California Supreme Court Gunning For Bsa; Is Church Of Jesus Christ Next?

[canard78]

CFR that MFBukowski (or anyone else) said anything about guns. Thanks in advance.

P.S.: The title of the thread doesn't count; I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I'm fairly certain that, as a professional communicator, Scott can tell the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal one, and that his intended use of that expression in the title is the former.

The second post:

Anything is possible. After all it is said that at some point in the future the Constitution will hang by a thread. As long as we have a working Bill of Rights, we should not fear to much. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst which means also get some guns and ammo.

I replied, then Nehor commented on my reply and then mfb joined in. It was a relatively light hearted thread tangent. I should have probably used more smilies and winkles....

[Kenngo1969]

Canard78,

 

Thanks for your reply.  If you thought it was lighthearted banter and not intended to be serious, however, I'm puzzled why you harked back to it at all, but to each, his own.

 

Best,

 

-Ken

Edited January 26, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Peterson's blog?

I don't know about it being a "for profit" blog, but I've been linking to it fairly often for some time now, and this is the first I've encountered any suggestion that there is something untoward or shady about doing so. I find the accusation beyond bizarre, actually.

That said, I'm more than happy to be your test case. By all means, complain about me to the moderating team. And please report to us their response.

Yeah, from what I understand, the blog is for-profit in roughly the same sense that his quarter-century of apologetic (ad)ventures have made him a multimillionaire.  (Which is to say, for the irony-impaired, that he ain't gettin' rich off of the thang. )

[Avatar4321]

Well you are wrong.  I do post on other issues.  If you are interested in some of my other recent non gay issue posting can be found on  "Why do they stay" "Best Answers to The Common Statement in My Home Lately" "Why Are Youth Leaving the Church" threads among others.  What I don't post on are threads that talk about the proof against Mormon scriptures like those disproving the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham.  I don't think it is my responsibility or duty to tear down anyone's religious beliefs.    

 

But that doesn't mean I don't have a passion for defending the civil rights of gays and discussing how the church deals with it's gay members and those of the rest of the LGTB community.  And in fact, if you read my posts about gay issues, I have never stated that the church does not have the right to preach anything it wants against gays.  I only point out the wrongness of discrimination and lack of revelation for many of these policies against its gay members.

 

I am a gay man that brings a gay perspective to an otherwise pretty much straight board.  I think I have a perspective that adds to the discussion of this issue.  If you don't think so, then I think there is a way you can ignore my posts.

And you've turned a number of the threads you've cited into discussions on homosexuality.

When was the last time you studied and discussed the scriptures?

[Avatar4321]

Well to be fair, BSA is something like the KKK,  They are both organizations that have institutionalized discrimination.  That is the part of both organizations that are being compared.  

 

You might also be reminded that KKK was touted by its followers as a guardian of religion and used the Bible as their God given right to discriminate against another race.

The two organizations are nothing alike. This comparison is absolutely ridiculous.

[canard78]

Whoah!

I'm rejoining this thread late and haven't yet read thru it, but does somebody here (Canard, maybe) really think that by thread title I meant that I really think the California Supreme Court is literally going to start using firearms against the Church?

Do all Britons have this much trouble grasping metaphor? (I know they don't, but I'm playing off Canard's broad-brush crack about Americans.)

British minds gobble up metaphor and embrace it as the communication technique of preference.

Post #2 people...

[canard78]

Canard78,

Thanks for your reply. If you thought it was lighthearted banter and not intended to be serious, however, I'm puzzled why you harked back to it at all, but to each, his own.

Best,

-Ken

I hope that carbon dioxide original comment about getting guns and ammo was also in jest. I can never be certain with you gun-slingin' offspring of cowboys. (Smiley/winky icon and stuff...)

[mfbukowski]

CFR that MFBukowski (or anyone else) said anything about guns.  Thanks in advance.

 

P.S.: The title of the thread doesn't count; I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I'm fairly certain that, as a professional communicator, Scott can tell the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal one, and that his intended use of that expression in the title is the former.

Just for the record- you are right, I was not thinking about guns at the time until he brought them up

[eddie]

Only if you see the BSA as the expression of religion. I don't. If the BSA declares itself to be a religion it would be exempt.

It is my current church calling. I was a first counselor in the young men's a few years ago and registered with the BSA since that was a part of the calling. I would have to ask for a release if I became a judge in California. Make no mistake that is the government regulating religious freedom and expression.

The further irony is that Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer is an Eagle Scout. Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia were both Boy Scouts as youth.

My guess is this ends up in Federal Court.

[mfbukowski]

Gays have always had the right to marry.  What is recent is the challenge to recent laws that have been instituted preventing them from doing so.  Your statement is like saying blacks never had the right to be discriminated against until the 60's.  The truth is, they should never have been discriminated against.  Sometimes justice takes a while to get things right.  Discriminating against a minority is rarely a good thing. 

This is just plain false.

