The short- and long-term moral, social, and political implications of two new Surpreme Court decisions--Dale v. Boy Scouts of America and Stenberg v. Carhart (the partial-birth abortion case)--were examined at a June 2, 2000 Center "Evangelicals in Civic Life" leadership colloquium, held at the DoubleTree Hotel. At the time of the meeting, the decisions had not yet been handed down but were accurately predicted by the speakers, Michael McConnell of the University of Utah College of Law and Center visiting fellow Hadley Arkes of Amherst College.

McConnell, who had served as part of the Boy Scouts' legal team, reviewed the history of the case. The Court had to decide, he said, whether the First Amendment exempted the Boy Scouts from a New Jersey law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in "places of public accommodation." Originally enacted to safeguard racial minorities from the biased practices of electric companies and railroads, the statute has been stretched in recent decades to cover some groups simply because they are large, McConnell argued. By ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts, the justices declared that this expansion endangered civil liberties by intruding on a private organization's right to "expressive association."

But prevailing in their constitutional battle might prove to be a Pyrrhic victory, McConnell warned. Unless the Boy Scouts can win public sympathy and not be seen as irrationally bigoted, they could become cultural pariahs and viewed in the same way as "the Nazis in Skokie." The Scouts would then face overwhelming pressure to change their policies regarding homosexuals. On the legal front, moreover, the Scout's traditional ties with schools, national parks, and the military are in jeopardy. Scout supporters must "go on the offensive," McConnell counseled, and highlight the intolerance of gay-rights activists.

Turning to the partial-birth abortion case, Hadley Arkes offered an even gloomier assessment for those who oppose abortion. The oral argument before the justices made clear, he said, that the majority of justices deem any anti-abortion law, however limited, to be unconstitutional. They seem to hold that "the pregnant woman is the only bearer of rights and that her interests always trump the interests of the unborn child."

But Arkes urged pro-life forces not to be "terminally demoralized by this defeat." He suggested that they push for "modest steps" that would "establish important first claims and gain standing for the human child." Promoting a law to protest a child who survived an abortion, for instance, would compel pro-choice advocates "to say exactly what they mean." This would be instructive for the public, Arkes said, and would put the debate on a different moral plane. The issue of infanticide would be rightly thrust onto center stage.

In the wake of each presentation, Center vice president Michael Cromartie moderated lively debates about the most effective strategies for influencing public officials and public opinion while staying true to principle. The participants of this leadership colloqium are available for download on this page.