BSA Switches Phones To Auto-Answer System: FRC's Perkins Reacts By Publishing BSA Board's Direct Phone Numbers
supporters and opponents alike. Callers are now directed to make comments regarding the policy on the BSA's website
This action by the BSA was met with an outcry from the anti-gay Family Research Council's Tony Perkins who sent out an e-mail blast Wednesday asking FRC supporters to call BSA Executive Board members on their private and or direct phone numbers he provided along with a talking points guide:
The phones are ringing off the wall.
If you've tried to get through to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), you know it's been tough. If you've wanted to express your concern about the BSA abandoning their longstanding policy of safeguarding Scouts by restricting openly homosexual Scout leaders from holding leadership positions, you may have been greeted by an endlessly ringing phone. This may be one instance in which the Boy Scouts were not prepared.
The BSA national leadership were not prepared for the thousands of Americans who were shocked to hear that an organization that could always be counted on for standing for what's right was about to cave-in to homosexual activists and corporations which have been threatening the organization's funding.
For generations, the BSA has shaped our nation's moral character by teaching young men to do their duty to God and country. This is why, when the BSA board begins its annual meeting on Monday of next week, it is so important that you keep the pressure on, to show them how devastating this moral collapse will be for the Scouts and the country.
Please call the members of the BSA Board of Directors (sample call script below) and kindly urge them to stand strong and true to their timeless values:
Select BSA Board Members:
• David L. Beck: (801) 240-1000• R. Thomas Buffenbarger: (310) 967-4500• Keith A. Clark: (717) 763-1121• William F. "Rick" Cronk: (925) 283-7229• John C. Cushman III: (904) 393-9020• R. Michael Daniel: (412) 297-4989• Jack D. Furst: (972) 982-8250• T. Michael Goodrich: (205) 328-9445 ext. 200• Earl G. Graves: (212) 242-8000• Aubrey B. Harwell Jr.: (615) 244-1713• Stephen Hemsley: (800) 328-5979• Larry W. Kellner: (713) 468-4050• Robert J. LaFortune: (918) 582-2981• Joseph P. Landy: (212) 878-0600• Francis R. McAllister: (406) 373-8700• Scott D. Oki: (425) 454-2800• Arthur F. Oppenheimer: (208) 343-4883• Tico A. Perez: (407) 849-1235• Robert H. Reynolds: (317) 231-7227• Matthew K. Rose: (909) 386-4140• Nathan O. Rosenberg: (949) 494-4553• Roger M. Schrimp: (209) 526-3500• Marshall M. Sloane: (781) 395-3000• Rex W. Tillerson: (972) 444-1000• David M. Weekley: (713) 659-8111• Togo D. West, Jr.: (202) 775-1775
Sample Phone Script:
Hello, my name is _________, from __________.
Thank you for your service as a board member of the Boy Scouts of America.
As you're aware, a new proposal indicates that the Boy Scouts of America may revoke their longstanding policy of safeguarding Scouts by restricting homosexuals from holding leadership positions over boys. For decades, your national organization has kept the interest of the boys it serves as the focus of all its actions. No matter what, the Boy Scouts of America could be counted upon to do the right thing and not yield to any social pressure, and has thus far stood strong.
Please do not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism. The proposal to relegate the decision on homosexual leaders to local chartered organizations sends the wrong signal from the national body: that political correctness ultimately triumphs over character.
Please retain the current long-held and time-tested policy regarding homosexual leadership and membership. America stands with you. Lead the way. Please stand strong.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Perkins closed the e-mail writing:
Together, we can make a difference in turning the tide and keeping an honorable organization on an honorable path.
President, Family Research Council
District Of Columbia
Anti-Gay Groups Flood Supreme Court With Amicus Curiae Briefs Advising Against a Favourable Ruling in DOMA & Prop 8 Cases
The principal arguments laid forth by the groups are that homosexuality is a behavioural choice and as such cannot be treated under legal definitions applicable to immutable traits and natural order.
[...] “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. As defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.
