Lars Larson: Gays target judges involved with the Boy Scouts


by Lars Larson

Should judges be barred from being on the bench just because they’re associated with the Boy Scouts?

California is now proposing to make it unethical for a judge to be sitting on the bench judging cases if he’s associated with the Boy Scouts. The reason is, what I call the gay mafia has decided that they don’t like the fact that the Boy Scouts, while they do welcome homosexual members, do not allow homosexual scout leaders. And they don’t like that – they want the organization to change.

And just as they did with Mozilla – the private company where they forced out the CEO for having “the wrong” point of view about traditional marriage and gay marriage – they now want all those judges to disclaim any connection to the Boy Scouts.

I don’t think that makes any sense. We shouldn’t have that kind of political litmus test, or gay marriage litmus test to qualify to be on the bench. I just think its dead wrong and we shouldn’t be doing those kinds of ethical test for judges.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Ethics | 49 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jack Lord God

    One does wonder where this sort of thing will end. What’s next? No Catholics? Because they are certainly no more welcoming than the Boy Scouts in this regard. How about no Muslim judges? I mean the Catholics aren’t exactly pro gay rights but Islams hierarchy often advocates death for homosexuality.

    I get what the gay rights movement is trying to say here. However whatever validity their position may hold is undermined entirely by the fact that they seem to be picking on those groups that are smaller and more easily defeated rather than following this ethos to its logical conclusion – no Muslims or Catholics need apply.

    • The idea “thou shalt marry and be given in marriage” is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., eternal love), but not of the persons of men. The government of men’s external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.

      The praeterpolitical power of the churches to institute monogamy as an ecclesiastic rule of law enabled them to determine the legitimacy of the succession of the pagan kings, abrogate the natural rights to property and self-defense, as well as gave them power of ecclesiastic censure for divorce.

      These gaytheist ecclesiastic fagnostics would have men believe they will receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy, as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature, which is inherently pagan and heterosexual… all men are born of a woman…

  • disqus_Fct5923LDM

    I’m sort of amazed the Mozilla CEO didn’t hire a private detective agency, find out who “outed” him; and then sued the bum in court for economic damages, That would put these types of activists that there are real consequences for their actions.

    • Michael Hagmeier

      Campaign donations are public record. No outing required, no expectation of privacy.

    • DavidAppell

      Sue him for what — speaking freely?

    • Reynolds v. United States in 1878 already defined marriage as one man and one woman… It also is the case where the so-called “separation of church and state” became a point of case law.

      Why not polyandry or polygyny??? Al Queerda is on a fággot jihad… these ecclesiastic gaytheists and fágnostics are insane, their Saint Sodom Hussein Obama turned the Boy Scouts into a dating club for NAMBLA.

  • Eric Blair

    I have a hard time believing this could withstand a constitutional challenge. As much as I’d like the BSA to accept gay scout leaders, and I’ve found their changes in policy to be glacial at best, I do believe people have the right to associate with whom they wish, and that the government, any government, should not be determining who is fit for office based upon those associations. That should be left up to voters.

    As for Mozilla, the CEO is the public face of a brand. If the CEO doesn’t reflect the values of that brand, then they shouldn’t be surprised if their asked to not be CEO anymore.

    And seriously, gay mafia? LOL.. mafia, like Nazi, Fascist, and Communist, is one of those labels used to disparage without addressing the real content or intent of a group or individual. It’s an intellectually lazy way of dismissing someone without spending the time to actually address their views.

    • The Jewish owned international media is on an anti-white, anti-Christian fággot jihad…

  • MrBill97702

    I think the Gaystapo’s goal is to ban from society anyone with whom they disagree. This will eventually include anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and not just the Boy Scouts.

    • DavidAppell

      So you’re opposed to anyone objecting to homophobia…? Wow.

      • The U.S. State Department has been infested with communists since World War One and Woodrow Wilson, they tried to steal the Russian elections for their comrades in the Russian Communist Party through “nonprofit” NGOs, just like at home in America.

