Boy Scouts of America: Discrimination or Not?
Eruditio
Winter 2000, Vol 20, No 1
by Hua Wang

Erik Erikson once said: "Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well-considered, and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child's spirit." More than the mutilation of a child, society must not accept the mutilation of all spirits. Homophobia has contaminated many organizations with discrimination and caused pain to numerous persons. If an organization was allowed to exclude gays, then what is keeping it from excluding other minority groups (i.e., Asians, public policy professors, athletes, etc.)? Because I never want to be in a position where I am discriminated against, I do not wish other persons to be discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. From a social justice perspective, discrimination is unacceptable because it takes away the notion that all humans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. While blacks, women, and other minorities are granted greater equality today, the gay community still experiences ostracism and oppression. The unfair exclusion of a minority group undermines the human dignity of such persons and promotes bigotry. While the medical and scientific communities no longer consider homosexuality a disease and most people agree that homosexuals should be given the same opportunities as heterosexuals, society still treats homosexuals as second-class citizens. Gay men have historically been denied their basic rights to equal participation in civic life in such areas as employment and housing. The next stage of gay civil rights involve granting a homosexual the right to belong in Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and to lead a scout troop.

The Case Only three percent of all Boy Scouts achieve Eagle Scout status. To qualify for this honor, a Boy Scout has to demonstrate exemplary comradeship, community service, and leadership. James Dale earned thirty merit badges, joined the elite ranks of Eagle Scouts, and served as an Assistant Scoutmaster for sixteen months. During his twelve years in BSA, Dale has been an exemplary scout. He earned the Vigil (the highest possible honor), was selected as a delegate to the 1985 Boy Scout Jamboree, and was chosen to speak at Monmouth Council functions. However, when Dale went off to Rutgers University, he 'came out of the closet' and announced that he is gay. At a 1990 Lesbian/Gay Alliance conference, a Newark Star-Ledger photographer took a picture of Dale and the caption depicted Dale as the openly gay Co-President of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance. The newspaper also quoted Dale as saying: "I was looking for a role model, someone who was gay and accepting of me." When the local BSA council saw Dale's photo and discovered Dale's sexual orientation, it immediately annulled Dale's BSA membership and prevented him from serving as an Assistant Scoutmaster. Dale then brought the case to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (a gay rights legal organization) and sued BSA. Despite BSA's spoken commitment to equality and respect, its action was "based on little more than prejudice," according to the New Jersey Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Dale. BSA counteracted the argument by stating its constitutional right to select leaders with the appropriate set of values and who obey the oath to be "morally straight" and "clean." However, the handbook never forthrightly forbids homosexuals from joining this organization. The case is headed for the Supreme Court and will be reviewed on April 26, 2000. Although the court has ruled against homosexuals in previous BSA cases, this is the first time such a case has reached the Supreme Court. If BSA wins the case, then there will be an increase in discriminatory "heterosexuals-only" institutions. If Dale wins the case, then it will be a major victory for gay civil rights. How could BSA, an organization that seeks to promote tolerance and inclusion, discriminate against an Eagle Scout solely on the basis of sexual orientation? Does BSA have the constitutional right to "create and interpret its own moral code and to choose its own leaders"? Can BSA argue that it has a right to be exclusive when the government financially supports it? Is this a case about the technical legal term of BSA or is it about bigotry and discrimination? How would different ethical systems regard BSA's anti-gay stance? These and other questions demonstrate the complicated nature of this case. Private vs. Public The focus of Dale will depend on whether or not BSA is considered a public or a private organization. If it is decided that BSA is a public organization, then the Civil Rights Act prohibits BSA from discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and other factors. According to New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD), "all persons shall have the opportunity……to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation……without discrimination of……affectional or sexual orientation. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right." However, LAD also provides that these criteria cannot be applied to "any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private." BSA maintains its position by arguing that the group, as a private club, has a right to choose its own leaders without interference from "an all-powerful state." However, because BSA receives significant governmental support and is non-selective in its membership, BSA should be subjugated to the Law Against Discrimination. If BSA wants to uphold its discriminatory policies, then the organization should not be given the active support and endorsement of government institutions and public schools. Such an endorsement implies the government's tacit approval of BSA's anti-gay stance and is contradictory to the notion of equality for all persons. Social justice does not delineate between a private and a public organization; rather, it argues that discrimination is unacceptable, regardless of the technical terms of a certain organization. Consequently, social justice advocates would disagree with LAD's exemption of privation institutions. Private institutions should not be granted the right to exclude certain persons from participation, nor should they actively promote discrimination. The LAD exemption is just another example of the extent of discrimination allowed by the federal government, and it highlights the need to establish precedence for future discrimination lawsuits. BSA seeks a broad membership base from the general public, but then chooses to exclude homosexuals, agnostics, and atheists from taking an active role in the organization. In a booklet entitled A Representative Membership, BSA states that its "national objective……is to see that all eligible youth have the opportunity to affiliate with BSA." Consequently, BSA never specifically states in its handbooks, constitutions, etc. that homosexuals, agnostics, or atheists are barred from membership. On the contrary, BSA states that "neither the charter nor the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America permits the exclusion of any boy." BSA's lack of selectivity disqualifies its claim of being a private club; BSA's implied open membership policy is in contrast with its attempts to revoke Dale's BSA membership. All members of the public must "have equal rights……and not be subjected to the embarrassment and humiliation of being invited……only to find [the] doors barred to them." The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that BSA's anti-gay bias was "based on little more than prejudice" and contradicted BSA's stated goal of reaching "all eligible youth." While the main criteria for being a scoutmaster includes "providing a good example of what a man should be like," this does not mean that a homosexual does not have the strength of character necessary to be a role model for young boys. According to BSA, the basis for revoking Dale's membership and rejecting his application to serve as an assistant scoutmaster is justified on the need for all scouts to be "morally straight" and "clean." However, these terms are not clear condemnations of homosexuality. Charted by Congress in 1916, BSA enjoys a unique relationship with the federal government and the military. It has been the recipient of equipment, supplies, and services from local, state, and federal governments, as well as local fire stations and public schools. Because many of these sponsoring institutions have taken an anti-discrimination stance, BSA should amend its anti-gay policies. BSA's close relationship with the government underscores BSA's fundamental public character and its categorization as a public accommodation. Given BSA's connections within the government, military, and education system, BSA has a heightened responsibility to be nondiscriminatory. Because the law currently allows some employers to discriminate against gays, there is a dire need for the Supreme Court to take an active stance against discrimination. Furthermore, given BSA's five million members and its highly visible public face, BSA cannot claim to be an intimate organization that can exclude potential members. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that BSA is a "place of public accommodation," and cannot deny any person "advantages, facilities and privileges" on account of sexual orientation. From a social justice perspective, it is unacceptable that some organizations are granted the right to be discriminatory on the basis of a technicality of definition of the organization. Private and public organizations cannot exclude people solely because of sexual orientation or lack of religion. To allow discrimination in any organization is to implicitly support bigotry and bias. Contradictory Precedence Gays, agnostics, and atheists have sued BSA for discrimination in several states, including Illinois, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. In Randall v. Orange County Council Boy Scouts of America (1998), for example, BSA revoked the Randall twins' membership on the basis that they were agnostics and could not agree to serve God. The California Supreme Court ruled against the Randalls and categorized BSA as a private organization with the right to require all scouts to recite the phrase "duty to God" in the Boy Scout Oath. In another case, Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America (1993), the Seventh Circuit again upheld BSA's right to exclude atheists on the basis that BSA is not a public institution. Similarly, in Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of Boy Scouts (1998), the California Supreme Court allowed BSA to remove a homosexual from his position as an assistant scoutmaster. These rulings in favor of BSA heighten the importance of the Dale case to set a new precedence in the fight for gay civil rights.

Hypocrisy From these cases, it is disappointing to discover that BSA actively encourages intolerance. How could an organization, supported by those in public schools and governmental ranks, be so close-minded that it refuses to recognize an individual's inherent worth? Furthermore, the risks of expulsion from its ranks deter many Boy Scouts from revealing their genuine identity. If a Boy Scout was an atheist, for example, he might lie about his religious beliefs in order to be accepted by the other scouts. At such a young age, his identity is being crushed as he conforms to an intolerant organization. The concealment of one's atheist / homosexual identities poses a long-term emotional toll and negatively affects a person's interactions with others. Although Dale is a homosexual, his conduct in BSA has always been exemplary and he possesses the strength of character necessary for Eagle Scout status. Because there is no clear relationship between the exclusion of homosexual leaders and the advancement of BSA's goals, BSA's stereotypical notions about homosexuals must be rejected. BSA's mission is to bring a diverse group of boys together and to teach them leadership and comradeship. Promotion of the view that homosexuality is immoral is not a stated BSA goal and should not be pursued by BSA. BSA is punishing openly gay scouts who have the scout values of "honesty" and "courage" to reveal their true identities. BSA requires all scouts to be "trustworthy" (that is, to tell the truth) and to have "the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at him or threaten him." If Dale did not identify himself as a homosexual, BSA would never have known about Dale's sexual orientation. Only by self-identifying himself with the gay community did Dale face discrimination and hostility. There is an inherent inconsistency in the notion that a scout who adheres to the scout value of honesty by publicly declaring his homosexuality is punished with expulsion, while a scout who lies about his sexual orientation is allowed to remain in BSA. Any troop would be fortunate to have the Randall twins, Welsh, Curran, or Dale as members. These scouts were brave enough to reveal their honest opinions on religion or homosexuality and had refused to lie about their identities. It is ironic that BSA markets itself as an organization whose aims include teaching young boys essential values of honesty, respect, and self-worth. BSA attempts to form an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, network, and target youth at an impressionable age. The BSA Mission Statement states that "it is the mission of [BSA] to serve others." How could BSA serve others if it is discriminatory and exclusive of agnostics, atheists, and gays? BSA is clearly a hypocritical organization. In a January 1993 Position Statement, BSA states: "we allow youth to live as children and enjoy Scouting and its diversity without immersing them in the politics of the day." If this is true, then how did Dale, Welsh, Curran, and the Randalls become entrapped in a political web? How could BSA allow diversity if it is trying to exclude people from diverse sexual and religious backgrounds from entering its ranks? How could youth live as children if they feel they have to lie about their sexuality or agnostic beliefs? It is ironic that BSA markets itself as an organization designed to teach young boys essential values of honesty, respect, and self-worth. Its anti-gay stance is in conflict with the Scout Oath to "respect and defend the rights of all people."

Homosexuality and Immorality BSA argues that homosexuality is inconsistent with BSA's mission "to serve others by helping to instill values in young people and, in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime." By equating homosexuality with immorality, BSA is implying that a gay scout cannot be "morally straight" or "clean." However, the term "morally straight" was added to the Scout Oath a century ago, before the word "straight" implies heterosexuality. Furthermore, there is no firm basis for BSA's assumption that a gay scout cannot lead a moral life. A considerable amount of social science research counters "longstanding cultural myths and stereotypes that depict gay men as immoral, criminal, sick, and drastically different from what most members of society would consider 'normal.'" In a document prepared by the Clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Clerk writes: "One particular stereotype that we renounce today is that homosexuals are inherently immoral. That myth is repudiated by decades of social science data that convincingly establish that homosexuality does not, in itself, derogate from one's ability to participate in and contribute responsibly and positively to society." The gay community is becoming increasingly visible as many gay persons achieve higher levels of success in the workplace, politics, and Hollywood. There is now greater interaction between gays and straights, and society is gradually becoming more tolerant. There is growing support for same-sex marriages, extended health benefits to same-sex partners, and gay-straight alliances. Furthermore, all states (except Florida) have legalized gay adoptions, realizing that a stable and loving home is more important to a child than a parent's sexual orientation and that the best interests of the children should always prevail over bigotry. According to an ACLU report, it is estimated that between six and fourteen million children have lesbian or gay parents. Contrary to popular stereotypes, these children are not traumatized or mistreated. According to Child Development magazine, "children who are raised in gay or lesbian homes are no different in any aspects of psychological, social, or sexual development from children in heterosexual families." Because gay parents have to overcome many legal and social obstacles before they are granted adoption rights, gay parents are just as likely as heterosexual parents to care for their children and provide a stable family environment. New York Times concluded that "thirty-five different studies have shown that children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexuals than children of heterosexuals. These children are also just as well adjusted."