The briefs also argue that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”
In a brief filed by the Westboro Baptist Church, instead of solely citing case law, which the other typical briefs were, along with other citations to “other authorities,” which would include sources like studies, articles, books, speeches, transcripts, etc. Westboro’s 66 citations under “Other Authorities,” included 36 Bible quotes.
Westboro's brief concluded with:
Same-sex marriage will destroy this nation. If the leaders of this country treat what God has called abominable as something to be respected, revered,and blessed with the seal of approval of the government, that will cross a final line with God. The harm that will befall this nation, when the condign destructive wrath of God pours out on a nation that purposefully, in a calculating manner, institutionalizes marriage licenses for same-sex unions, is the ultimate harm to the health, welfare and safety of the people. The government is duty bound – in this Christian nation – to institute the standard of God on marriage, and pass and uphold laws that forbid same-sex marriage.
Other briefs argued that since Gay men and lesbian women have not been treated to a history of discrimination based on a “trait.” "
"There is no evidence that such people have been discriminated against on the basis of a characteristic or a propensity. For example, in the enforcement of the criminal law prohibiting sodomy,there must be proof of an actus reus.
Likewise, in the enforcement of the law of marriage, a homosexual pair is being denied a marriage license on the ground of sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
In short, Respondents have cited not law prohibiting homosexuality, that is, being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. Homosexuals are discriminated against not because of who they are, but only for what some may choose to do."
Amicus Curiae Briefs filed so far were by: the Family Research Council, the Westboro Baptist Church, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Eugene Delgaudio and the Public Advocate of the United States, Catholics for the Common Good, Citizens United’s National Committee for Family,Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S.Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education,Declaration Alliance,Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, English First, and Protect Marriage Maryland PAC.
Virginia Lawmakers Approve Bill Allowing State's Universities To Fund Student Groups Who Discriminate
RICHMOND, VA -- The Virginia House of Delegates voted 80-19 today to approve HB1617, a bill that would allow a religious or political university student group to participate in what could be defined as discriminatory practises and still would require the school(s) to provide funding and access to campus facilities. All 19 votes against the bill were cast by Democrats. It now advances to the Senate for committee consideration.
According to the LGBT Equality Rights advocacy group Equality Virginia, the measure would make LGBT students particularly vulnerable to discrimination because universities’ protections for sexual orientation are not enforceable under Virginia law.
Think Progress blogger Zach Ford noted:
"Under this bill, though, even a KKK chapter could hypothetically form, use campus resources, and openly discriminate against non-white and non-Christian students on campus."
Text of VA HB1617:
[...]To the extent allowed by state and federal law:
1. A religious or political student organization may determine that ordering the organization’s internal affairs, selecting the organization’s leaders and members, defining the organization’s doctrines, and resolving the organization’s disputes are in furtherance of the organization’s religious or political mission and that only persons committed to that mission should conduct such activities; and
2. No public institution of higher education that has granted recognition of and access to any student organization or group shall discriminate against any such student organization or group that exercises its rights pursuant to subdivision.
Equality Virginia noted that;
"While the First Amendment protects the right of student organizations to hold and advocate whatever ideas they choose, their discriminatory acts should not be entitled to government recognition and funding."
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, on a majority of its college campuses, student organizations must maintain a constitution that conforms to the university’s procedures, including its nondiscrimination policies.
Think Progress also reported:
"James Madison University requires that all organizations obey the “policies, rules, regulations, and standards of the university,” such as its nondiscrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation.
The College of William & Mary offers similar protections and requires student groups be open to all students. Such policies are key because student organizations receive funding and use campus resources (like meeting spaces) that are funded by fees that all students pay; thus, all students deserve equal access to those campus clubs."
Nondiscrimination policies have become a source of contention for conservative Christian student groups who wish to exclude gay students from membership.
In the 2010 case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly answered this question in favor of nondiscrimination policies, ruling that “all-comers” policies are viewpoint neutral, and thus are no more unfair to Christian groups than any other student groups. Conservatives have argued, however that nondiscrimination policies allow for “hostile takeovers" in which students with opposing views infiltrate and assume power in the organization.