Senate Backs Scouts' Use of Military Bases

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to allow U.S. military bases to continue to host Boy Scouts events, responding to lawsuits and a federal court ruling aimed at severing relationships between the government and the youth group.

The vote came one day after four adult Scout leaders were killed on the opening day of the National Scout Jamboree at the Army's Fort A.P. Hill in Bowling Green, Va., when a tent pole apparently struck a power line.

In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision continuing the hosting of Boy Scout events as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations

Frist said it "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.

In 1999, the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination.

Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.

On June 22, U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning ruled in the ACLU's favor, saying the Pentagon can't spend millions of dollars to sponsor Boy Scout events. She said in an earlier ruling that the government spent between $6 million and $8 million to host the Jamboree on a military base in 1997 and 2001.

The House in November overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution that recognized the Boy Scouts organization for its public service efforts and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the organization that has 3.2 million members.

A lib co-worker of mine told me today that while the Scouts do a lot of great things, he is in total disagreement with them not allowing homosexuals into Scouting; he also doesn't like the fact that Federal tax dollars go to Scouting (I'm assuming he is referring to the use of federal land), since they disallow homosexuals. Of course, as soon as I mentioned that there were MANY organizations that I felt should not benefit from my Federal tax dollars, he told me I was trying to cloud the issue. Why is it that libs can only debate as far as when they are winning, yet when a conservative proves them wrong, they get bent out of shape?

A lib co-worker of mine told me today that while the Scouts do a lot of great things, he is in total disagreement with them not allowing homosexuals into Scouting;

I wonder it this Lib even knows the BSA position on homosexuals. For one, it never mentions homosexuality in its applications for membership or leadership. It says if you have anything in your past that would make you a bad role model for young men you should voluntarily withdraw your application. I suspect even most Libs would agree that homosexuality is not a good role model, or that other bad role models would also make for bad leadership. Wife beating and criminals come to mind.

Thus leaders should be good role models. Now as to the youth, clearly the scouts would not benefit from young active and openly homosexual scouts in their midst. But what about the young man who is not certain about his sexuality and keeps it to himself? Well guess what, Scouting does not ask him to leave, in fact scouting does not ask young men anything about their sexuality. (They do expect a belief in a Supreme Being, but are willing to bend this belief until it almost breaks to let in a kid. Scouts do not need to belong to a recognized religion, and the Supreme Being can be the G-d of nature or earth, or all of life as long as spirituality is involved.)

I end with a story about a troop in the South SF Bay Area who stated firmly that they were against the Scouts policy on not allowing openly homosexual scoutleaders. The Scouts did not move agains them for this position. Waiting to see if they would follow up their position with action. An openly homosexual man from San Francisco (about an hours drive north) applied for a job with this troop. Well, the troop committee got together and decided that they had no openings for new Assistant Scoutmasters at this time. LOL. Common sense prevailed again. (BTW, it is in this troop committed where the leadership credentials of prospective leaders is evaluated. I participated in one that denied a recently turned adult scout a position of leadership on the grounds that he had not demonstrated sufficient maturity to this point. He was asked to resubmit his application at some time in the future.

Ask your Lib friend where common sense enters his political philosophy?

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.