By Rachel Brody |
The next badge to earn for the Boy Scouts of America? Courage. Under attack from a well-funded, aggressive minority, they are facing a battle they didn't expect to fight right now, but one in which they must commit to engage.
The proposed resolution to allow homosexual members but not leaders is illogical and unsustainable. No longer expressly and specifically stating that youth members cannot be "open or avowed homosexuals," the new proposed policy would allow homosexual members while still retaining one of the "whereas" clauses that states: "any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting." Sex and politics do not belong in the Boy Scouts. But the question begs to be asked: "Would every troop be forced to admit youth members claiming to be 'open or avowed' homosexuals, as long as they remained silent on whether they engaged in actual homosexual conduct?" A direct answer to that question is needed.
The Supreme Court has already cleared BSA of having to make any changes to its current policy, proving that this is more about a bully bending its arm to change its position than a needed definition adjustment for the purposes of strengthening the organization. The Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), decided that the BSA has a constitutionally protected right to its existing membership policy under the First Amendment. The decision was made heavily on the position that (as the Court summarized it) "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."
So the new resolution would allow the BSA to deem a set of values allowable for members but not leaders. What happens when the openly homosexual youth leader turns 18 and wants to lead? On what ground does the BSA stand to allow him to be a youth leader but not an adult leader?
By allowing homosexual members but not leaders, the Boy Scouts of America is seeking to appease the activists that have plagued it for so long; but it's not possible to appease a radical group that seeks nothing less than complete and total surrender. If the current occupants of the Boy Scouts of America executive committee can't muster the courage to stand their ground, then it's time for them to step away. And if they didn't agree with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America in the first place, then they should never have agreed to serve.
Via the United States Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts of America has every right to keep its policy in place. It should stop playing games and do just that.
About Penny Nance President and CEO of Concerned Women for America
Rob Schwarzwalder Senior Vice President of the Family Research Council
Ricardo Lara State Senator from California