Virtue Ethics Perspective From a virtue ethics perspective, BSA is arguing that its discrimination against homosexuals is justified because BSA must uphold a community of values and hold scouts to a higher standard of behavior. If one value is destroyed, BSA argues, then what is going to keep other values from being eroded? According to BSA, the acceptance of homosexuals would only loosen BSA's strict moral standards and result in the acceptance of other corrupt values. Consequently, BSA must remain firm in its anti-gay stance and prevent the destruction of its core value system. Without its value system, BSA would lose its prestige and respect. Furthermore, BSA must maintain stability in its community and prevent opposition from its conservative members. This, in turn, would create a schism within the organization and allow controversy to eat away the heart of the organization. However, BSA's wish to remain uncontroversial is destroyed when it refuses to accept gay members. While the acceptance of a few homosexual boy scouts would have caused some conflict within the organization, it would not have resulted in the widespread controversy and discord within its community due to BSA's anti-gay stance. Although some members applaud BSA's stance, other members wholeheartedly support Dale in his quest for social justice. Such conflicting views within BSA disunite BSA's cohesiveness and stability. Because there is a missing connection between homosexuality and immorality, BSA's slippery slope argument that the acceptance of homosexuality would lead to a loss of common values within its community, which in turn would reassure BSA's downfall, is unjustified. There is no clear relationship between the exclusion of homosexual leaders and the advancement of BSA's goals. This can be demonstrated through the success of Girl Scouts of America (GSA), BSA's sister organization, and its inclusive policy. GSA accepts all scouts, including lesbians, as long as all scouts "act appropriately at all times and not display sexual behavior." GSA also allows scouts to replace the word "God" in the Scout Oath with another word. GSA's tolerance has enriched the scouting experience for many youths, and its acceptance of lesbians has not led to a corruption of the organization's values. On the contrary, GSA's acceptance of homosexual scouts has promoted its core values of honesty, respect, and self-worth. By following GSA's example, BSA would teach young scouts the importance of respecting diversity and being proud of their identities. The organization would then demonstrate, with solid action, its belief in its stated values of respect, inclusion, and self-worth. Furthermore, gay scouts would not be pressured to hide their homosexual identities in order to avoid ostracism.

Utilitarian Perspective From a utilitarian perspective, BSA is an influential organization and therefore has the heightened responsibility to perform the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is the ethical system that places the highest moral value in an action that results in the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. The ethical system also aims for the minimization of sadness and the maximization of happiness for as many people as possible. BSA alleges that if it allows Dale to be a scout leader, then Dale will negatively influence young scouts and corrupt them with the sins of homosexuality. However, the "acknowledgment of homosexuality does not translate to a 'teaching' that homosexuality is proper or improper any more than a Scout admitting he is Catholic amounts to a 'teaching' that Catholicism is the only proper religion." Some parents have voiced their concerns over having a homosexual as a role model for their impressionable youths. They fear that homosexuals will degrade the moral education of their children and 'recruit' minors to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. Nevertheless, these parents should be reassured that scout laws prevent scout leaders from imposing their views on homosexuality upon other scouts. According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, "there is absolutely no evidence……supporting a conclusion that a gay scoutmaster, solely because he is a homosexual, does not possess the strength of character necessary to properly care for, or to impart BSA humanitarian ideals to the young boys in his charge." Dr. Jack Weinberg, President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), stated that "family fears of catching homosexuality, or of being recruited at school or elsewhere, are utterly without scientific foundation." APA also issued a statement that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." Because there is a lack of evidence that homosexual Boy Scouts seek to spread their sexual orientation within the organization, BSA cannot discriminate against Dale on the basis that gay scout leaders will actively recruit minors and urge others to be gay. Consequently, BSA's fear that Dale, as a homosexual, will vigorously seek to proselytize his beliefs on young boys, is unfounded. As the Court affirms, "Dale has never used his leadership position or membership to promote homosexuality, or any message inconsistent with Boy