« | »

NYT Claims ‘Rethink’ On Scouts Ban On Gays

From a cheering their pants off New York Times:

In a Quick Shift, Scouts Rethink a Ban on Gays

By KIRK JOHNSON | January 28, 2013

The Boy Scouts of America, with its traditions of youth in uniform and the character-building virtues of honor, has always looked back to an older, more structured image of America, when gay and lesbian people were invisible and silent.

Mind you, this is supposed to be a new article, not an editorial. Though with the ‘Old Gay Lady,’ it’s usually pretty hard to tell the difference. Especially when it comes to stories they can use to push their gay agenda.

It was a view reaffirmed in Scout policy as recently as seven months ago. Openly gay scouts and scout leaders need not apply.

The announcement on Monday by Scouts officials that the ban on gays was in line for elimination was thus a thunderclap on two fronts, scouts and people close to the organization said. First, it removed from discussion the idea, voiced in July by senior national scout leaders, that the ban was in the best interests of scouts themselves.

How could such a ban be in their "best interests"? After all, no one will ever sue the Boy Scouts if there are any sex crimes committed by openly gay scout leaders they admitted. That would never happen in a million years.

Perhaps even more momentous was the acknowledgment that scouting itself had moved on, with a diversity of thought like the multicultural and sexually diverse buzz of modern America itself, that no longer could be confined or defined by a dictated policy from headquarters. Local chapters would be able to decide whether to admit gay scouts.

Again, this is supposed to be a news article. Also, notice that The Times’ idea of "diversity of thought "does not allow anyone to oppose openly gay scout masters.

“The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents,” said a spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, Deron Smith, in a statement. “This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”

Scout officials gave no timeline for making a formal decision, or for putting the policy into effect, but a spokeswoman said in an e-mail that discussion was anticipated at next week’s national executive board meeting. Board meetings are private and closed to the public and the news media, she said.

In 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the Boy Scouts’ right to refuse gay members.

A ‘right’ that will be overturned as soon as Obama gets his next Supreme Court appointment.

Groups that had pushed for the change said that even if senior scout leaders had second thoughts about the policy, it would probably be too late.

“The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong,” said Herndon Graddick, the president of Glaad, an advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “Scouting is a valuable institution, and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.” …

You see? It’s already a fait accompli. That is how the best changes always occur. Before anyone can object.

Critics and supporters alike said that abandoning national policy for local control could have unintended consequences.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, said in a statement: “If the board capitulates to the bullying of homosexual activists, the Boy Scouts’ legacy of producing great leaders will become yet another casualty of moral compromise. The Boy Scouts should stand firm.” …

That’s it. That is the total of space The Times gave to any opposition to this. And there is no mention of any "unintended consequences."

The question of gay scouts and leaders has not been the only cloud on scouting’s horizon.

Revelations about sexual abuse by scout leaders, which have increasingly emerged in recent years, with some victims and parents saying the organization shielded predators, have tarnished the group’s reputation as being always protective of youth.

Apparently, The Times wrote this without any sense of irony.

But for a structurally conservative leadership, as people inside the organization describe it, the ban on gay leaders created a kind of crosswind that compounded the issue…

The ban on openly gay scout leaders "compounded the issue of sexual abuse"?

There really are two Americas, two worlds even. The world the New York Times inhabits, and the world where the rest of us live.

Meanwhile, a pressure for change has been surging from within…

These Times reporters just can’t help themselves when they get on this topic.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, January 29th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “NYT Claims ‘Rethink’ On Scouts Ban On Gays”

  1. USSFreedom says:

    The numerous reports of pedophiles having an intimate interest in becoming Boy Scout Masters/Troop Leaders in order to provide “Hands On”, as well as other appendages to their prey, being treated as were Clergy of all denominations by a cover up by those in the top echelon to protect donations. Of which, millions were paid out in lawsuits filed by guilt ridden victims whose lives were forever changed. Having a wolf tending the flock is twisted thinking, pointed out in
    Aesop’s, “The Wolf and the Shepard”. A Kevin Jennings definition of “Be Prepared” consists of condoms, KY Jelly and an instruction booklet on “FISTING”. NAMBLA Merit Badges awarded for fastest time applying a condom on a cucumber. Troop #666 Member, emblazoned on a Rainbow patch for those approving deviant behavior as, “But, there’s nothing wrong with that.” (Credit to the Seinfeld episode.)

  2. 11ten1775 says:

    The way I’m seeing this is that if they change the policy to allow local troops to decide, then it’s the local troop who gets sued, right? And no doubt gay rights groups will set an intimidating example of what will happen to any troops who deny them access to their boys.
    The very same people who dislike nearly everything the Boy Scouts stand for want to be able to dictate how the group ought to be run, just as they insist on tinkering with the U.S. military they dislike so much.
    But we biggots must be silenced. And we must give these people unlimited access to our children.
    I’m hopeful that the scouts will not do this, but no one seems to have the spine to stand up to these people anymore.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »