- The Washington Times - Friday, August 25, 2000

If there is one attitude that self-styled "homosexual rights activists" do not wish to see inculcated in society, it is tolerance. As for coexistence however peaceful such a state of being holds no allure for those committed to the cause of "homosexual rights."

Anyone in doubt need only look to the new front in the war on traditionalism launched this week by homosexual rights activists against the Boy Scouts of America. Having lost in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the Boy Scouts, a private organization, were within their constitutional rights to bar homosexuals as scoutmasters, homosexual activists retreated from the federal courtroom to re-deploy their forces at the state and local level. Through the use of anti-discrimination laws already on the books they now hope to pressure local governments to withdraw from the Boy Scouts privileges great and small, such as funding, the use of state and town names, even access to public parkland.

In other words, homosexual rights activists are willing to do all they can to ostracize or even destroy the Boy Scouts unless the almost-century-old organization both nullifies its pledge to be "morally straight" and abandons its central mission to teach young boys what George A. Davidson, a lawyer for the organization, described to the Supreme Court as "true manliness" a man's responsibility in marriage and fatherhood. Such principles may sound uproariously quaint and beyond corny to society's moral relativists, but they remain even now an anchor against civilization's drift into unfettered decadence.

As homosexual rights activists launched their new campaign with petitions and protests against the youth organization in 36 cities in 21 states, it became clear once again that the object of such activism is neither toleration of differences nor coexistence with others. After all, if such were the case, homosexual activists would long ago have turned their energies toward founding an alternative boys' group, a new private organization that reflects their own embrace of homosexuality as a social convention. Instead, they seek to force change upon the Boy Scouts to eradicate the differences that exist between the Scouts and themselves in the guise of ending "discrimination." But it is a fallacy to believe that "discrimination" as practiced by the Boy Scouts, who have built their private, character-building organization upon the Judeo-Christian tradition which proscribes homosexual behavior, is somehow "corrected" by "discrimination" as practiced by homosexual activists, who seek to overturn that Judeo-Christian tradition.

In other words, the campaign against the Boy Scouts is no righteous crusade to expand freedom or equality. It is a clash of beliefs. While in our increasingly relativistic society there may no longer be a definitive consensus on which beliefs are better, or even more moral, it is still not the role of the government, federally or locally, to impose one set or the other on its citizens as they exercise their right of free association in private, law-abiding groups. At least not yet.

Worth noting is the fact that it was at the Democratic National Convention last week where an honor guard of Eagle Scouts was booed by delegates as it took the stage. Their hoots and jeers may be taken as the perfect expression of their party's allegiance to homosexual activism over private liberty.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide