The Wonderfully Retrograde Boy Scouts

HERE is an editorial by the mendacious, corrupt, child-hating New York Times on the affirmation this week by the Boy Scouts of America of its longstanding policy of excluding homosexuals as pack leaders or scouts. The headline is “The Boy Scouts 19th Century Decision,” as if the nineteenth century is somehow by definition detestable. (This implies that much of what we do is execrable. Do you own property? Do you read newspapers? Repent, those are nineteenth century things to do.)

It is impossible to square the Boy Scouts of America’s values of openness, strong moral character and leadership with its announcement this week that reaffirmed a retrograde policy of barring gay boys from membership and gay or lesbian adults from serving as leaders. [So what if the policy is "retrograde?" Building roads is retrograde. Fighting fires is retrograde. Many of our laws are retrograde. And, since when has homosexuality been linked with strong moral character? Name a single strong moral leader who was openly homosexual.]

Based on the recommendation of a secret 11-member committee, the policy is at odds with the nation’s diminishing acceptance of antigay discrimination and is destined to hurt many young people and their families. [The meeting was not secret; it was private, just like the board meetings of the mendacious, child-hating New York Times.] It compounds the dilemma faced by parents who welcome the positive community service and outdoor experiences that the Boy Scouts offer, but are repelled by discrimination. [They are perfectly free to go elsewhere or to start their own boys organization.]

A dozen years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that as a private organization, the Boy Scouts may exclude gay members even though it may conflict with a state’s anti-discrimination laws. [Good decision.]

The Boy Scouts are, indeed, a private organization, but there is a public interest in its decisions. [In other words, there is no such thing as a private sphere. Every organization, every activity is potentially public and therefore organizations are not entitled to reflect their own values. This is an argument for tyranny.] The organization boasts on its Web site that it has a charter from Congress and that every president since William Howard Taft has served as its honorary chairman. [And the majority of those presidents would support the Boy Scouts decision.] That now puts the government in the untenable position of implicitly endorsing the discriminatory policies of the Boy Scouts. [Excellent. The government should discriminate against homosexuality.]

President Obama, who has shown a real commitment to combating the unfair treatment of gay people, should respond by ending the group’s prestigious tie to the White House. His doing so is unlikely, unfortunately. Congress should also sever its tie, but that is even more unlikely. [Yes, the Boy Scouts should sever its connection with the U.S. government in order to preserve its integrity.]

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said in a debate with Senator Edward Kennedy in 1994 that he believes the Boy Scouts should be open to all, “regardless of their sexual orientation.” If he still believes that, this would be a good time to say so. [Mitt Romney is a major disappointment.]

“Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said in a debate with Senator Edward Kennedy in 1994 that he believes the Boy Scouts should be open to all, “regardless of their sexual orientation.” If he still believes that, this would be a good time to say so. [Mitt Romney is a major disappointment.]”

I ask myself sometimes why am I supporting Romney? Am I selling my soul just to get rid of Obama?

First off, BSA doesn’t exclude scouts no matter what said scouts may confusedly say about themselves.

I'm not quite certain where you get that. After BSA v. Dale, the BSA legal department published three sets of standards: one each for volunteer adult leaders, employees, and youth. Those standards are no longer available online, but I still have my copy and my archived link.

With respect to youth, the BSA says that youth "membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs." More particularly, the BSA specifically states that homosexual youth cannot hold leadership positions. Even if you discount the fact that a youth's membership is contingent upon accepting values and beliefs that preclude being homosexual (read the full statement at the link), a youth member could never hold a leadership position in his patrol, which would preclude a Boy Scout from ever advancing past the rank of First Class.

Here's the BSA policy on youth:

Youth Leadership. Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.