It is not enough that we have to live along side of those who snub their nose at moral standards. It does not satisfy them that we have to allow them to cram their sinful actions in our face. It is not enough that we have to accept open, public displays of affection between two people of the same sex. Sodomite unions forced on a populous that has voted to ban the practice as unlawful. Now, if you are going to be a judge in California, you may soon not be able to be affiliated with any private group that does not accept these perverse actions as normal.
Christiannews.net is now reporting that:
The Supreme Court of California has unanimously voted to ban judges in the state from working with groups such as the Boy Scouts of America due to their stance on homosexual behavior.
This means that if a judge is a scout leader in his community, he has to choose between serving as a judge and serving as a scout. This ruling makes these two roles mutually exclusive for judges.
Christiannews.net further explained.
“The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation … to eliminate an exception to an ethics rule that prohibits judges from holding membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation,” it explained in a press release.
This is a clear attempt to control the thinking and the acting of the judges under their authority. It is not enough that these groups have had to choose between judicial opinion and the safety of the young boys under its charge; it also has the issue of having enough leaders to serve.
This recommendation has not gone unchallenged. Newsmax.com reports that the legal director of the pro-life Life Legal Defense Foundation, Catherine Short, wrote a letter of warning to the board.
“This proposed amendment has as its overtly-stated purpose the branding of the BSA as an organization whose members must be assumed to be biased and thus unfit for the bench. The Committee states that ‘eliminating the exemption… would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,'” Short wrote. “On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance.”
Short seems to hit right at the heart and motive of this decision. It is a situation that has nothing to do with law or ethics but compliance. The recommendation points to the fact that it is the integrity of the judiciary that is in question. If these judges are bound to judge and give rulings according to law rather than opinion or affiliation, what does this ban accomplish?
The only thing that we can say is that this points to the attempt by this liberal and biased committee to preempt a reverse of their own tactics. The fear by these liberal is that those who hold opposite views than their own, will misuse the office of judge as they and others like them have done in the past. It has been the long time practice of liberal judges to hand down rulings according to their view of justice rather than according to the law.
The next question for the judges this will affect is, what will they do? Comply and break ties with the BSA and other organizations like them or to resign as judge. It seems either of these options is giving the committee what they were seeking. We must pray that this attempt at thought control will fail; as God gives these judges the wisdom to stand for what is right.