        But Vladimir Putin beat them, so Al Queerda launched a fággot jihad against the Russian Orthodox church over the punk rock band and the Olympics (something Romney also piled onto)… They even flew in Madonna as a provocateur while Hitlery was on her worldwide gay pride tour.

        While Leon Puñettas was so busy with gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon, three Navy Seals and a U.S. ambassador were murdered, all because everyone was being so fúcking gay…

        Russia has real soldiers on their border and no gay pride marches in their army… Imagine that.

      • MrBill97702

        To simply chalk up any objection to homosexuality to an irrational fear kind of misses the point. The objection is based on moral grounds.

        I have acquaintances and relatives who are gay. I’m generally okay with most and some I love dearly. But I still think homosexuality is wrong. I don’t go out of my way to tell them, but I don’t deny it either. And that’s how a lot of people are. I don’t think we who believe this way should be hounded out of society, threatened with lawsuits or otherwise harassed for that.

        • Fantasy is their medium of infinitization… “Morality” is a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior…. much like how Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro asked Euthyphro, ‘how can we be pious to the gods, if the gods all want different things?’

          All men are born of a woman, married or not… monogamy is a tenet of religion pretending the change of nature in their consecrations… the ecclesiastic gaytheists would have men believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.

          • Eric Blair

            No alteration of nature necessary. Homosexuality exists in other animals as well. Evidently, it is natural.

          • You should stop molesting farm animals, it is a felony….

          • Eric Blair

            LOL.. you should stop projecting, it’s embarrassing

        • Eric Blair

          Do you call them out as members of the gaystapo?

          Do you think that gays should have fewer civic privileges and rights than straight people? At the point you do, you are enforcing your morality on others, which is what I object to.

          Just as a side note, you can express your opinions, but that should not make you immune to criticism of those opinions.

          • MrBill97702

            Yes, I do call them the Gaystapo when they start suing people (florists, bakers, etc.) who don’t wish to provide their services in support of a homosexual wedding as has begun to happen across the country.

            As for enforcing morality, all law is legislated morality. The only question is what morality is going to be enforced.

            I don’t mind criticism. This is a pretty civil conversation, and nothing’s been said here that anyone should be upset about (including myself).

          • Eric Blair

            The problem with “gaystapo” is that it is a phrase of hate and derision. It is equating gays fighting against discrimination with the Gestapo. Are you seriously going to compare the two? Rounding up jews, socialists and homosexuals and sending them to concentration camps is equivalent to gays fighting discrimination in public accommodations? I suspect you would not be pleased, as you work to keep homosexuals as second class citizens, if I called you a member of the christstapo.

          • MrBill97702

            This may surprise you, but that’s not the worst thing I’ve ever been called.

            And I’m not comparing all gays who fight discrimination with the Gestapo. I’ m comparing those gays who drag people in front of a judge, because they wouldn’t sell a cake, flowers, or whatever for a homosexual wedding to the Gestapo. If someone refuses to sell you a cake for your gay wedding, buy one somewhere else.

            I bet the same shop owners would gladly sell their wares to anyone, gay or straight, for most other occasions.

          • Eric Blair

            Still, comparing them to the gestapo says much more about you than it does them. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

            We all make sacrafices… for instance, I help pay for roads, police and fire services for churches that do not represent my views. Businesses are not entirely private, and service a public good and need. Pulling businesses that overly discriminate should be pulled in front of a judge – that’s much better than breaking their windows, or setting fire to shops. Taking them to court does not make them anything like the Gestapo.

          • MrBill97702

            Refusing to sell a cake for a homosexual wedding is overly discriminatory? Subjecting them to fines and possibly putting them out of business altogether is better than breaking windows? I say it’s a rose by another name. You’re trying to accomplish the same ends. Only the means are different.

