The American heartland

[HICO_Eagle 93]

Okay, so we've moved from intellectual dishonesty to outright misrepresentation. Let's review shall we?

 

DanKroh said, "No one is trying to stop scouting from using public facilities"

 

I responded with, "Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups"

 

Merlyn then comes back and says, "Cite even ONE case where any of these groups has tried to deny a scout group equal access to public facilities."

 

I cited SEVERAL cases where the ACLU and other groups not only tried to deny Scouts equal access to public facilities like public schools for recruiting but also articles that detailed their multi-year strategy to do so, including recruiting volunteers to misrepresent themselves to BSA so they could bring about a lawsuit. So then Merlyn has to change his story to say, "I'll note that you have yet to cite one instance of any rights of the BSA being denied in everything you've written above;"

 

No you didn't Merlyn, I quoted you directly and in context. You asked for one citation where one of those groups TRIED to deny BSA those rights, I gave you tons spanning nearly 20 years of litigation and political conniving and I didn't even try hard. If it was worth arguing the point with you more, I could have dug down to try to pull all the video footage over the last 20 years where Barry Lynn and others have advocated denying BSA access to public schools and other facilities regardless of whether those facilities were open to other civic groups.

 

Barry Lynn and Barney Frank didn't try to create a Gay and Atheist Youth organization and get it access to Fort A.P. Hill to try to show some kind of special access, they just attacked A.P. Hill being used by Scouting at all. As I cited for you, BSA's access to military facilities isn't special -- the Public Law is generic, authorizing DoD to offer use of facilities and equipment to "youth organizations".

 

If BSA wasn't denied access it wasn't for lack of trying, it was for lack of facts and legal reasoning on the part of the ACLU and other groups. They were wrong on the law, wrong on the facts and hadn't undermined the legal profession completely yet so they lost. Pure and simple. I'm not even sure BSA wasn't denied access -- many US military bases stopped providing access to camping areas that were open to others during the Clinton administration. This may have been pure coincidence, I'm not sure.

 

I take it this forum is for debate about issues. I'm good with that, I enjoy a good debate -- but there are rules one adheres to in a good debate. Misrepresenting what you or anyone else has said to "win" debate points isn't one of them.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

HICO_Eagle writes:

I cited SEVERAL cases where the ACLU and other groups not only tried to deny Scouts equal access to public facilities like public schools for recruiting but also articles that detailed their multi-year strategy to do so, including recruiting volunteers to misrepresentthemselves to BSA so they could bring about a lawsuit.

 

No, you didn't. All of your examples were about things like recruitment during school hours or other special treatment, or were about litigation pre-Dale when the ACLU argued that the BSA was a public accommodation and could not legally exclude gays or atheists.

 

Misrepresenting what you or anyone else has said to "win" debate points isn't one of them.

 

You should take your own advice.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

Reread them Merlyn. All the citations I provided you were about trying to deny BSA the use of public facilities. Are you now changing your story again to say you didn't mean access to classrooms, access for recruiting, etc.? I disregarded cases like the one in DC where Queer Nation recruited a dormant Eagle Scout to volunteer to be a SM or ASM so they could try to sue when he was denied. I disregarded that because Queer Nation's goals had nothing to do with what you asked for.

 

Face it, you asked for something, got a truckload of it with little effort and then changed your story on what you asked for. Your twist now about pre- or post-Dale as a "public accommodation" wasn't what you asked for and isn't even in context with DanKroh's original charge that no one was trying to deny Scouting the use of public facilties or your defense of that claim.

 

The bottom line is that the ACLU and other groups have tried to attack Scouting by barring its access to public facilities for nearly two decades, both pre- and post-Dale.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

HICO_Eagle writes:

Reread them Merlyn. All the citations I provided you were about trying to deny BSA the use of public facilities.

 

Here's what you cited:

 

Okay, let's travel in the Way Back Machine to 1980 when the ACLU first sued the BSA for excluding a troop leader who took a male date to his prom.

 

The Tim Curran lawsuit. That was not about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" -- the BSA was sued for violating the Unruh act. Win or lose, that lawsuit was not about the use of public facilities, it was whether the BSA could discriminate and kick out Tim Curran.

 

0 for 1

 

Jump forward to 1999 and Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees when the ACLU sued to end government "support" of Scouting (this time claiming BSA was a religious organization and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause).

 

"Government support" of scouting is not "the use of public facilities" either. This was about government entities chartering BSA units that discriminated.

