The California Supreme Court voted unanimously last week to prohibit state judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts of America because the youth organization continues to bar gays and lesbians from serving as troop leaders. It's a move that sends a clear message to the organization that the Golden State doesn't tolerate discrimination. The California Judges Association, which represents 1,575 of the state's 2,000 judges, supported the ban.
It's important to note, as the justices did, that the ban does not elevate gay rights over religious freedom. The new rules adopted by the court still allow judges to belong to religious organizations whose beliefs or practices discriminate. The Scouts are not a religious organization, even though many troops hold meetings in churches. It's not clear exactly how many state judges are active in the Scouts, but they need to end their affiliations or they will be found in violation of the state Code of Judicial Ethics and could face removal from office.
In 2013, the Scouts ended the longtime ban on gay youth as members, but the organization refused to allow gay men and lesbians to be troop leaders; some were removed from their leadership positions despite petitions of support that were delivered to the Scouts' headquarters in Irving, Texas. Last year, when former Defense Secretary Robert Gates took over as president of the organization, we expected to see movement toward ending the ban on troop leaders. But for whatever reason, Gates has been largely silent since he's been in the job. A quick search could find no recent comments from him about the Boy Scouts. That's too bad, because Gates seems like one of the few people who could forge substantive change in the organization.
The state Supreme Court's decision should be viewed in a larger context by other state high courts: that judges who routinely rule on issues of fairness, equity, and justice should not be engaged in activities that openly discriminate against a group of people. Other states' courts would do well to implement similar policies.
At the other end of the spectrum, Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, this week wrote to Governor Robert Bentley, telling him that he would continue to recognize the state's same-sex marriage ban even though a federal judge last Friday declared it unconstitutional.
"As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment," Moore wrote. "I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity." Moore continued at the end of the letter, "Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."
Some gay legal experts see Moore's latest rant as further evidence of his "career-long contempt for the American legal system," as Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson posted on Facebook.
We disagree with Moore and find that his comments amount to judicial tyranny if he so blatantly refuses to follow the law. But Moore has a knack for defying court orders and issuing discriminatory decisions. For example, he once granted child custody to an abusive father because the child's mother was a lesbian.
The California high court justices may receive criticism for their decision, but it was made based on ethical guidelines, in contrast to Moore, who just decided on his own that he won't follow the law. In this contrast of state high courts, there is no question which one made the better determination in an effort to provide a more just and unbiased process.