          • Eric Blair

            And I disagree, and when you demonize a group by comparing them to Nazis, you’ve given up any right to expect civil conversation.

            Yes, I think refusing to sell to gays because they don’t conform to your particular religious views is discriminatory.

            Are churches willing to return tax money to gays that is used to provide services they don’t pay for? I’m sure a formula could be worked out. That’s what happens in a civil society… none of us walk away completely happy.

          • MrBill97702

            When you force your will on people by intimidation through threats to employment, livelihood, or whatever over things like a cake or flowers you become a thug and are akin to groups (like the Nazis, Mafia, Fascists, and others) who’ve gotten their way in the past by promoting a climate of fear of retribution if you don’t jump through their hoops. You’re working so hard on being offended that you’re missing this issue which is much bigger.

          • Eric Blair

            So, what about the fact that I have to help, through my tax dollars, conservative churches and their members who do their best to, by law, keep homosexuals as second class citizens. Doesn’t that make them Nazis, and Fascists as well?

            Why does their church get to have tax exempt status? I feel like they’re extorting money from me, since if I don’t pay my entire tax bill and subtract that amount that goes to them, I’ll have the courts take the money from me. Sounds like an extortion scheme to me.

            Let me ask you this.. do you feel that homosexuals should have the same rights, and the same access to civic benefits as heterosexuals such as marriage?

          • MrBill97702

            Trying to change the subject to whether churches should be tax exempt or not is a discussion better saved for another day. There are lots of groups and organizations that I don’t like that likewise enjoy tax exempt status too. But I’m not going to use the IRS to harass and punish them because I don’t like them.

            So far as homosexuals being able to marry, I think my answer is already pretty apparent. So far as other civic benefits (voting, owning property, having a job, etc.), sure. No one’s questioning that.

          • Eric Blair

            So, isn’t using the laws to keep gays from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage, that you have, a form of fascism, and you are no better yourself? Doesn’t that make you a member of the christapo?

            I’m sorry, but you come across as very hypocritical. You are fine with imposing limitations on others through the law, but balk when they go to the courts to try and gain equal standing with others and not be discriminated againsy?

          • MrBill97702

            I don’t think I’m imposing limitations on others that I’m somehow exempt from. I don’t believe you should be able marry a guy, but I don’t think I should be able to either. How is that hypocritical?

          • Eric Blair

            Because you don’t want to marry a guy. You are willing to force your particular religious views on others which you voluntarily choose for yourself. If gay marriage was legal, would you marry a man? No, I don’t think so.

            How would same sex marriage hurt you since there wouldn’t be a requirement that you marry someone of the same sex? Your willingness to use laws to enforce your religious views, by your own definition in this post, makes you a fascist.

            I think you know the difference, you’re just being intellectually dishonest.

          • MrBill97702

            My “particular religious views” instruct my beliefs both on what is right and wrong and on what should legal and illegal. And so do yours. Yet you want me to abdicate my views while you continue to push yours. That, to me, seems hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

          • Eric Blair

            That is where you are wrong. I’m willing to accept things that run against my personal views, but that I don’t think should be legislated against. Here is the difference between you and me.. you are willing to force your religious views on people that don’t share your religion. I am not. Gay marriage does not require you to marry someone of the same sex, nor does it require your church to perform a gay marriage. You are not harmed by it at all. The fact that you don’t like it isn’t a good enough reason to legally inflict your views on someone else.

            So, do you think Jesus would refer to gays using the courts to assert their rights as the gaystapo? Evidently your Christian beliefs don’t even inform your own actions, why do you think you should make others behave better than you?

          • MrBill97702

            The point of everything we’ve been discussing is over whether a shop owner who doesn’t wish to participate in a gay wedding should be taken to court presided over by a gay friendly judge (who’s been screened beforehand for things like any connection to the Boy Scouts). Taking such a person to court, which you seem supportive of, is every bit as much forcing your morality on someone as what you’re accusing me of.

