- Text smaller
- Text bigger
My son is a Webelos — the level of Scouting preceding the official designation of “Boy Scout.” He is set to “bridge” over to a full Boy Scout this spring. I’ll be there cheering for him and his friends, all of whom have spent years preparing for this moment.
It almost didn’t happen. Had the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that would have forced the BSA to include homosexuals and atheists in its ranks, I had already decided my son would not be a Scout any longer.
“Homophobic?” “Bigoted?” “Narrow-minded?” Not at all — unless you consider the homosexual agenda of hating heterosexual lifestyles “heterophobic,” “bigoted,” and equally “narrow-minded.”
My son may not have completely understood my decision, if I actually had to follow it through. After all, he’s only 11 and the entire issue stemming from the New Jersey case was about sex — homosexual sex — and I simply do not believe my 11-year-old son is ready for that discussion yet; especially when that discussion would have had to involve trying to explain why some men have sex with other men and why some women prefer sex with other women.
There were other, equally important, reasons why I would have removed him, too:
- I would have removed him because homosexuality is against our Catholic upbringing.
- I would have removed him because homosexuality — as proven by numerous AIDS and other disease studies — is dangerous behavior.
- I would have removed him because the Scouts’ oath to remain morally strong would have become a hypocritical joke.
- And finally, I would have removed him because, frankly, I don’t want him around homosexuals — period.
As an American, I have the right to feel this way and to make these kinds of personal choices — for myself, and on behalf of my minor son. I don’t agree with homosexuality — and I don’t have to agree with it — so I am free to oppose it, so long as I don’t turn that opposition into physical or legislative action taken specifically against the homosexual community.
The American Civil Liberties Union, however, doesn’t agree with me. To them, I — and people like me — am a bigoted, non-inclusive, homophobic slug who has no right to believe what I choose to believe and act upon the values I decide are appropriate for me, my loved ones and those I am personally responsible for.
That’s why the ACLU is suing, or threatening to sue, every city, county, state and federal agency or official that “dares” to “cohort” with or “support” the BSA. Such individuals, ACLU pinheads wail, are in violation of “equal rights” laws and some phantom constitutional right mandating a “separation of church and state” — even though no such right is actually enumerated in the Constitution.
Rather, the “church and state” thing is explained in the First Amendment in a way altogether different (and foreign) from the ACLU definition. The real First Amendment guarantees — among other things — that the government specifically cannot interfere with the freedom to associate with whomever you please and the free practice of the religion of your choice.
The Boy Scouts oppose homosexuality on Christian religious grounds. Therefore, by suing to force officials to abide by an activist homosexual agenda, the ACLU is, in every sense, enticing others to break the law of the land.
Consequently, somebody ought to be suing the ACLU for suing others into submission over an agenda that can be freely practiced by anyone but not forced on anyone. Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are for everyone, not just those the ACLU and other groups believe are deserving of them.
Precedence? No problem. Late last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the BSA can admit anyone they damned well please, because they are a private organization. Similarly, they can refuse anyone they please — and for the BSA, that means homosexuals and atheists.
Under the First Amendment, such “exclusionary behavior” is not only permissible, it is illegal for government officials to interfere. Yet, suing officials who show any signs of support for the Boy Scouts, the ACLU is forcing them to interfere and, thus, adopt unconstitutional policies.
“Aiding and abetting” illegal behavior is itself illegal. If the Supreme Court is qualified to handle a case involving the election of a president, they are imminently qualified to rule on First Amendment rights, and, in the case of the BSA, have already done so.
The issue is settled. Homosexuals and their deviant pinhead allies in the ACLU don’t have to like the decision, but they sure as hell have to abide by it.
But lawsuits forcing others to inflict punitive measures against the BSA — in violation of the Scouts’ constitutional rights — makes the ACLU legally liable.
Officials, by constitutional law, must accommodate the Scouts’ First Amendment rights. A countersuit against the ACLU to “emphasize” this point is long, long overdue.
Any takers? I’ll kick in the first hundred bucks to finance it.