The Boy Scouts' Next Capitulation (how now can they argue against the inclusion of gay leaders?)

American Thinker ^ | 06/04/2013 | Trevor Thomas

[SeekAndFind]

To encourage his demonic protégé, Screwtape explained to Wormwood, "It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing... Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one -- the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."

With the Boy Scouts of America's (B.S.A.) decision to allow young gays into their ranks, another signpost warning against the sin of homosexuality has been removed.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the Constitutional right to exclude gay members. This was because, as the Court concluded, opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization's "expressive message." Part of the Scout Oath states that Scouts will keep themselves "physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." The majority opinion in the 2000 ruling noted that the Scouts "teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."

In his dissent of the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens declared, "it is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles -- 'morally straight' and 'clean' [a reference to the Scout Law] -- says the slightest thing about homosexuality." It seems that the Boy Scouts have now surrendered that "expressive message" and agree with such an abhorrent and morally ignorant conclusion.

As Al Mohler warned prior to the B.S.A. vote, surrendering this core conviction "is both a legal and moral disaster." For example, with their "expressive message" now compromised, how now can the Scouts argue legally to prevent the inclusion of homosexual leaders?

[txnativegop]

Here comes the homosexual-oriented merit badges, although I personally fail to see the merit in such a lifestyle.

[faucetman]

The Boy Scouts are finished! Circling the drain. However you want to phrase it. It might survive as a “man/boy” organization.

[silverleaf]

you can’t be a leader without a troop

and ultimately it is up to the parents to choose their son’s troop, based on trusting the troop leadership

or not join BS at all

[CodeToad]

All it takes is one homosexual Eagle Scout at 17 years and 364 days to then turn 18 and ask to be an adult scout leader. It will happen.

[newheart]

The inclusion of gay leaders will occur the moment the first gay Eagle Scout turns 18 after January 2014 (when the new policy goes into effect). I expect the lawsuit is already being written.

[newheart]

You beat my by 4 minutes. See post 6

[wita]

Something tells me, having to be that selective could be the downfall of the organization. If you can’t trust the whole way of life how are you expected to trust a single troop trying to conform to the whole organization.

[circlecity]

I think the scourt fully intend to allow gay scout leaders they just calculate that if they phase it in like this they will lose less members. They are counting on the frog in the pot of heating water phenomenon.

[chris37]

They can’t. They have been snookered.

[laweeks]

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the Constitutional right to exclude gay homosexual members.

All they had to say was NO. It was that easy. I hope the organization has to fold up. What a shame.

[DBrow]

The Total Transformation of America, as promised in 2008.

[CodeToad]

Without a doubt the boy Eagle to adult leader is their game plan. Instrumentalism is always the liberals weapon of choice. It is how he pedophiles get little children to hold still: “See, little boy, I am only touching your arm...now I am only touching...”

[MrB]

The BGSA is done.

The fathers I've talked to are looking at alternatives, either existing or creating them.

[MrB]

In his dissent of the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens declared, "it is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles -- 'morally straight' and 'clean' [a reference to the Scout Law] -- says the slightest thing about homosexuality."

Liberal idiocy. Stevens is a FOOL because he has rejected the objective morality CLEARLY given by God.

[I want the USA back]

That is obvious. If not, there will be a lawsuit.
Another once-great American institution has been destroyed.

[cliff630]

Look what happened when the Catholic Church was required to
take in gays. Good luck scouts. I guess the lawyers are
licking their chops. Will the boys be allowed to claim abuse?

[MrB]

A claim of homosexual abuse will, soon, be considered a civil rights violation.

[servantboy777]

The BSOA didn't actually think the gay agenda would stop at the inclusion of scouts did they?

Short sighted and naive if BS leadership believed it would stop...the door's been opened. It is just a matter of time before openly gay BS leaders go traipsing off in the woods with your son.

[fwdude]

There is already no will in the BSA organization to enforce their rules or principles. Homosexual scouts and leaders have already been flaunting their sexual-political behavior, largely without consequence.

This rule, while it stands, will be on paper only, and will remain on paper only.