In a column last week, I laid out a case I believe has merit involving a countersuit against the American Civil Liberties Union for its coercive pro-active lawsuits against city, state and county and private organization officials who still support the Boy Scouts of America.
The BSA, you will note, has a policy against allowing homosexuals and atheists to join its ranks as Scouts or Scoutmasters. The Supreme Court, last June, said they have every right under the Constitution to make such distinctions because they are a private organization and this is the United States of America, not the former Soviet Union.
In that column I wrote, “The Boy Scouts oppose homosexuality on Christian religious grounds. Therefore, by suing to force officials to abide by an activist homosexual agenda, the ACLU is, in every sense, enticing others to break the law of the land,” specifically, the First Amendment right to free association, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
To date, I haven’t heard from or about a single legal group that is willing to step up and take this case, though I can’t imagine why.
If I’ve got the law mixed up, fine — I’m no lawyer so it’s possible I’ve missed my mark here. But I am a student of the very plainly-worded Constitution, and I believe there is a case.
Maybe nobody has stepped up because of the cost of this litigation. I personally pledged a hundred bucks to start the effort and in the ensuing correspondence I received after the column was published, I can attest truthfully that others who wrote me said they too would be willing to match my contribution. Some said they’d “more than match” it; others said they’d be willing to cough up a thousand dollars or more.
So, the money’s there — or it would be, if somebody would take this case.
Is the problem simply that the ACLU is “too big”? Granted, this is a big organization and it is well-funded — but all it would take is one successful ruling against this group of pinkos, and the BSA would be free and clear forever (precedence, you know). Also, would the ACLU want the negative publicity of defending itself on behalf of its “right” to “go after” officials and organizations that support a youth group that already has the support of three-quarters of the American people? Such bad publicity could help dry up the ACLU’s funding — what a nice change that would be.
Is there no traditional values/constitutional legal group in this country (or a combination of them) willing to see to it that the BSA is free to be the kind of group it wants to be?
After being publicized enough, the donations for this cause would roll in like merchandise rolled out of Air Force One when Bill and Hillary Clinton stepped off the plane in New York on Inauguration Day.
Is the problem simply a lack of conviction? I hope not, because there are some fine legal groups in this country with demonstrable records of defending traditional American constitutional values, and I’d hate to think all of those cases — most of which have far less implications for the national good — take priority over such a large case with long-term nationwide implications.
The longer this case is put on “hold,” the more persecution the BSA suffers at the hands of liberal ACLU lawyers and kowtowing, weak-willed bureaucrats too cowardly to take a stand because they’re afraid of being called a name.
There is precedence for this kind of legal counter-assault.
When the gun industry got sick and tired of being pushed around by clowns pretending to be lawyers concerned over the “welfare of the American people,” it pushed back.
On April 27, 2000, WND reported that “Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms, Inc., Colt’s Manufacturing, Inc., Glock, Inc., SIG Arms, Inc., Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.,” under the leadership of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, filed a countersuit in federal court in Atlanta against former Clinton administration “Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and mayors and other officials representing 14 municipalities.”
The result, so far, has been nothing short of incredible: Suits by cities have not been dropped, per se, but have definitely been blunted and are losing steam, as well as popularity. You see, pursuing a lost legal cause is also financially devastating on these municipalities, who must pay their legal bills with taxpayer money.
The ACLU is privately supported, to be sure, but shifting funds away from BSA suits and into a self-defense case would also serve to blunt their assault and, eventually, force them to retreat. I’m confident of that because the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Scouts. This seems like a no-brainer.
Again, I repeat my pledge of a hundred bucks to start up the counter-legal assault against the ACLU in defense of the BSA’s constitutional right to promote its own rules. I know hundreds of thousands of other Americans would join in this cause.
Is there a legal group out there willing to step up?
