In a February 7 story in Cal Catholic, the California Supreme Court’s ethics committee was quoted as advising the court to ban all state judges from affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America.
The committee, chaired by Richard Fybel, an appeals judge from Orange County, is pushing for a repeal of an exemption to the ban on judges serving in groups that discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Currently the California courts exempt the Boy Scouts from this ban.
In its invitation to comment on repealing the exemption, the committee asserted that 21 states already ban judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts.
One of our correspondents emailed the following to Cal Catholic on April 16:
“Given the press of time, I did not have time to fully explore the assertion that 21 states already ban judges from belonging to the BSA. It doesn’t say it that succinctly, but that is definitely the import of what it is saying. However, I can find no evidence of any other state which bans judges from belonging to the BSA. If you Google ‘Judges prohibited [or barred] from membership in Boy Scouts,’ you get almost nothing but hits about California. The few other documents I have managed to pull up from other states came down on the other side on this issue.”
A Cal Catholic reporter called Judge Fybel on April 16 to ask about this disparity. Fybel returned the call. When asked why he made his claim about the other 21 states, Fybel claimed all he said in the invitation to comment was that the other states do not have an exemption for the Boy Scouts in their anti-discrimination language.
On April 21, the correspondent sent Cal Catholic a follow-up email:
“Did I send you this link that I got from the staffer on the Committee? I think this takes care of the 21-other-states myth. The linked opinion from the Connecticut judicial advisory committee, which was written AFTER the Fybel recommendation, sums up what is going on in other states. Answer: no other state bans judges being members of the BSA, though this CT committee is recommending it for CT. I am not sure how official this CT committee’s opinion is or what effect it has.
“….Basically, the Fybel committee wants to impose a new rule that membership in the Boy Scouts, per se, is such a black mark on the judge’s overall character as a practicer of ‘invidious discrimination’ that he should not be allowed to hold the office while being a member of the BSA. And that this will ‘enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.'”
On April 15, Catherine Short of the Life Legal Defense Foundation submitted a comment in response to the Fybel committee’s recommendation. Excerpts:
“The Committee’s invitation ignores the fact that the change also encompasses other youth organizations whose membership is limited on the basis of gender, e.g., the Girl Scouts, as well as the military, which continues to practice ‘discrimination’ on the basis of gender.
“Perhaps this is not an unintended consequence and the Committee indeed means to prohibit membership by judges in organizations like the Girls Scouts and military reserve, though there is no indication of such result in the Invitation. Or perhaps the Committee believes that such discrimination by the Girls Scouts and the military is not ‘invidious,’ as opposed to the ‘invidious discrimination’ practice by the BSA in excluding those of openly homosexual orientation from adult leadership positions.
“….Indeed, the Committee’s application of Canon 2C to the BSA is arbitrary. The BSA does not ‘exclude’ homosexuals from membership. As the Invitation itself explains, it prohibits them only from serving as troop leaders, i.e., a specialized function within the BSA structure….
“As this Committee is undoubtedly aware, the label of ‘discrimination’ is extremely potent, one might even say toxic, in our society today. The label brings into play an entire existing framework of statutes, ordinances, regulations, professional codes, licensing criteria, funding limitations, human rights commissions, etc., not to mention the social stigma attached to being on the receiving end of an accusation of bigotry. Because of the huge pay-off, there is a tremendous incentive for one side of an ideological debate to tar its opposition with engaging in ‘discrimination.’ If the label sticks, the battle is largely won….
“By promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance.”
If any group needs to be “banned” it’s the Thought Police.
As always, Political Correctness is nothing more than tyranny under a different name.
Is this America, or Germany in the 1930’s ?
Come on, you CA-licensed lawyers, get busy. A judge cannot be barred from joining the BSA. The First Amendment, among other bases, would provide cover for such membership. There should be Catholic outrage over this attempt, particularly given the close connection with the State patrolling what ” is correct” and what “is allowed.” The Catholic Church can kiss its tax exempt status good-bye with such thinking. Read the US Supreme Court decision, Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), where the High Court upheld the right of the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of that school based on its policy of forbidding interracial dating, marriage and the like. How far can it be before federal (or even State) courts tell the Catholic Church that a defined “compelling Government public policy” forbids “discrimination” against homosexual sexualists (or against women) and that the Church, if it continued, would lose its tax exempt status? And then, and then — well, how long will it be before the federal (or State) govenments say, like CA is trying to say to judges, that you cannot be a judge, public servant, in the military, etc. if you are a Catholic? Yes it can happen. Please read the ample literature of Jews in Germany who wondered how laws could be passed so quickly outlawing all aspects of their lives, professions and the like. This is Satan at work.