            As I pointed out above, all law is legislated morality. It’s a question of whose morality is legislated. I say, as a Christian, right and wrong (morality) is defined by the character and nature of God. We live in God’s world and it runs by God’s laws. If you follow
            God’s laws, the world works with you. If you go against them the world works against you.

            This means morality isn’t defined by whether or not it personally hurts me (or you). Someone marrying their sister, parent, an animal, a child, or a corpse harms me in no way whatsoever. Yet I still think it’s wrong because the Bible is equally opposed to these unions as it is to homosexual unions.

            As for the argument that homosexual marriage doesn’t require a given church or minister to perform the marriage, isn’t this the same situation to that of the shop owner? After all, if you can be taken to court for refusing to participate by selling a cake, or catering, or providing flowers, why wouldn’t a church or minister who refuses to provide a venue or officiant be liable to the same kinds of charges?. I think they would, and the same charges would be made against them as the shop owner.

  • DavidAppell

    If a judge can’t treat all people equally — and his membership in the BSA suggests he shares their prejudices — theh he has no business being on any court.

    I’m surprised that’s even a questionl.

    • Eric Blair

      It falls apart at the assumption that anyone being associated with the BSA is prejudiced against homosexuals. I suspect great number of liberal politicians, at one point belonged to the BSA. Micheal Moore is an Eagle Scout.

      • Sodom Hussein Obama is a gay blow up doll for Jewish globalist financiers… The Koran permits a man to have four wives and permits the execution of homosexuals by stoning them to death… Broken clocks can be right twice a day.

        Homosexuals desire their own extinction, Muslims are willing to give it to them… I see no reason to interfere and wash my hands like Pontius Pilate… may you have fun playing “spread the other cheek” for your new Islamic masters… tattoo an “M” on both cheeks so it says “mom” when you bend over…

        Like the Zohar Jew who dry humps the Wailing Wall like Miley Cyrus trying to achieve an erotic union with their “Shekinah,” a masturbatory cosmos maker… or miss neo-kabbalah Madonna, “Like a Virgin.”

    • Monogamy is a tenet of religion.

      Mammalian evolution is heterosexual.

      You ecclesiastic gaytheists and fágnostics are insane.

      • Eric Blair

        However, there is quite a bit of gay activity in the animal kingdom beyond humans. Evidently, it really is quite natural.

        Monogamy is a tenet of your religion, not all religions. And, last I saw, we are have freedom of religion in this country, not just the freedom to follow your religion.

        By the way, is hate a tenet of your religion as well? If it’s not, you may want to consider your words and how you use them.

  • Two questions… Did Obama get a good sniff of the Saudi king’s family jewels, he had his nose really close when he bowed, and… just how does a jew get to heaven from dry humping the Wailing Wall like Miley Cyrus? Sodom Hussein Obama is still butt hurt over no gay pride at the Olympics, he is just a gay blow up doll for George Soros. Butt Paste is a great product found at WalMart for Obama’s diaper rash…

    It was originally Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made the so-called “separation of church and state” a legitimate point of case law and defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

    Mr. Larson, the legal tools to attack this religious fággotry of homosexual monogamy is already in the body of “stare decisis.”

  • Michael Hagmeier

    Does Lars support ENDA? Does he support laws protecting gay folks from being fired for being who they are?

    Does he oppose all laws that criminalize gay behavior?

    If his answer to any of these questions is “no,” then he’s just a “freedom for me, not for thee” hypocrite.

    • Islamic countries execute homosexuals by stoning them to death.

      Broken clocks can be right twice a day.

      • .

        Aye, an’ second the emulsion!

        Winston states good like a 1st Amendment practitioner – nut not like a saboteur’s cud.

        An’ buy the way, send the what’s left of US packing off to other shores where their wisdom teeth hath been ‘polled’ before their brains were eventfully sent in.


        • Eric Blair

          It is truly wonderful that you have found each other. Yes, by all means, find joy in executing homosexuals.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)