: God doesn't change. Just because we think we can change, God doesn't change. If we change, that'll be their reason for hitting the exits.

 

I would not count on change anytime soon.

[scoutingagain 20]

"I predict that the BSA will try to avoid the issue as long as possible. Gradually change to some sort of local control and too finally succumb when there is little risk. "

 

I agree, but I think they'll stop at local control and do it with as little fanfare as possible. That's pretty much where they are with women as leaders and overall that seems to be accepted. Somewhere some CO will announce that it has a gay leader and national won't do anything about it and they'll eventually remove some text from the website.

 

Financially, it think it will be a wash. Sure some parts of the country will suffer reduced FOS donations. But those of us in other parts of the country have already taken a hit from United Way will get some of that back. And the Cradle of Liberty Council can get it's building back.

 

SA

 

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

So if BSA went the local option route, the LDS and Catholics would still leave BSA even though they would be allowed to restrict membership?

I find that hard to believe.