You are right about the different nature of the debates about including homosexuals vs. atheists. There are numerous people who maintain that "morally straight" and "homosexual" are not mutually exclusive, and there are religous denominations that back them up. However, I don't see how anyone can reconcile "Duty to God" and "A Scout is ... Reverent" with "atheist".
One complication that I fear from allowing "local option" (where a local unit would be as free to choose homosexuals as leaders as they now are to choose, say, abortion providers) is that local governments and organizations might then start harassing individual units that refuse to enroll homosexuals. The BSA would be able to use their SCOTUS (I keep typing SCOUTS) victories to fight that off, but it would consume time, money, and resources at the local level for a while.
posted on 06/02/2003 9:39:12 AM PDT
The BSA would be able to use their SCOTUS (I keep typing SCOUTS) victories to fight that off, but it would consume time, money, and resources at the local level for a while.
Actually, I believe once the wall comes down the Supreme Court (see how I avoid that problem?) may rule that the Scout Organization is no longer entitled to protection. I believe they won based in part on a fundamental policy not to allow the gay philosophy because it was fundamentally different from the heterosexual philosophy esposed by the BSA. There is a lot of potential for a slipery slope here and I would stand by the national council withdrawing the charters of each and every unit that does accept a gay leader.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson