Dissent-Part 7

Justice John Paul Stevens, with whom Justice David H. Souter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer join, dissenting

In a lengthy and spirited dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Boy Scouts had offered no evidence that it had any policy on homosexuality and that the absence of such a policy meant that the organization's shared goals could not be undermined by the acceptance of gay members and leaders. ""The evidence before this court makes it exceptionally clear that the Boy Scouts of America has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality," Stevens wrote. Stevens also chided the court majority for what he said was its willingness to simply accept the Boy Scouts of America's own claims about the organization's views on homosexuality."Unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity," he wrote.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Boy+Scouts+of+America+v.+Dale)

“Justice Stevens’ dissent makes much of its observation that the public perception of homosexuality in this country has changed. Indeed, it appears that homosexuality has gained greater societal acceptance. But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html)

Argument-Part 6

In the case of the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, I believe that the judges made the right decision in favor of the Boys Scouts. I agree that such an organization as the Boy Scouts of America have set a rule from the beginning of its inception to instill values in the youth. Even if homosexuality is somewhat acceptable now than it used to be, I believe that if a rule or “mission statement” was made that they should be allowed to follow it and make no exceptions. I have nothing against homosexuals, in fact, I have several gay friends. It's not for me to judge them because they are great people, whether or not they were gay. It is their choice to live that lifestyle, but I believe that the Boy Scouts of America has a right to do as they wish. I guess you can say I'm an old fashion guy and still believe in morals. According to the Scout Oath and Law, it states…

"Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Scout Law
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent"

(http://www.scouting.org/media/mission.aspx)

“The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are "based on" those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide "a positive moral code for living; they are a list of 'do's' rather than 'don'ts.'" The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean."” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html)

First Monday in October

The movie we watched in class today dealt with pornography and how it played in society back then. I think today’s porn compared to that of 30 years ago, during the 1970’s, have changed tremendously. I believe that modern day porn is more perverted, degrading and filthy than what it used to be. Pornography is readily available to everyone, especially with the internet. So much so, that porn websites appear in “pop-ups” luring you to check out their website even if you were not looking for it. Having access to these websites is not a good thing especially if children can find them easily if there were no parental supervision. In today’s society, it’s sad because we are so desensitized to all these explicit material that it is the norm. Back then, it was said to be taboo. I think if porn was to be only shown in theaters like they used to, then I think the industry would not profit as much as they do today. I think those who are into pornography will be ashamed to be caught seeing a porn film in public. With it readily available on the internet in the comforts and privacy of our home, it’s likely that more people will access these types of websites without any hesitation and avoid any possible ridicule or judgment from others.

My opinion on all this is that if you want to watch these explicative types of movies, go ahead. Everyone has the choice to watch it or not. Pornography is an industry so huge now, that it has become almost acceptable throughout the world. With the internet, porn reaches those who seek them. The industry will continue to operate and grow whether we like it or not. It’s a matter of setting better and stricter regulations that keep children from accessing these types of material.

Rule of law-Part 5

In summarizing the case, it involves a New Jersey man, James Dale, who was in the Boy Scouts of America for many years and upon entering college, he openly admitted that he was gay. Mr. Dale had applied for assistant scoutmaster, but when news got out revealing that he was a homosexual, his membership of the Boy Scouts was revoked. And because of this, Dale sued the Monmouth County Boy Scouts for expressly violating New Jersey's common law and bans on discrimination and in 1992, he took them to the New Jersey Supreme Court where he won. “In this manner, freedom of association may come into tension with the goal of nondiscrimination. Freedom of expressive association case law attempts to balance these competing claims—the right of a group to control its message versus the right of individual or potential group members to be treated without prejudice. The Court's precedents hold that compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, may justify some infringement upon freedom of association, provided the state does so by the least restrictive means.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/boy-scouts-v-dale)

It wasn’t until 8 years later that the case was taken to the Supreme Court. “After the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts may not exclude homosexuals from leadership positions, the Scouts were forced to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights. CIR filed an amicus brief urging the Court to respect the Scouts' freedom of association. The High Court ruled in favor of the Scouts 5-4, setting an important precedent for the right of groups to choose their own membership.” (http://www.cirusa.org/cases/dale_v_boy_scouts.html)

Reasoning of the Court-Part 4

In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “the Court said that BSA enjoys a constitutionally protected right of "expressive association" that would be undermined if the organization were forced to accept the plaintiff as an assistant scoutmaster. Describing the Boy Scouts as a private organization that "believes homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill in its youth members," Rehnquist wrote that "Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."” (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html)

William Rehnquist also reinforced and stressed that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. First, the Court said that the BSA engages in expressive activity by seeking to instill values in young people, and its expressive freedom would be curtailed if it had to accept avowed homosexuals as members despite the organization's policy to the contrary. Second, Rehnquist stated that the forced inclusion of an avowed gay rights activist as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate public or private viewpoints, since application of the LAD in this manner would significantly burden the organization's right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct. "In a lengthy and spirited dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Boy Scouts had offered no evidence that it had any policy on homosexuality and that the absence of such a policy meant that the organization's shared goals could not be undermined by the acceptance of gay members and leaders."The evidence before this court makes it exceptionally clear that BSA has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality," Stevens wrote. Stevens also chided the court majority for what he said was its willingness to simply accept the BSA's own claims about the organization's views on homosexuality."Unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity," he wrote.”" (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html)

Decision of the Court-Part 3

On June 28, 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Boys Scouts of America. The case was decided on a 5-4 vote. "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive message," wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the majority comprised of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.” (http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000)

The Court also concluded that the 1st Amendment did not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be "expressive association." The Boy Scouts takes an official position in regards to homosexual conduct, and the Court majority found it sufficient.

"The presence of an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster’s uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy," wrote Rehnquist in a 19-page opinion. "The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection." (http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000)

Issues of the Case-Part 2

The reason why this case is before the court is because former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster, James Dale was denied adult membership to The Boy Scouts of America. “James Dale entered scouting in 1978 at the age of eight by joining Monmouth Council's Cub Scout Pack 142. Dale became a Boy Scout in 1981 and remained a Scout until he turned 18. By all accounts, Dale was an exemplary Scout. In 1988, he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, one of Scouting's highest honors.” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html) Dale’s membership was revoked after it was found that he was a homosexual and a gay rights activist.

In 1992, James Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. "The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699/)