 

Rights are granted by governments and those in a position to enforce them.  Gay marriage has never been a "right" protected by law before.  Perhaps homosexuals practiced "marriage" historically, (I am not aware of instances of that) but it was not a legal "right".

[canard78]

Just for the record- you are right, I was not thinking about guns at the time until he brought them up

Dobedobedobedodobedobe... It wasn't me

[eddie]

Make no mistake, the people that pushed this through had scouts in mind as their target. It is affecting several judges already.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0125-boy-scouts-judges-20150125-story.html#page=1&panel=comments

[sunstoned]

Well you are wrong.  I do post on other issues.  If you are interested in some of my other recent non gay issue posting can be found on  "Why do they stay" "Best Answers to The Common Statement in My Home Lately" "Why Are Youth Leaving the Church" threads among others.  What I don't post on are threads that talk about the proof against Mormon scriptures like those disproving the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham.  I don't think it is my responsibility or duty to tear down anyone's religious beliefs.    

 

But that doesn't mean I don't have a passion for defending the civil rights of gays and discussing how the church deals with it's gay members and those of the rest of the LGTB community.  And in fact, if you read my posts about gay issues, I have never stated that the church does not have the right to preach anything it wants against gays.  I only point out the wrongness of discrimination and lack of revelation for many of these policies against its gay members.

 

I am a gay man that brings a gay perspective to an otherwise pretty much straight board.  I think I have a perspective that adds to the discussion of this issue.  If you don't think so, then I think there is a way you can ignore my posts.

I believe there are many that view these threads that would agree that your perspective is informative and adds value to the discussion.  I count myself among this group.

Edited January 26, 2015 by sunstoned

[Scott Lloyd]

It is my current church calling. I was a first counselor in the young men's a few years ago and registered with the BSA since that was a part of the calling. I would have to ask for a release if I became a judge in California. Make no mistake that is the government regulating religious freedom and expression.

The further irony is that Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer is an Eagle Scout. Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia were both Boy Scouts as youth.

My guess is this ends up in Federal Court.

Worst case of political correctness run amok that I've seen in a long, long time. And that's saying a lot. Somebody or something had better rein this in, and fast. It is blatant political oppression.

[california boy]

Actually others did as well but I understand that we make a convenient primary target. It would dilute the purity of the crusade to add in going after the Hispanic and Black voters (and the Catholic and Black Churches) and tell them that you will never forgive them for their actions, fundraising, and activism.

 

 

An organization formed primarily for the purpose of terrorizing minorities is similar to one primarily about outdoorsmanship and personal development?

 

The KKK were domestic terrorists.

 

 

The two organizations are nothing alike. This comparison is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

I did not bring up the KKK.  I was responding to Scott Lloyd's post.  And the only thing I accused the two organizations of doing that was similar was institutionally discriminating.  Now if you disagree with this comment, which of the two organizations are you claiming do not discriminate?

[california boy]

This is just plain false.

 

Rights are granted by governments and those in a position to enforce them.  Gay marriage has never been a "right" protected by law before.  Perhaps homosexuals practiced "marriage" historically, (I am not aware of instances of that) but it was not a legal "right".

Are you aware that the supreme court has ruled that marriage is a basic right in this country 14 times in the past.  

 

 

 1.            Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): 
Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

 

2.            The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942):

3.            Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):

 

4.            “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):

 

5.            “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):

 

6.            “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):

 

7.            “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):

 

8.            “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):

 

9.            “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):

 

10.        “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):

 

11.        “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

 

12.        “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

 

13.        “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):

 

14.        “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  

These cases go back to 1888.  It is not a recent concept.  Each one of these cases has affirmed  over and over again the right of all American citizens to marry.  So allowing gay marriage will be just the 15th such rulings.  The only question that has been up for debate is "Can the government discriminate against gays."  The 14th amendment which guarantees the right of equal protection to all American citizens even when they are a minority has been in place since 1868.  What this means is that the laws protecting the rights of gays to marry have been in existance for over 100 years.  The fact that those rights have only been challenged and granted recently is purely a function of timing of the recognizing of those existing rights.  There are absolutely no new laws being written to now allow for gay marriage.  The 50 plus court cases striking down unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage have all relied on existing law.

[Crypto]

In defense of the BSA and working closely with many individuals within the organization (within my area), prior to the SSA policy changes, there were individuals known to a few who were homosexual or even atheistic. While this may have been a breach of policy, I saw nothing but respect shown towards these individuals by the volunteers and even employed members of the organisation. It wasn't a problem because they followed many of the same policies set towards heterosexual couples. Displays of affection are simply not part of the program, and so long as activism was not displayed no one had second thoughts about it. Activism towards heterosexual behavior, overt signs of affection, misogynist behavior, would all cause a member to be barred from participating in Boy Scouts of America. At a more local unit level leaders (Volunteers) are regulated by the community they are in, which is generally where discrimination problems might be seen.

