In This Issue:

• Things Will Now Become More Difficult for the Scouts
• News from the Scouting Legal Defense Fund
• U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Take Sea Scouts Appeal
• Berkeley Sea Scouts React to Supreme Court Action
• American Legion Urges Passage of PERA During Lame Duck Session
• Scouts Presence at Polls Perceived as Possible "Electioneering"
• A Scout and Columnist Comments on the Sea Scout Case
• Local Scouts Take on Bank of America and Win
• Your Generous Contribution Helps Us Defend Scouting
   

Things Will Now Become More Difficult for the Scouts

Dear Friend of Scouting,

We must not kid ourselves. Events in recent weeks will make it more difficult to defend Scouting over the next few years.

The first and most significant is the turnover of control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats in the upcoming 110th Congress. One of the political realities that all of us who are determined to defend Scouting must understand is that, as a general rule, the Democratic Party is less supportive of the Scouts and the values and ideals that Scouting promotes than is the Republican Party.

This is not meant to be a partisan observation. Nor does it ignore the fact that many, many Americans who vote Democratic are strong supporters and defenders of Scouting.

Rather, this observation is based on the record of the Democrats over the years. On the whole, the positions taken by the Democratic Party are far more liberal than those taken by the Republican Party. Indeed, most of these positions are more liberal than the views of most independent voters, as well. Since it is the liberal elements in our country that are attacking Scouting, and because they gravitate to the Democratic Party, any increase in the influence of the Democrats in Congress will make things more difficult for the Scouts.

A couple of examples will demonstrate this point. Recently, the House passed H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). This bill, promoted primarily by the American Legion, would reduce the excessive legal fees (in the multi-millions of dollars each year) the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are being awarded when they challenge "so-called" government involvement with religious, patriotic and Scouting activities.

The House voted to pass H.R. 2679 by 244 to 173. Only 26 of the 192 Democrats voted in favor of it. On the other hand, only 6 of 224 Republicans voted against it.

Another good example is the vote in 2000 on H.R. 4892, California Democrat Congresswoman Woolsey's bill to revoke the Scout's national charter to punish them for their stand on homosexuality. It failed overwhelmingly. But what was significant and surprising is how many House Democrats refused to even take a stand on this outrageous bill. Fifty one of them voted "Present" instead, including incoming San Francisco House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Michigan's Rep. John Conyers, incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. New York Rep. Jerold Nadler was a co-sponsor of this bill. He is the fourth most senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and is likely to chair the Constitution Subcommittee.

By contrast, only 1 Republican voted "Present" and only 1 voted for the bill. The remaining 216 Republicans voted solidly against it to protect the Scouts' charter.

And, of course, many of us will never forget the incident at the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles when a Scout color guard posting the colors of the United States was booed by many delegates.

Another major disappointment in recent weeks was the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal of the Berkeley Sea Scout case. The City of Berkeley, you will recall, is discriminating against the Sea Scouts by withholding free berthing privileges for their vessel at the city marina as punishment for the Scouts' policy on homosexuals. The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld this discrimination by the city, which we and many others believe is a clear violation of the Scouts' constitutional rights.

The SLDF filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Scouts at both the state level and in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the Supreme Court's refusing to hear the appeal to repeal the California state court decision we can only expect other cities to attempt similar discriminatory acts.

The Sea Scout decision further underscores the need for the appointment of "strict constructionist," not activist federal judges at all levels, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. The takeover of the Senate by the Democrats, however, will make it far more difficult for President Bush to get federal judges who truly respect the Constitution confirmed. It will especially be a problem if, as seems likely, he has the opportunity to fill an additional Supreme Court vacancy during his last 2 years in office.

All in all, we can be certain of even stronger attacks on the Scouts in the coming years. The SLDF will be ramping up our activities to defend scouting to meet these increased threats. We hope you will continue to support us in this critical effort.

Sincerely,

Susan A. Carleson
Editor

P.S. You can help defend Scouting even more by forwarding this newsletter on to others who support Scouting.
 

News from the Scouting Legal Defense Fund

Susan Carleson, SLDF Executive Director, expressed "strong disappointment" over the decision of the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the Berkeley Sea Scouts appeal of the California Supreme Court decision against them. On October 16th the Court declined without comment to hear the case, Evans v Berkeley.

"We believed that this was certainly one of the most important cases in the protection of our First Amendment rights generally, and specifically of the right of the Scouts to exercise their right of expressive association since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Scouts in the Dale decision in 2000," Carleson said. "We actively supported the Sea Scouts in their efforts and filed amicus briefs both with the California Supreme Court and with the U.S. Supreme Court."

The Sea Scouts complaint was that the city had illegally discriminated against them by revoking the free berthing privileges the city had given them for nearly 70 years. Other non-profit groups continued to receive free berthing privileges. The city made it clear that it was discriminating against the Sea Scouts because of the Scouts policy on homosexuals and atheists.