Of course, tax exempt status is not a right.
YFC, We Americans should be exempt from nearly ALL taxes leveled against us! Freedom not Utopia!
Perhaps, St. Christopher.
But, the Catholic Church opened the door by writing an amicus brief to support a bigoted legal position in the Dale case.
Bascially, the legal position espoused by the Church was to support the idea of excluding homosexuals from the BSA BASED ON ORIENTATION (not homosexual activity). The immoral position that it is right and just to exclude people with SSA from social groups is part of what has caused a backlash (which, I must agree, is going too far).
More proof that California is a Gigantic Left Wing Freak Show!
CA is again in the front of immoral politics.
Banning freedom of speech and association, if those in power do not like it.
Glad the lie about the other States was found out and posted.
If the “gay mafia” can go after people who support prop 8 they certainly can attack and harass any leader in the boy scouts. When they start focusing on members of the Catholic Church or Mormons maybe then Bishops and lay Catholics will act. Though, I’m not sure how many will be on the side of free speech and free association.
FYI – I have successfully filed an Appeal with the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in SF. CA – regarding the “Twikking the Tabulation” and other manipulations / retaliations of Census 2010 – which included the abandonment of the computerized Census and return to a Paper Enumeration at great cost to the taxpayers.
My case is filed via ECF and available on line = Cv 14-35022 = (McDermott v. Blank) 9th US Circuit, and relates to my termination by Census 2010 as Assistant Manager for Field Operations in Idaho – on 7/14/09
Main Issues of 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion & Free Speech Retaliation, 5th Amendment Due Process & “Admission via secret government proxy’ violations are at the core, as well as flagrant Title VII Retaliation for protected EEO Activity.
The case also involves the type ‘targeting’ done by the IRS / DOJ to others labeled ‘conservative’, only at Decennial Census 2010 – and their deliberate “Twikking the Tabulation ” to undermine DOMA – as well as retaliation against employees for donations to CA Proposition 8 similar to the Mozilla – Eich retaliation.
This Appeals case features numerous emails kpet hidden for nearly 5 years that she light on Government Retaliation and Hostility to Religion (Particularly the Census itself referring to Catholics as “Deranged”) that may be of interest to some.
This mirrors the recent case of Professor Mike Adams at UNCW, well as the 9th Circuit own citation to Adams in the recent ruling in ‘Demers v. Austin’. No 11-35558 (9th Circuit 01/29/2014).
Thank you Michael!
The California Supreme Court Ethics Committee is not ethical! We desperately need a return to our Judaeo-Christian foundations, in this country! Belief in God, regular weekly church (or synagogue, etc.) attendance, respect for authority (which should also act compassionately), good dress codes, and morals required in dress and language, as well as books (and pictures), and all media. Yes– censorship, for an excellent society! YES!! Completely clean up American schools and universities, with only a strong, high-quality traditional education offered, with very high standards. Courses in traditional good manners, morals, and good dress and language, should be mandatory, K-12, in all American schools! For a truly excellent society, this should be mandatory! Just like good hygiene and health! From kindergarten, children should be taught good behavior, the “Golden Rule,” and good character must be deeply instilled! Kindness to one’s fellow man, must be a hallmark of being a good American! In America, also, I think only a few talented intellectuals should go on to higher education, in universities! Everyone should receive a high school diploma, and the education should be traditional, and of high-quality! Judaeo-Christian morality must be the foundation of all American schools of all types! I believe that many people should be all finished with school, at high school graduation! Then, go out to work, get married, etc.— and start to make a good adult life!
As Predicted Long Ago -in the Farcical Staged Scam of ‘Lawrence v. Texas
(Judge Janice Law deconstructed the made up scam in her book “Sex Appealed”, on how they got around the requirement for a ‘Real Case / controversy’) – and Promised by the POTUS as part of the fundamental transformation of the Age of Abomination:
“Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes
The wedding cake is about to get crowded with gangs of brides and grooms…
Justice Antonin Scalia warned of such mischief when his colleagues tossed out the Defense of Marriage Act.
“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” he wrote in his dissent in United States v. Windsor, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
Justice Scalia predicted in 2003 that the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down a law making sodomy ilegal, would become the battering ram to eliminate prohibitions on bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, bestiality and obscenity, among other things.
Read more: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/25/editorial-throuple-in-paradise/#ixzz30EfAYSvW