Liberals in California target judges with Boy Scout ties

By Gina Miller
RenewAmerica.com

Listen to an audio version of this column

Give them an inch, and they'll demand a mile. We warned you that the terrible decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly homosexual boys into membership would only lead to further attacks against the organization by the militant homosexual Left. We were right, and the target is now judges who have ties to the Scouts.

In California, the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed amending the Code to ban judges who participate in, or are members of, non-profit youth organizations that "discriminate" on the basis of sexual orientation – that is, the Boy Scouts of America. The organization is specifically named in the proposal, because it still does not allow open homosexuals to be troop leaders. This proposal was open for public comments until April 15th, so I'm a little late to the twisted party, but this is still something you should know.

From the nine-page proposal:

Of the 47 states that bar membership in organizations that discriminate on the basis of certain enumerated classes, 22 (including California) list sexual orientation as one of the protected classes. California is, however, the only state whose code contains a prohibition against membership in organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation that also has an exception for membership in nonprofit youth organizations. The [American Bar Association] Model Code of Judicial Conduct, upon which much of the California code is based, also contains no such exception.

California's status as the only state with an ethics code that prohibits membership in organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but has an exception for nonprofit youth organizations, combined with recent developments in the law relating to recognition of same-sex relationships, is anomalous and inconsistent with other principles in the canons. In the committee's view, eliminating the exception would promote the integrity of the judiciary.

The committee analyzed the exception in the context of a judge being a member of the [Boy Scouts of America (BSA)]. Until recently, the official policy of the BSA read: "While the [BSA] does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA." In May 2013, after a national council meeting, the BSA announced its decision to permit openly gay boys to participate as scouts until age 18, but to continue its bar against gay and lesbian adults as troop leaders or in other leadership positions. Because the BSA continues to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the committee agreed that eliminating the exception, thereby prohibiting judges from being members of or playing a leadership role in the BSA, would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Only in a world run on lies would it be considered "ethical" to shun those who uphold right, moral standards. Only in a nation polluted by degeneracy would we see celebrations of abominable sin and the punishment of those who oppose it. This is insanity. For this "ethics" committee to exclude from the California judiciary people who are affiliated with an organization that has historically worked to help boys grow into good, moral citizens is simply disgusting.

This has nothing to do with enhancing "public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," but has everything to do with the radical homosexual movement's war against truth, reason, morality, and fundamentally, against God. The Left cares not a whit for judicial impartiality, as evidenced by so many Marxist-minded activists who routinely make unconstitutional law from the bench. The Left didn't give a rip about impartiality when a lawless federal judge, a homosexual, did not recuse himself from California's Proposition 8 case, in which he overturned the will of over 7 million Californians who had lawfully amended the state's constitution to correctly define marriage. No, the Left only cares about "bias" when it goes against its own anti-Christian, anti-freedom, unconstitutional schemes.

We can warn you of the danger to our freedoms posed by the militant homosexual movement till the cows come home, but unless millions of Americans are willing to stand forcefully and vocally against this evil agenda, it will continue to succeed in crushing freedom under its Godless boot.

Here's another little gem from that judicial "ethics" proposal that you'll just love:

The committee also proposes amending the commentary following canon 2C. Under the committee's proposal, the commentary would retain the language noting that membership in religious organizations is constitutionally protected, but references to military and nonprofit youth organizations would be deleted.

The existing penultimate sentence refers to "individual rights of intimate association and free expression." The committee proposes that this sentence be deleted; the code prohibits judges from being associated with any organization if that association would affect the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Because this sentence was inserted to apply to nonprofit youth organizations, the committee proposes that it be deleted.

God-given, First Amendment-protected, unalienable rights? Not for judges in California, if this proposal is adopted. This is warped beyond belief. A judge being involved with the Boy Scouts, in the view of the atrophied minds of this committee, would "affect the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary"? We are in mighty big trouble, folks. Don't imagine for a minute that these people won't continue their scorched-earth campaign against freedom until they manage to outlaw any opposition to the devilish goals of the radical homosexual movement. Unless they are stopped, they will not stand for anything less than making any expression of Christianity illegal, because that's where this leads. Now, they have their crosshairs set on judges to dictate their associations. I know it's an overused term, but this is horribly Orwellian, and it must be stopped.