Remember when “justice was blind?”
Forget that. Today, like it or not, there’s a litmus test for the courts and the people who work there – the judges and the lawyers.
There’s an unspoken standard for what the judges believe and how that “belief” will influence their decisions. But now, that “unspoken” standard is becoming spoken, with force, and it threatens the very fabric of our legal protections.
Justice? My foot!
Doubt me? Just ask the Boy Scouts of America. The latest hit to them goes to the core of my issue.
The California Supreme Court ruled last month that if a judge has been either a member of the Boy Scouts or volunteers with the organization, they have to admit it. In other words, in cases where sexual orientation is key, the assigned judge must either recuse himself (drop out of the case) or disclose his connection with the Boy Scouts so the lawyers can decide whether to ask for his removal. This ruling gives them the power to do that.
The inference is that just by having an association with the Boy Scouts organization, the individual (in this case, a sworn judge) has a bias against homosexuals. We are to be suspicious of them and, in fact, we should not want them to hear our case.
It started with a unanimous vote by the Superior Court judges in San Francisco and spread to several other bars in the state. Not happy with that, it was then appealed to the State Supreme Court for a ruling that would affect the whole state. And they got it!
What unadulterated nonsense! But then, this is California we’re talking about. But it’s dangerous, as I’ve said before, because the country tends to follow California’s lead. In this case, it’s a lead down a dark trail.
Remember, BSA is not political. It’s an organization that trains boys to become men of honor, integrity and moral strength. It strives to develop in those young people a sense of community and helping, with the goal that each would be imbued with the qualities of leadership. The group has a commitment to God and country. It makes no bones about that. Being “morally straight” has been a guideline for the organization since its inception, and it aims to keep the members healthy in mind and body.
Ah me. What a target that makes them, for the Scouts does not want to have homosexuals among its leaders or members. Have there ever been homosexual Scout leaders or members? Probably, but they kept it private.
But the critical part of this issue is that BSA is a private organization; it can set its own membership rules and regulations. If anyone disagrees with those policies, they’re free not to join or participate.
As for paid employees of the BSA, the organization is held to the same laws against discrimination that apply to all employers. They may not discriminate. But for members and volunteers, they can set their own guidelines.
But that isn’t good enough for those who disagree with the Scout position on homosexuality. They not only want to change it, they want to destroy the organization.
One way is money. By lobbying the charity organizations that distribute donations, Scout funding has been cut back drastically. By lobbying corporations and individuals who make donations to non-profits, donations have dropped. By raising the issues of sex/gender discrimination, public buildings, schools and other facilities have been put off-limits to Scout meetings and other activities.
These have happened often enough that it clearly indicates an attempt on the part of activists with political goals to try to destroy the Scouts, not change it.
As for the court ruling, what’s next? If guilt by association is valid, should we require full and total disclosure of everything? We’re already seeing how pro-life candidates for judicial nominations are excoriated for their belief.
How about having full religious disclosure? After all, those Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims and other belief systems have some pretty strong positions on issues that are not necessarily politically correct. Maybe we should weed them out too, or at least label them.
How about judges who are (you should excuse the expression) patriotic? Should they be disqualified from a treason case? What about their political views? Should a Republican hear the case of a Democrat? A black hear a “white” case? An atheist hear a religious case?
Can you see where this is leading? I can. It’s leading to a complete breakdown of the legal system. I don’t exaggerate. Things are changing with lightening speed and unless it’s stopped, we really are doomed.