Scouts' policies. There is no indication that Dale intends to actively 'teach' anything whatsoever about homosexuality as a scout leader, or that he will do other than Boy Scouts instructs him to do-refer boys to their parents on matters of religion and sex." Therefore, Dale would not be infringing on the rights of parents to direct the moral upbringing of their children. Dale has repeatedly stated that he does not wish to convert others to homosexuality nor does he wish to force his pro-gay views on young children. Dale, as a scout leader, would not make his gayness an issue. He does not want to promote homosexuality in BSA, nor is he trying to degrade the organization. He merely wants to use his exemplary leadership skills to share his love for scouting with other boys. According to Dale, scouting has taught him "to live an honorable life, to set [personal] standards, and to do [his] best to serve others. Scouting also taught [him] how to deal with ethical choices." Dale clearly loves scouting, and his strength of character would be an attribute to BSA. He would teach Boy Scouts the importance of being open-minded and tolerant, and not be biased against those of different religious backgrounds or sexual orientation. He would also be an effective resource for other homosexual scouts in the 'coming out' phase. This is important because, according to APA, "homosexuals who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." Well-adjusted scouts are more likely to contribute to society and to enrich the lives of those around them. Homosexual teens need leaders like Dale to provide much needed emotional support, understanding, and acceptance that heterosexual teens take for granted. Without this support, a homosexual youth is at a greater risk for suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, and sexually transmitted disease. This would then burden taxpayers and use up precious social services. Furthermore, as a homosexual scout leader, Dale would break the stereotypes of gays and make them feel more comfortable being around a homosexual. As homosexuals gain greater acceptance in mainstream society, it is essential that scouts learn how to work and interact with people of a different sexual orientation. The development of tolerance and open-mindedness is a crucial skill that will help prepare scouts for leadership roles in a pluralistic society. Leaders need to allow diversity and respect for an individual's inherent worth to guide their actions. Inclusive leadership principles will benefit a greater number of the population and ensure the happiness, productivity, and well being of numerous individuals. By upholding its anti-gay stance, BSA would lose an exemplary leader who could teach scouts the importance of tolerance and respect for all individuals. Such values are essential for the preparation of a scout's education, and it will help the scout be more successful in his future career and relationships. Society cannot benefit if its leaders are discriminatory and biased against certain populations. Discriminated persons are more likely to experience discontent and hate with society, and this decreases their desire to contribute to society. BSA's stereotypical view of homosexuals as promiscuous child molesters bears no relationship to reality and wrongly expands on the public's fear of homosexuality. Numerous studies have concluded that it is a myth that a homosexual male is more likely than a heterosexual male to molest children. Moreover, because heterosexual males commit ninety percent of sexual child abuse , the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male. The Court, in Doe v. British Univ. N.A. Club, ruled that there is "not one scintilla of credible evidence to suggest that homosexuals pose a greater risk of committing sexual molestation, assault, or criminal conduct than heterosexuals." BSA's biased view has a traumatizing effect on a gay child who is fighting internalized homophobia. If society equates homosexuality with sin, the child reasons, then he must be an unfit human being. Such a dangerous view would clearly destroy his sense of self-worth, devalue his identity, and promote depression and suicidal tendencies. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that "gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. Gay and lesbian teens account for thirty percent of all completed suicides among adolescents." The American Medical Association confirms that "most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men around their sexual identity is due to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment." The American Academy of Pediatrics also stated that "the psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of social stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation……adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity." BSA's anti-gay stance would certainly increase the emotional trauma suffered by homosexual boys and decrease their chances for contributing to society. Many homosexual youths are living in a pressure cooker due to anxiety, ostracism, and HIV-related stress; at any moment, the pressure cooker could explode and cause harm to the well being of other youths. Such an explosion would be detrimental