There are two articles in this file: 1. "Scouts Can Bar Gay Men as Leaders, State Court Rules" -- LA Times 3/31/94 2. ACLU Condemns Ruling Allowing Scouts to Exclude Gays -- Reuters via Clarinet ---------------------------------------------------------------- To: eagles@flash.usc.edu Subject: "Scouts Can Bar Gay Men as Leaders, State Court Rules" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 18:02:01 -0800 From: "Kraig R. Meyer" This morning's LA Times have an article with a headline that reads "Scouts Can Bar Gay Men as Leaders, State Court Rules" According to the article, a California State Appeals Court ruled Tuesday that a state law prohibiting job discrimination against gay men and lesbians does not apply to the Boy Scouts and does not prevent the organization from exclding gays from the ranks of Scoutmasters. "The ruling came in a 13-year-old lawsuit filed by Timothy Curran, who at the time wanted to become an assistant Scoutmaster for a Northern California troop." Curran was an Eagle Scout who took a male date to his senior prom and was quoted in the local new media as proud to be gay. He later expressed interest in becoming an assistant Scoutmaster but was rejected because he is gay. According to Curran's attorney: "The majority opinion rules that the Boy Scouts and numerous other charitable organizations are exempt from California's anti-discrimination laws and are free to exclude whomever they want, on any basis. This overturns decades of state law to the contrary. I cannot believe that the court would have reached this result if Tim had been excluded by the Boy Scouts on the basis of his race or religious beliefs." Curran's attorney pointed out that just last month the judges ruled that the Boy Scouts could not exclude two boys who do not believe in God, as the Boy Scouts were bound by the Unruh Civil Rights Act. "In a similar court case now being tried in San Diego, El Cajon Police Officer Chuck Merino has sued the Boy Scouts over his abrupt ouster in 1992 as a Scout leader after the Scouts learned of his homosexuality. " A ruling is expected as soon as Friday. Both cases appear likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuters) Copyright: 1994 by Reuters Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 20:10:08 PST This was taken from a Clarinet article. For more information on Clarinet send email to info@clarinet.com or call 1-800-USE-NETS. All Rights Reserved. LOS ANGELES (Reuter) - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Wednesday condemned a ruling by a California Appeals Court allowing the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gays. Jon Davidson, senior staff counsel with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said the court had endorsed discrimination against gay poeple with its ruling against Timothy Curran, a gay former boy scout who had sued the scouts for discrimination. The ACLU is representing Curran in the case. Davidson called the decision handed down Tuesday by a state Appeals Court in Los Angeles ``extremely distressing'' and said it relegated gay men and lesbians to second-class citizens. Curran sued the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, alleging discrimination, after it turned down his application to be an assistant scout master in November 1980 shortly after he publicized his homosexuality. Earlier that year, Curran, an Eagle scout, took a male date to the senior prom ``and took advantage of the resulting press coverage to let the public know that he was 'proud of being gay','' according to court papers. The Appeals Court, in a majority opinion, ruled that the Boy Scouts and many other charitable organizations are exempt from California's anti-discrimination laws and are free to exclude whomever they want, on any basis, the ACLU said. ``This overturns decades of state law to the contrary,'' Davidson said. ``I cannot believe that the court would have reached this result if Tim had been excluded by the Boy Scouts because of his race or religious beliefs.'' The ACLU said it would seek a re-hearing of the case before the Court of Appeal, and, if necessary, appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.