|
|
Restoring Honor to the Boy Scouts? 4/17/2000 On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight [emphasis added]. Since its inception in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has maintained its identity as a clean-cut, conservative youth movement devoted to building character and teaching responsibility to boys and young men. However, a 1999 New Jersey Supreme Court decision struck down the Scouts’ ban on homosexuality, threatening to force the organization to compromise its long-held oath. The BSA dismissed James Dale, a former assistant scoutmaster, nearly 10 years ago because his homosexuality violated its oath. Dale filed a lawsuit against the Scouts, which went all the way to the state’s highest court. The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Scouts could not exclude homosexuals from leadership. The court based its decision on the state’s Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against homosexuals. The Scouts then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision is allowed to stand, its impact could be far reaching. Churches and other private organizations could then be forced to allow homosexuals in positions of responsibility. CWA has long applauded the BSA for its unwavering stand for morality. In addition to contributing financially to the BSA in the past, CWA has recently filed an amicus—“friend of the court”—brief in their support. One of the brief’s strongest arguments is that New Jersey’s decision violated the group’s constitutionally protected freedom of association. “Freedom of association includes the right of like-minded people to join in a common cause,” the brief states. Therefore, freedom of association “protects the right of the Boy Scouts to set its own moral standards” Amicus Brief at 13, 15, Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, 160 N.J. 562 (1999)(No. 99-699). The brief compellingly argues that forcing the BSA to embrace homosexuality would expose the group to heightened risks. “Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept avowed homosexuals as adult leaders would increase the risk of sexual molestation of young boys, given the fact that certain homosexual activists encourage legalizing sex with all persons, including minors,” the brief reasoned. “If such molestation were to occur, the Boy Scouts would likely bear the risk of legal liability for such conduct.” Furthermore, the amicus brief argues that the Scouts would violate the trust of parents if they allowed avowed homosexuals in leadership roles to model their lifestyle to “impressionable boys, resulting in behavior which the Boy Scout Oath and Law seek to avoid.” The Court will hear oral arguments on April 26. Pray that the justices will use godly wisdom in rendering their decision and thereby restore Scouts’ honor. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
