joedad

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/21/national/21SCOU.html?ex=1041138000&en=27d965e1df327878&ei=5 006&partner=ALTAVISTA1" target="_blank">California May Bar Judges</a>

mshah2k

Government has no right to dicate what organizations its employees can or cannot join outside their job [I can imagine a fundy state passing law barring members from joining atheist groups..].

hezekiah jones

mshah2k:
"Government has no right to dicate what organizations its employees can or cannot join outside their job ..."

Sounds crazy on its face doesn't? But judges must comply with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, of which Canon 2C reads:

"A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination* on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.

"This Canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization or an official military organization of the United States. So long as membership does not violate Canon 4A, this Canon does not bar membership in a nonprofit youth organization."

Canon 4A requires that judges' extrajudicial activities do not "(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's ability to act impartially; (2) demean the judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties."

* invidious discrimination Discrimination that is offensive or objectionable, esp. because it involves prejudice or stereotyping. - Black's 7th ed.

Where the Boy Scouts figure into the above is the question. Of course what causes the hubbub in the first place is the addition of "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes. Those that make the argument that homosexuals are being granted "special rights" would have to make the same argument for anyone that falls into the other classes as well, which happens to include religious people, the ones that are making the "special rights" argument to begin with. So "special rights" are apparently fine for the objectors, based on something they merely believe, just not for gay people, based on something they actually are.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

semyaza

Normally, I would agree. But, these are judges, who are required to be impartial. Suppose, for example, that an unbeliever is involved in a custody case with a believing spouse. It wouldn't be right for the judge to decide the case on the basis of religion, or lack thereof. In the same way, a judge shouldn't decide guilt or innocence based on wether the defendant is gay or straight. The California law may seem nonsensical, but it does have a pragmatic foundation.

joedad

I kinda felt the same way when I first read the article, and that's why I posted the link. It was a "how dare they!" reaction. But after reading the article and discovering that other states have similar laws, it makes sense. I don't see how else a judge can consider himself or herself capable of being impartial and neutral unless he or she is not a member in any such group. Obviously the Boy Scouts didn't foresee this development.

It's an ironic turn. Boy Scouting and Patriotism are near inextricable institutions, or at least used to be. It certainly doesn't look good for Scouting if Judges, in avoiding associations with organizations which discriminate against citizens for such reasons, must now avoid Scouting as well.

For example, a few people in my experience emphatically assert that their views are not racist with regards to skin color. Practically speaking, their position is identical to "Separate but Equal," but if I suggest that this constitutes racism, they disagree. I think that same mindset is operating within Scouting, at least at the National Level, that there is nothing wrong with this kind of arrangement. Hopefully that is changing.

I don't know if it's ever possible to convince someone that they are discriminating when you get back such lines as "That's how god wants it." The best hope is simply that there will be less and less such thinking and such people in the future.

joe