 

0 for 2

 

In fact, the Nov/Dec 99 article by Margaret Downey at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Downey.html outlines the strategies the ACLU used for years to consciously attack BSA.

 

And none of them are about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities." Here are some excerpts from the above link:

The argument in this case is that, if the BSA is indeed a private religious club, as it claims, then publicly funded groups that aid or support Scouting are in violation of the church-state separation provision in the U.S. Constitution. When the suit was filed, ACLU attorney Roger Leishman declared, "Government agencies simply cannot spend tax dollars on programs that exclude people because of their religious beliefs." In saying this, he was following up on the ACLU's 1998 success with a suit against the city of Chicago over the BSA's discrimination against atheists and gays. The city had sponsored Scout troops but has since ended that affiliation.

 

Again, government entities can't practice the BSA's discrimination; this is not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"

 

Taking a similar approach, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) filed a lawsuit in May against the St. Paul School District. The suit is on behalf of David Perry, a second-grade teacher employed at Dayton's Bluff Elementary School in St. Paul. The suit alleges that school officials required Perry to yield classroom instructional time to allow BSA representatives to recruit new members from his class. Perry subsequently complained to the school district, explaining that the BSA is a religious group that discriminates against atheists, gays, and bisexuals. Getting no satisfaction, he turned to the MCLU.

 

"This lawsuit has nothing to do with whether the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate or whether they have a right to use school facilities like any other community group," says MCLU Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "This case is about government sponsorship and promotion of a religious group that conditions membership on a religious oath. Public schools have no business putting their official stamp of approval on such a group."

 

Meanwhile, an older case in Oregon may finally be moving forward. It began in 1996 when a Boy Scout recruiter, during class time, placed plastic wrist bracelets on public school boys. The bracelets, removable only by being cut off with scissors, read: "Come Join Cub Scout Pack 16! Round-Up for New Cub Scouts for Boys in Grades 1-5 ... Scott Elementary School." Nancy Powell, mother of one of the boys, who is an atheist, complained to school authorities because of BSA religious discrimination policies. When her effort failed, she turned to the ACLU of Oregon, which in 1998 represented her and her son in a complaint filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court

 

Now, if recruiting schoolchildren is some kind of "use of public facilities," anyone can do it. Churches can demand that they be allowed to recruit during school hours, and so will American Atheists, and about a hundred thousand other groups.

 

But recruiting during school hours isn't "the use of public facilities" either.

 

0 for 3

 

Now back to more of your quotes...

 

The ACLU themselves talk about their attacks at http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/11962prs19990804.html and http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/12263prs20000426.html .

 

And neither of THOSE links are about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"; the first is the Dale case when it reached the NJ supreme court and that court ruled for Dale. That was over whether the BSA's discrimination violated the NJ Law Against Discrimination. The end of that press release also mentions the Powell and Winkler lawsuits, already discussed above. The second link is just the ACLU discussing the Dale case going before the US supreme court.

 

In fact, the remedy the ACLU sought from the city of Chicago in settlement was withdrawal of sponsorship of 28 scouting programs.

 

Yep. Sorry, ending unlawful government sponsorship of 28 BSA units that discriminate on the basis of religion is not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities," it's preventing the government from violating the rights of atheists.

 

0 for 4

 

Your characterization of Jeff Archer's article is not about denying the BSA the "the use of public facilities" either. It's here:

http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/foley-right.html

 

His mention of meeting in police stations and public schools, in context, appears to be referring to BSA units that don't just meet there, but are chartered by them:

There is no problem with private groups who discriminate if they remain private. The problems enter when the groups who discriminate also gain taxpayer subsidies for their organizations. The Boy Scouts of America reap the benefits of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of such subsidies.

 

When a group meets at the local police station, or public school, taxpayer dollars are used to support it. In addition, the U.S. military sponsors many Boy Scout activities; again using taxpayer dollars. Such activity is nothing more than subsidized discrimination.

 

In the past few years, some groups who once sponsored Boy Scout troops, such as police departments, have halted their support because of the discriminatory practices. Some still sponsor the Boy Scouts.

 

However, I'll grant you this as a marginal example of a non-lawyer advocating that the BSA be denied the use of public facilities. Unfortunately, you claimed that "the ACLU and other groups .. tried to deny Scouts equal access to public facilities." Writing an article doesn't constitute trying to deny the BSA equal access to public facilities. Let me know if he files a lawsuit.