The SLDF brief summarized the point of law at issue "Though advancing and practicing such traditional moral values is labeled by the Defendant City of Berkeley as discrimination, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) this Court directly and expressly held that the exact same actions and policies to which the City objects here are constitutionally protected under the right of freedom of expressive association. The question in this case is whether the City may penalize and discriminate against the Scouts for exercising the precise constitutional rights recognized by this Court in Dale. We submit that in doing so the City has violated the First Amendment and Equal Protection rights of the Berkeley Sea Scouts and the Boy Scouts."

"We must now be even more vigilant in defending Scouting," Carleson said. "Because the Supreme Court has allowed this decision to stand, other municipalities may be tempted to try to do something similar."
 

What is Happening to Scouting Around the Country

• U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Take Sea Scouts Appeal
  
  On October 16th the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the California Supreme Court decision in Evans v Berkeley, the Berkeley Sea Scout case. The Court declined the appeal without comment. The Sea Scouts complaint was that Berkeley was violating the Scouts' constitutional rights by withdrawing free berthing privileges that it had granted for 70 years while still giving free berthing privileges to other non-profit groups. The city admitted that it was taking the action to punish the Sea Scouts for their position on homosexuality and atheism. Article here. Scouts Press Release here.
• Berkeley Sea Scouts React to Supreme Court Action
  
  Berkeley Sea Scouts Skipper Eugene Evans and several current Berkeley Sea Scouts respond in a newspaper interview to the Supreme Court decision rejecting their appeal of their case against the city of Berkeley. Article here.
• American Legion Urges Passage of PERA During Lame Duck Session
  
  The commander of the American Legion has called on Congress to pass the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) during the closing weeks of the 109th Congress. The bill has passed the House and is awaiting Senate action. PERA would prevent the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups from being reimbursed for their legal fees when they sue governmental units over religious or patriotic symbols or support of the Scouts.
  
  "Pundits may call their return on Nov. 13 a lame-duck session but senators are there to do the business of the people and we expect them to pass this important piece of legislation in this Congress," said Paul A. Morin, national commander of the 2.7 million-member group. Article here.
• Scouts Presence at Polls Perceived as Possible "Electioneering"
  
  In what can only be considered to be hypersensitivity by a Sun Prairie, Wisconsin city official, the Scouts were banned from collecting food at polling places on Election Day and were required to set up their collection tables at least 100 feet from the polls just like political parties and candidates Wisconsin was voting on a state constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and the city official worried that having the Scouts at the polls would bias voters. "On this election, it was an issue because of knowledge of past issues with the Boy Scouts, their oath, and we had the marriage referendum on the ballot. It was a perceived possible conflict of interest," said Diane Hermann-Brown, city clerk for Sun Prairie. Article here.
   

Some Thoughtful Commentary on Scouting

• A Scout and Columnist Comments on the Sea Scout Case
  
  Hans Zeiger, an Eagle Scout, columnist and national spokesman for the SLDF comments on the recent U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal of the Berkeley Sea Scout case in "Suspicious Sea Scouts in Berkeley" appearing in World Net Dailey. He notes the contribution the Sea Scouts make to the community. He also notes that the city continues to provide rent free berthing to other non-profit groups. "It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to accept writ of certiorari in the Berkeley marina case," he concludes. "For now, the state Supreme Court's ruling will stand. The right of private groups to establish their own membership policies without government penalization is frighteningly insecure, and the condition of civic relations between public and private spheres has been interminably damaged." Complete column here.
• Local Scouts Take on Bank of America and Win
  
  Writing in the Gwinnett County, Georgia, Gwinnett Daily Post Bud Yarborough relates the conclusion of the story of a small Scout council that took on the Bank of America and won in "Little guys can win in America." The Alapaha Area Council had requested a $1,000 contribution from the local bank but were turned down because the bank said the Scouts' policy on homosexuals violated its non-discrimination policy. "The corporate suits forgot who they were dealing with. If folks in south Georgia can handle sand gnats and humidity that you can cut with a knife, they sure aren't afraid to take on a big corporation like Bank of America," he writes. The local council pointed out that the bank gives to other groups that discriminate on the basis of gender, race or other practices, such as not allowing boys to join the Girl Scouts, and generally raised a fuss. Locals began to close their accounts with the bank (including the Scout council) and local politicians took up the cause. The result? "In the end," he writes, "the bank blinked and wound up giving the Alapaha council $1,700, instead of their original request of $1,000. They also changed a donation policy that practiced reverse discrimination. The Scouts' policy is still the same as it was before the big hoo-hah with Bank of America." Full column here.
   

Your Generous Contribution Helps Us Defend Scouting

Our efforts to defend scouting depend entirely on contributions from people like you. Please help us defend Souting even more effectively by making a generous contribution to support our efforts. Your contribution is tax deductible.

You can easily and securely contribute on line here or print out a form there to mail in your contribution.

Thank you for whatever you can do to help us better defend Scouting!