Defending the family

Public Advocate Court Brief Shows NY Times May Be Guilty of Defamation

Public Advocate Court Brief Shows NY Times May Be Guilty of Defamation or Libel Against Pope


In recent weeks the New York Times has pursued a public libel of moral leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in its published editions. Public Advocate believes in the first amendment but there is no free speech right to destroy the freedom of religion or attack a religious leader in a malicious manner.

The New York Times claims as "news" memos and letters from 30 years ago every day for weeks. Propaganda on the order of Orwell's 1984 but in the hands of a secular newspaper promoting gay rights and the destruction of the moral order for decades.

Public Advocate legal papers filed in the 1999-2000 Boy Scouts litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court show adult homosexuals by and large prey on young men out of proportion to the general population and our legal reasoning was, in part, to favor banning adult homosexuals to reduce the attacks on children. We believe any attacks on the Catholic Church ignores legal precedent in this country on several fronts to protect children and demonstrate malice towards moral people who are in fact protecting children.

Here we have the New York Times, the promoter of the immoral order claiming moral authority over the pope. Claiming it does not make it so.

There is no real factual basis on the part of the NY Times allegations-- that the pope did anything more than the law in the United States allowed 30 years ago, thus the false nature of the assault.

Liberals at the NY Times know this. We believe that is what motivates their attack, that they are frustrated by the current legal blocks to the previous wholesale infiltration by homosexuals of the Catholic Church.

And they are really not interested in preventing assaults on children by priests as the NYT's agenda is a promotion of gays in the boy scouts, in the church, as teachers and in the military, thus the demonstration of malice.

This malice is clearly directed at the head of a Church.


LIBERALS MAD THAT THE CHURCH HAS BANNED OPEN HOMOSEXUALS

Today, the Catholic Church has rightly banned practicing homosexuals from being priests and this has cut down the incidents of abuse of children by so-called priests who are really homosexual infiltrators using the church for sinful and illegal activities. It is not current news.

Now other countries with liberal policies are under attack-- for not banning homosexuals and it is in those countries -- not the United States of America-- where there are fresh incidents. That's the whole story with balance.

LIBERALS MAD THAT BOY SCOUTS HAVE BANNED OPEN HOMOSEXUALS

Likewise back in 1999 Public Advocate lawyers made the case bluntly to the Supreme Court in a friend of the court brief Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, Boy Scouts of America, Petitioners,v . James Dale, Respondent.__ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Supreme Court of New Jersey along with a separate brief filed in the Supreme Court later.

The Supreme Court voted five to four to allow the Boy Scouts to ban practicing homosexuals and the incidents of abuse of young boys dropped dramatically. It is not news anymore.

In that court brief Public Advocate bluntly said what most conservatives know is the truth: adult homosexuals disproportionately prey on young boys. PA did not say "all" homosexuals. We showed that large numbers disproportionately prey or recruit younger boys and men.


From the Public Advocate Court brief (petition):


Pedophilia plays a key role in the recruitment of future homosexuals. Regarding the homosexual recruitment process, noted sex researchers Masters and Johnson observed:

In most instances, homophile interests developed in the early to midteens.... There was no history of overt heterosexual experience prior to homophile orientation. Recruitment usually was accomplished by an older male, frequently in his twenties, but occasionally men in their thirties were the initiators. When the homosexual commitment was terminated, in most instances, the relationship was broken by the elder partner. With termination, the teenager was left with the concept that whether or not he continued as an active homosexual, he would always be homophile-oriented. [W. Masters and V. Johnson, Human Sexual Inadequacy (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), pp. 179-180.]

In one study (Bell and Weinberg, supra, p. 87), over 60 percent of the respondents identified their first homosexual partner as someone older; in another (P. Gephard and A.P. Johnson, The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1958-63 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research (Indiana University Press: Bloomington, Ind., 1979), p. 495), over 64 percent of the respondents identified their first homosexual partner as having initiated the sexual experience.


During the period 1971 through November 1991, the Boy Scouts banned 1,871 individuals from Scouting for sexual abuse. P. Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1984), p. 315. (Not all of these cases involved male scout leaders abusing male Scouts). At least 2,071 Scouts reported being abused by leaders, with another 2,737 victims who may or may not have been Scouts. Boyle, p. 316.

It could be said that based on their experience as well as the social science literature, the Boy Scouts would be violating the trust conferred on them by the parents of countless young boys if they allowed avowed homosexuals to continue in leadership roles, modeling their lifestyle to those impressionable boys, resulting in the very immoral behavior by those boys which the Boy Scout Oath and Law seek to avoid.

From the Public Advocate Court brief (Merits):

If the ruling below were upheld, the Boy Scouts of America, their affiliates and their volunteers would be unfairly and unreasonably exposed to increased risks of liability, and the boy scouts, themselves, would be unnecessarily exposed to risks of harm and injury. These heightened risks -- of injury and of legal liability -- are especially noteworthy in this case.

Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept avowed homosexuals as adult leaders would increase the risk of sexual molestation of young boys, given the fact that certain homosexual activists encourage legalizing sex with all persons, including minors. E. Rueda, The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, pp. 202-203 (Old Greeenwich, Conn.: The Derbin Adair Company, 1982). Additionally, there is evidence that the proportion of homosexual pedophiles is considerably higher than that of heterosexual pedophiles, and by one estimate, homosexual teachers are 90 to 100 times more likely to become sexually involved with their students than are heterosexuals. See, e.g., G. Gallup, "Attitudes toward Homosexuals and Evolutionary Theory: The Role of Evidence," 17 Ethology and Sociobiology 281-84 (1996).

Indeed, the Boy Scout setting appears to be an ideal place for certain pedophiles, especially male homosexual pedophiles, to pursue potential boy victims, with overnight camp-outs in secluded locations providing ample time and opportunity for intimate contact. See P. Boyle, Scout's Honor 70-71 (Rocklin, Calif., Prima Publishing: 1994). If such molestation were to occur, the Boy Scouts would likely bear the risk of legal liability for such conduct. See, e.g., L.P. v. Oubre, 547 So. 2d 1320 (La. 1989); Lourim v. Swensen, 328 Or. 380, 977 P.2d 1157 (1999).

Having ignored both the common law principles underlying the public accommodation laws and the possible consequences of a ruling forcing the Boy Scouts to accept a homosexual activist as a scoutmaster, the New Jersey Supreme Court also erroneously disposed of the Boy Scout's constitutional claim of freedom of association. Indeed, that court paid no attention to the true legacy of freedom of association, neglecting even to address the relevant constitutional text establishing that freedom, and misapplying this Court's precedents upholding that freedom.

A copy of the Public Advocate brief (Merits) is posted at

http://wjopc.com/site/constitutional/boyscout_merits.html


A copy of the complete brief (petition) is filed at
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/boyscout.html

Summary of Supreme Court Decision "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, James" (06/28/2000)
http://onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000

More News Articles