 

0 for 5

 

The ACLU of Oregon advocated withdrawal of "government sponsorship and financial support" for BSA in its Apr 22 2005 article, "Civil Liberties and the Boys Scouts: What Are the Issues?"

 

Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"

 

0 for 6

 

The ACLU of Southern California says (http://www.aclu-sc.org/attach/g/Gov_Ties_BSA_QA_Guide.pdf) "... the Boy Scouts ... requires all participants to affirm a belief in God and excludes members who are non-religious. Government sponsorship of such a program also likely violates constitutional requirements of separation of church and state as well as requirements that the government not discriminate on the basis of religious views.

 

As an openly discriminatory organization, the Boy Scouts of America has forfeited any entitlement to the special privileges and close relationships with local governments that it has enjoyed for many years. Having decided to discriminate, the BSA should not expect to continue receiving government sponsorship and other special privileges."

 

Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"

 

0 for 7

 

The fact of the matter is that several extremist organizations especially the ACLU are attacking the BSA on an ideological basis.

 

Yeah. So?

 

Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"

 

0 for 8

 

Their current strategy includes trying to deprive BSA of access to public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations including ones gays or atheists could set up themselves if they wished.

 

Nope, that's your unsupported assertion. Reviewing all your cites above shows that none of them are over "public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations"(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Trevorum 24]

(ahem)

 

Returning to the original thread ... following in the footsteps of Iowa, "Maine becomes 5th state to approve gay marriage."

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/maine-become-5th-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html

 

[Lisabob 13]

Yesterday the Washington DC city council passed a resolution recognizing gay marriages performed in other states, by a vote of 12-1. The one dissenting vote came from Marion Barry (you remember him from the 80s?) and even he sounds uncertain about his opposition. It isn't official yet (Congress has to approve DC laws) but it is just another example of what Trev is discussing.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103815724

[packsaddle 753]

Lisa, I think that not every person who is opposed to gay marriage is a coke-snorting, drug-addicted conservative sleaze. I could be wrong.

 

Edited to respond to Sheldonsmom: So then...you agree.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[sheldonsmom 10]

I can think of a lot of names for Marion Berry but conservative is not one of them.

[evmori 11]

Right on the money pack! I oppose gay marriage (unless gay means happy) and I don't fit that description! Actually, I would say those that are for gay marriage (same sex) would better fit that description!

[CalicoPenn 729]

Right you are Pack. They could be blonde bimbos that posed topless at age 17, got implants because they didn't like the body God gave them, makes a living posing in swimsuits and lingerie, and now claims to be some kind of Christian.

[packsaddle 753]

Oooookaaaay. So what was that part about posing topless?

 

Edited part: O - M - G! I just figured it out. Sooooooo, are there still some photos somewhere?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[gwd-scouter 11]

Good grief, can't Miss California just go away.

[GernBlansten 10]

Is opposite marriage legal in, such as, the Iraq or the South Africa?

[Narraticong 15]

"Right you are Pack. They could be blonde bimbos that posed topless at age 17, got implants because they didn't like the body God gave them, makes a living posing in swimsuits and lingerie, and now claims to be some kind of Christian"

 

Not quite sure how any of these would preclude someone from being a Christian. Christians are who we are specifically because we are so faulted. We believe Jesus died for us because of our sins. In the same light, being homosexual does not mean one can not be a Christian. Anybody can call themselves whatever they choose.

 

In the end, it all comes down to the very personal relationship each person has with God. It does not matter one bit what I think of how you live your life.

 

This young woman was asked a question. She answered it honestly. She said it was not for her and that states should make their own decision. Now some folks desire to tear her down because of her opinions. And while they are at it, they take that indirect shot at Christians.

 

I really don't care if government decides to recognize anything it wants as a "marriage". It matters not. That is the will of the people in a democracy. But many corrupt societies have fallen in the past. The Bible is an excellent place to see examples.

 

What I do care about is when people try to force religious denominations to change their belliefs to fit the desires of todays society. Any version of the Bible you wish to study is quite clear on the issue of homosexuality. If you don't like that, then start a new religion. That is your right. But don't tell me what I believe must change to fit your needs and desires.

 

In the end, I am comfortable that God will sort it all out. I know that none of us deserves to be in Heaven of our own accord. I know where I put MY faith, and I do care about yours. But in the end, the decision will not be ours.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Narraticong writes:

What I do care about is when people try to force religious denominations to change their belliefs to fit the desires of todays society. ... But don't tell me what I believe must change to fit your needs and desires.

 

Who is trying to force religious denominations to change?