In my experience the accusations leveled towards the Boy Scouts of America are simply unfounded, the organization is not discriminatory.

[mfbukowski]

Are you aware that the supreme court has ruled that marriage is a basic right in this country 14 times in the past.  

 

 

 1.            Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): 
Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

 

2.            The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942):

3.            Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):

 

4.            “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):

 

5.            “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):

 

6.            “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):

 

7.            “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):

 

8.            “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):

 

9.            “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):

 

10.        “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):

 

11.        “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

 

12.        “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

 

13.        “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):

 

14.        “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  

These cases go back to 1888.  It is not a recent concept.  Each one of these cases has affirmed  over and over again the right of all American citizens to marry.  So allowing gay marriage will be just the 15th such rulings.  The only question that has been up for debate is "Can the government discriminate against gays."  The 14th amendment which guarantees the right of equal protection to all American citizens even when they are a minority has been in place since 1868.  What this means is that the laws protecting the rights of gays to marry have been in existance for over 100 years.  The fact that those rights have only been challenged and granted recently is purely a function of timing of the recognizing of those existing rights.  There are absolutely no new laws being written to now allow for gay marriage.  The 50 plus court cases striking down unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage have all relied on existing law.

Oh my gosh.

If those were about GAY marriage what is all the fuss about?

Obviously they were not. This is very simple stuff here, totally obvious, and not worth further debate.

[mfbukowski]

Not to mention that clearly gay marriage has nothing to do with survival of the race, which is mentioned in many of these decisions. The court was not even thinking of what they would have called "sodomy" which was illegal.

Ridiculous argument.

[california boy]

That would be my point.  Of course the Church has and will always be against gay marriage regardless of whether it is legally recognized or not.  SSM mixes with LDS doctrine like water and oil mix.   I do think the Church should have approached Prop 8 like Prop 22.   I would not have donated a penny for Prop 8 because it would have been wasted money in my view.  Prop 8 was going to pass regardless.  Whether the Church is considered one of the most "antigay" or not really should not matter.  When I read the passage in the Book of Mormon on Lehi dream of the tree of life and the great and spacious building, I don't see any instruction for those partaking of the fruit at the tree of life to try to appease those who are mocking them in the spacious building.  The mockers and those that cast scorn are going to do their thing.  We just need to do our thing and hold on to the iron rod and not listen to them.  We already know who wins in the end.  That much is certain.

 

I also gave you a rep point.  You are absolutely correct.  And if the purpose of the church was to get the rest of the world to look upon its membes with distain and mockery from the large and spacious building then they have succeeded haven't they.  But let us be clear here, the church is being mocked because of their antigay actions that took to take away the civil right of gay couples to marry.  

 

I personally don't care that the church teaches against gay marriage.  They are a religion.  They have every right to teach whatever they want.    And when the church jumped into the business of Prop 8, then those that value equality and civil rights for all Americans are going to push back.  People are funny that way.  Many value those basic rights guaranteed them by the constitution even when it is a religion trying to take away those rights.  

[california boy]

Not to mention that clearly gay marriage has nothing to do with survival of the race, which is mentioned in many of these decisions. The court was not even thinking of what they would have called "sodomy" which was illegal.

Ridiculous argument.

Marriage also has noting to do with the survival of the race.  We have never issued marriage licenses based on the ability to reproduce.

 

For such a ridiculous argument, it has won every time it has been tested in the courts.  Now if you feel you have a legal argument to make to justify not allowing gays to marry, I suggest you contact the lawyers that will be defending their ban against gay marriage as quickly as possible.  Because so far, they have not had a legal leg to stand on.

[california boy]

Oh my gosh.

If those were about GAY marriage what is all the fuss about?

Obviously they were not. This is very simple stuff here, totally obvious, and not worth further debate.

Please reread what I actually wrote.  I didn't say these cases are about gay marriage.  Each one of those cases are about the legal right to marry.  It is the 14th amendment that guarantees every American citizen equal protection under the law.  So I will connect the dots for you since you seem to be having some difficulty doing it on your own.

 

The right to marry is protected in the constitution.  The right of equal protection guarantees that right for all Americans.

[california boy]

I believe there are many that view these threads that would agree that your perspective is informative and adds value to the discussion.  I count myself among this group.

 

Thank you.  I appreciate your compliment.  I hope that my participation promotes understanding and respect for all sides even when we disagree.

[mfbukowski]

Dobedobedobedodobedobe... It wasn't me

Sure looks like you

Surely this is missing the point...

Some random state in America is going to (potentially) take steps that would (potentially) favour relationship rights over religious rights and Mormons are saying the constitution of America will (potentially) hang by a thread and, as a result, it's time to get dem gosh-durn-it guns out.

Americans would be funny sometimes if they weren't so terrifyingly serious about it. It would make brilliant satire if only it were intentional.

[mfbukowski]

Gays have always had the right to marry.

Please reread what I actually wrote.  I didn't say these cases are about gay marriage.