In most U.S. states, individuals belonging to organizations that discriminate are banned from being judges. Of those 47 states, 22 include sexual orientation as part of disallowed discrimination. Of those 22, including California, exemptions were made for nonprofit organizations like the U.S. military and the Boy Scouts of America. Recently, the U.S. military ended its ban on openly gay members. The Boy Scouts of America, however, earned the ire of many by ending its ban on homosexual youth but maintaining its ban on homosexual adults…effectively angering just about everyone.
Unfortunately for the BSA, more bad press arrives in the form of the California Supreme Court voting unanimously to ban judges who are Scouters. According to the LA Times, the Court is ending the anti-discrimination exception that had previously been granted to youth-based organizations, allowing California judges to be volunteers for the BSA. Judges have until next January to comply with the ruling.
As an Eagle Scout, I disagree with the decision of the California Supreme Court. While the BSA’s continued ban on homosexual adult volunteers and leaders is wrong, further harming the organization by restricting its membership will hurt the youth who benefit from Scouting. If anything, government decrees to prevent employees from volunteering in Scouting will only reinforce the zeal of ultra-conservatives in the BSA who wish to maintain the ban on gay adults. These decrees will only reinforce a persecution mentality and further their resolve. This is bad for youth.
Moderates need to be encouraged to volunteer in Scouting and change the organization from the inside. As community leaders, judges should be encouraged to associate with organizations like the BSA and inspire local youth to pursue careers in law, the judiciary, law enforcement, and civil service. Barring judges from association with the BSA will serve no positive purpose.
But, if the Court wishes to indeed ban members of the judiciary from associating with the BSA, it should also ban members of the judiciary from associating with churches that openly discriminate against homosexuals. That’s right: The Court should ban active religious conservatives from serving as judges. Why harm organizations like the BSA, which support youth and teens, while giving churches a free pass?
If we truly want our judges to not be bigots, we cannot zealously persecute nonprofits while leaving churches untouched.
Everyone should have the freedom to worship as they wish and believe what they wish. However, we have already established precedent of banning citizens from certain employment due to their exercise of their Constitutional rights. If you say or write material that appears discriminatory or violent in nature, you can be denied many government positions. If you can be denied a government post due to your exercise of free expression, it should also be possible to deny a government post based on religious affiliation.
If you’re a bigot on Sunday, you’re probably a bigot on the bench on Monday.
Or, if this all sounds way too out of line, consider letting judges be Scouters with their kids again. How many judges in California have teenage sons who are pursuing their Eagle Scout rank? How many judges in California are parents of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts? If we’re serious about rooting out bigots in state judiciaries, we shouldn’t pick on the BSA. Despite its serious faults (just like organized religion), it serves an invaluable purpose.
Either leave Scouting judges alone or finish the job and start questioning judges about their religious beliefs.
