BSA's constitutional right
The question of whether to allow homosexuals as leaders and members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is certainly a matter of a constitutional right. It is the BSA's First Amendment right of freedom of association.
The BSA has the constitutional right to define its own membership. It successfully defended this right in 2000 with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale .
Now, 13 years later and with the legal avenue closed, certain parties are pressuring the BSA with threatened financial boycotts and protests. Call this what it is: bullying.
Outside groups are exerting influence to get a desired change. The BSA has responded and is re-evaluating membership qualifications, with a decision to be announced this month.
How sad it will be if the BSA caves in and compromises its core values. It is certain that the decision will not satisfy all parties, and I applaud the way the organization is listening to its membership.
Instead of bullying a group to change its core values, why not create a separate organization with differing membership standards? Call it “America Scouts.” Why not? Because it is so much easier to destroy than to create.
Diversity is OK as long as it is the left-wing, anything-goes variety. There are those who will not tolerate an organization that holds to fundamental principles and teaches young people to be “morally straight.” A society in which every organization must be equally diverse is a society that has destroyed diversity.
The writer is an Eagle Scout.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Good riddance
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Leaders unaccountable
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Help for Tina
- No ground troops
- Don’t blame bus drivers II
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Unite on this