Reeling from a massive negative backlash, the executive committee of The Boy Scouts of America decided to postpone until May its ill-conceived, proposed change to allow openly gay scoutmasters and scouts to participate in Scouting.
In backing away from the proposed membership change, the Boy Scouts at least temporarily averted calamity. If the committee had rammed through the change in membership policy, it would have dealt a serious blow to the Boy Scouts of America on several fronts.
First, the proposed membership change made no one happy. The gay activists pushing for the change in policy were incensed by the "local option" plan being proposed by the Boy Scouts as their new membership policy. Under the proposed plan, each local scout troop could decide for itself if it wanted to allow gay men to be scout masters and gay boys to be members. The gay community was outraged that any Boy Scout troop would be allowed to continue to "discriminate" against gays. Once again, the gay activist agenda was revealed as something very different from "live and let live," but rather, "we will compel all scout troops to accept and affirm our community's values."
Those supporting the current membership policy were shocked that the Boy Scouts of America leadership would violate basic, long standing principles to placate a vocal and well-financed minority.
Second, the Boy Scouts' proposed membership change to a "local option" severely weakened their strongest legal defense. As the New York Times pointed out in its January 30, 2013 editorial, "The Boy Scouts Fall Short," the Boy Scouts' strongest legal defense is the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling (Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale) in which the Court affirmed that homosexual behavior was inconsistent with a "core" part of its mission and purpose, and that as a private organization they had the right to maintain its freedom of association.
As the New York Times pointed out, the Boy Scouts new "local option" membership policy would completely undermine the Supreme Court's rationale favoring the Scouts' current policies because a "local option" is at best a moral preference, and at worst a moral vacuum, and certainly not a "core" principle. The Constitution protects moral principles, not preferences. The proposed new membership policy, if implemented, would invite an avalanche of litigation against the Boy Scouts which would inevitably result in a court-imposed national policy of allowing openly gay scout masters and troop members in all troops.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Christian Post
Dr. Richard D. Land