Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:48:12 -0500 From: Chris Hagin To: Multiple recipients of list GLB-NEWS Subject: Boy Scouts Out of Bounds For Jurists? Could Be COMPILED FROM NEWS WIRE DISPATCHES Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 Boy Scouts Out of Bounds For Jurists? Could Be LOS ANGELES -- If Judge John Farrell wants to chaperone his sons' Boy Scout troop, who's to judge? Some fellow judges say it shouldn't be Farrell. Colleagues have suggested he leave the bench rather than continue participating in the Boy Scouts organization, which celebrated its 85th anniversary Wednesday. The state's 1,500 judges are split over a proposed rule that would bar jurists from belonging to any group that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. That includes the Boy Scouts, which bars homosexuals on grounds they are at odds with its oath to be ``morally straight'' -- and which has defended its position before judges around the country. In an interview last week, Farrell said he saw nothing unethical about carpooling to scout meetings with his two boys or chaperoning their hikes. ``I'm not trying to tell anybody they're doing anything wrong -- and I don't want somebody to tell me I'm doing something wrong, that there's a perfectly legal organization I can't belong to,'' said Farrell, a Superior Court judge in San Fernando. Judges already are barred from clubs that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion or birthplace. The state Supreme Court announced in June it would decide whether the Boy Scouts can legally exclude homosexuals under the state's civil rights law, the Unruh Act. If the decision goes against the Boy Scouts, it would clearly be unethical for a judge to belong, said Municipal Judge Rudy Diaz of Rio Hondo, president of the California Judges Association. A minority of the state's 1,500 judges believe that it creates the appearance of impropriety for a judge to be involved in a group that discriminates openly. ``It's an old axiom that birds of a feather flock together,'' said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Lachs, one of the few openly gay judges in California. ``If you belong to an organization that discriminates against gay men and lesbians and if you belong to an organization that condemns gay men and lesbians, then one is fair in assuming that you share that particular bias,'' he said. In 1992, the judges' association amended its Code of Judicial Conduct to outlaw words or conduct in the courtroom that showed prejudice, including bias against homosexuals. There was no controversy about that issue, but there was about extending the stricture to judges' private lives. Court clerks already have such a provision in their ethics code. Clerks must ``repudiate any act of discrimination'' based on race, gender, age, religion, national origin, language, appearance or sexual orientation. ``This definition of ethics confounds common sense,'' said Farrell. He called it a product of ``the politically correct group who just want to regulate people's personal lives.'' ``It is not an issue of political correctness,'' said Lachs. ``What it is, is an issue of the perception of fairness.'' In 1993, judges voted in secret, by mail, 745 to 415 against an out-of-court-activities amendment to the code. Complicating matters, however, voters in November approved Proposition 190, a judicial reform initiative that took the authority to write the Code of Judicial Conduct away from the judges association and gave it to the Supreme Court. Proponents of the rule hope the Supreme Court will take up the ethics issue no matter how it rules on the Boy Scouts. Tulare County Municipal Judge Glade F. Roper has been involved in the Scouts since he was a boy. ``It really is not a sexuality issue,'' he said. ``It's a question of: `Can I think a certain way, and in my own home and my own circle of people?''' For Lachs, the answer is simple: ``Go ahead, participate in the Boy Scouts, stay in it,'' he said. ``But resign your judgeship.'' S. CHRISTOPHER HAGIN | The Pledge of Allegance says: Atlanta 1996 | "With liberty and justice for ALL" chagin@mindspring.com | What part of ALL do you not understand? HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE