Earlier this week a Rhode Island chapter of the
United Way issued a statement aimed at the
Boy Scouts of
America chapters in that state threatening the youth groups with a loss of funding by Jan. 1, 2001, if the BSA did not change its policy forbidding gay scoutmasters from serving in those posts.
The decision to issue such a strong statement which, according to one United Way official was aimed specifically at the Boy Scouts, followed last month’s Supreme Court ruling, striking down a lawsuit by former scoutmaster and avowed homosexual James Dale. The high court, righteously, ruled that the Boy Scouts can admit — and reject — anyone they please, since they are a private organization and are protected in such actions by the U.S. Constitution.
What the justices did not mention — because it should be obvious — was that not everyone had to agree with their ruling or the Constitution on which they based that ruling. But it was correct under our system of government nonetheless, and that’s the bottom line, like it or not.
But the liberal left, so dominant of the establishment press and government ruling elite, has decided it won’t tolerate such “intolerance,” and, expectedly, has decided to strike back — by being intolerant themselves. Typical.
On the heels of the Rhode Island United Way announcement came another announcement from a liberal California congresswoman who said she and other Democrats would sponsor a bill requiring Congress to revoke the BSA’s 84-year-old honorary charter because of its “homophobic” and “intolerant” policy.
The bill has as much chance of passing as a partial birth abortion ban or a tax cut under Clinton, but what is near-comical about all of this is the motivating logic — if we can call it that — behind these efforts.
The lawmaker,
Rep. Lynn Woolsey,
D-Calif., in a
letter she and 10 other Democrats sent to President Clinton July 13, asking him to resign his honorary chairmanship over the Boy Scouts, actually helped craft a letter containing the following excerpt — and never even recognized the hypocritical duplicity of it:
“Private groups have the right to choose their membership and leaders, but the federal government should not support intolerance. We aren’t saying the Boy Scouts are bad; we’re saying intolerance is” (emphasis mine).
Oh, thank you, great and wonderful Leviathan State, for granting the lowly serfs permission to exercise rights that were guaranteed long before the creation of the Big Government Machine and the stooges who run it. “We’re not saying the Boy Scouts are bad,” we’re just implying that they are. Sheesh.
That one simple statement — which was attributed as a direct quote from Woolsey in the letter — so completely defines the intellectual bankruptcy the socialist left embodies. Not only that, but Woolsey’s statement smacks so badly of arrogant hypocrisy it is as obvious as a billboard on a lonely Nevada highway.
So just how is it that Americans “have the right to choose their membership and leaders” in groups they wish to join (freedom of assembly and association), but at the same time the federal government — ostensibly the guarantor of the Constitution — is not obligated to “support and defend” that right?
If Woolsey’s assumptions are correct, then federal lawmakers are not obligated by their oaths of office to adhere to the pledges they make when sworn in for duty. If what she says is correct, then rights are no longer guaranteed to Americans just by virtue of being born an American; they are only “granted” rights as long as Congress says so.
Horse puckey, Ms. Woolsey. It doesn’t work that way.
Furthermore, why is it always the left that seeks to oppose perceived “intolerance” by actually being intolerant? And by what authority does the political left derive its “right” to pronounce who is or is not “intolerant?”
For crying out loud — these people are congressmen, not Lords and Ladies of an autocratic monarchy or a dictatorial regime. They are our servants and they serve at our wish and by our capacity; they are not charged with deciding for us what we will and will not “tolerate” as a nation. That is an individual choice — for Americans who both agree and disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.
For that matter, where is Woolsey’s outrage over the “intolerant” membership practices of the NAACP or groups that represent only gays and lesbians? There are hundreds of examples of “groups” in this country that have strict entrance guidelines and rules of behavior; and yet, Woolsey singles out one because it operates in opposition to her personal beliefs.
Incredible.
The United Way has every right and any right it wishes to exercise to withhold funding from the Boy Scouts or whomever else they choose. Their own decisions will reflect on whether they are being honest purveyors of key issues or whether they are being hypocritical; therefore, their credibility among the populace is, rightfully, in their own hands.
In that vein, then, it is entirely proper to recognize that the Boy Scouts — and tons of other U.S. organizations — also have that right, as proscribed within and guaranteed by our Constitution (not the lawmakers who serve us in accordance to that Constitution). For comparison, you’ll notice that congressional traditionalists have not called for congressional sanctioning against the United Way for the decisions of some of its chapters.
Having said that, Woolsey should follow half of her own advice: “Private groups have the right to choose their membership and leaders …” and leave it at that. That way, the federal government doesn’t “support” anything but the Constitution — as it should be.
If Woolsey and Co. want to drop out of supporting the Boy Scouts, fine; thanks to our form of government, there are plenty of other groups they can choose to support instead — groups some other people may in fact find “intolerable” but will leave alone because that’s the way it is here in the U.S. of A.
