Talk:Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Expand
The article is not very informative as it currently stands and needs some fleshing out. What are the names of the families involved? Since they are suing the city, why does the case name say "v. Boy Scouts of America"? Which is the District Court that ruled on this? Please expand a little. Thanks! --Splitpeasoup 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did that a while ago. Originally the suit was against both the city and BSA, but the city caved in 2005 and paid the ACLU. BSA is appealing and the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has filed an amicus brief on BSA's behalf. GCW50 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Although the City of San Diego effectively dropped out of its appeal, its name still appears in the caption in the Ninth Circuit's December 18, 2006, order, certifying questions to the California Supreme Court. Following standard practice, that published order would be cited as Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 471 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006). However, considering the fact that the BSA is the real party in interest, I see no harm in the current encyclopedia entry's reference to the BSA rather than the City. The Wiki caption arguably is more accurate than the official Ninth Circuit caption. Eric Alan Isaacson 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Scouting does not prohibit atheists from joining, it was simply stated by Baden Powell that they would not be as successful. This page's article states otherwise. --75.68.36.81 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The BSA does, in fact, prohibit atheists and agnostics from joining. Current membership applications indicate that no one is entitled to a certificate of membership unless they are willing to subscribe to a Declaration of Religious Principle stating that only people who recognize a duty to God are capable of becoming "the best kind of citizen." Eric Alan Isaacson 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New (December 2006) Developments in Barnes-Wallace
The Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2006, issued an opinion finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, and certifying questions of state constitutional law to the California Supreme Court. Here's a link to the December 18, 2006, opinion:
On December 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a further order summarized on the docket thusly:
12/26/06 Filed order ( William C. CANBY, Andrew J. KLEINFELD, Marsha S. BERZON, ): On 12/18/06 we certified questions in this case to the Supreme Court of California. Our certification order and the briefs of the parties were dispatched to the Court on the same day, On 12/21/06 a judge of this ct filed a notice that may lead to an en banc review of our certification order. In light of that fact, we request the Calif Supreme Court to delay consideration of our certification order until we notify it of the conclusion of any potential en banc activity affecting the certification order. The clerk of our ct will immediately notify the Calif Supreme Ct of this order, and promptly dispatch to that ct a copy of this order. [04-55732, 04-56167] (gar) [04-55732 04-56167]
This effectively puts the case "on hold" while the Ninth Circuit's active judges decide whether to rehear the case en banc (perhaps to reconsider the holding on standing from which Judge Kleinfeld dissented). If the case does not "go en banc," then the California Supreme Court will have to decide whether it wants to take the certified questions and - - if it does - - there probably will be a new round of briefing on those questions before the California Supreme Court.
I would be happy to update the encyclopedia entry to reflect the new orders, but as I am counsel for certain amici curiae in the case, it might be better if someone else posted the update.
Eric Alan Isaacson 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