to many teens' sense of safety, traumatize family and friends, and would not be the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Because BSA aims to make its members productive members of society, the character development and confidence-building programs of scouting needs to be offered to as many boys as possible. According to a 1992 study, eighty percent of homosexual teens experience severe feelings of social, emotional, and cognitive isolation. Socially isolated teens are less likely to be an active member of society and are more likely to withdraw from interactions with others. They are also less likely to maximize their unlimited potential, develop their talents, and contribute to the well being of humanity. Their family and friends, out of sadness for their depressed mental states, will also be less focused on their work, interpersonal relationships, etc. The result would be an enormous decrease in the productivity of many citizens. Numerous homosexuals have contributed to many areas of society-including arts, politics, and sports. Prominent homosexuals and bisexuals include Allan Spear (U.S. Senator), Peter Tchaikovsky (composer), Siegfried & Roy (magicians), Tom Waddell (Olympic decathlete), Tennessee Williams (playwright), Georgia O'Keeffe (artist), and Hans Christian Anderson (writer of fairy tales). Homosexuals have enriched and touched the lives of millions of people and it is in society's best interests to promote the development of homosexuals (as well as heterosexuals) and encourage their numerous talents. BSA's anti-gay stance has motivated many BSA sponsors, including The United Way, Levi-Strauss & Co., and Bank of America Corp., to decrease or withdraw financial support of BSA. In addition, the Smithsonian Institution refused a BSA group the use of the National Zoo because of BSA's discrimination against atheists. Likewise, the city of Chicago withdrew its BSA sponsorship due to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union. If BSA became an openly intolerant anti-gay organization, many schools and churches would cease to sponsor troops. The withdrawal of financial support and the resulting negative publicity could cause hardship to BSA and threaten the quality of some of its programs. This would decrease the level of happiness of scouts and limit the number of boys who could participate in scouting activities. Although BSA needs to amend its exclusionary practices, the survival of BSA is essential for the character development and personal growth of millions of boys.

Christian Ethics Perspective From a Christian ethics standpoint, the issue of homosexuality draws varied responses. Many Christian fundamentalists believe that homosexuals must be ostracized from society and treated with contempt. They justify their bias by stating that all religions condemn sodomy as immoral, that Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman") specifically prohibits homosexuality, and that the destruction of the biblical city of Sodom is evidence that the Lord detests sodomy. In response to the first argument, these fundamentalists fail to note that numerous religions, including Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian-Universalist Association, have accepted homosexuality as a healthy sexual orientation and have filed amicus briefs in favor of Dale. Some religious congregations have proved their support for homosexual leaders through the ordination of homosexual ministers. There is no consensus among religious communities that homosexuals must be banned from BSA; rather, some religions have proclaimed that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth." Secondly, the Leviticus declaration is a part of the "Purity Code" that is not followed by most Christians. The Purity Code regulates what one can eat, what one can't eat, and what kind of clothes one can wear. For example, the Purity Code forbids wearing cotton-polyester blend of clothing, eating pork, eating shellfish, cutting a male's hair, shaving a male's beard, getting a tattoo, and touching the skin of a dead pig (e.g. football). Since virtually no Christians and few Jews actually follow these kosher laws, is unacceptable for fundamentalists to argue that society must strictly follow the Leviticus part of the Purity Code. Fundamentalists can only use the Leviticus passage to condemn homosexuality if they themselves strictly follow all parts of the Purity Code. Anti-gay Christians often take the Bible out of context to justify their disdain for homosexuals. For example, many fundamentalists declare that the destruction of Sodom was God's judgment on the evils of sodomy. However, God's destruction of Sodom was due to the city's hostile treatment of strangers and the needy, not due to their sexual orientation. According to Ezekiel 16: 48-49: "This is the sin of Sodom-she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and the needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." The passage does not mention homosexuality at all; instead, the passage condemns persons who do not care for the need of others. There is also inconsistency in Christian fundamentalists' rejection of homosexuality and its acceptance of divorced or childless persons. While Jesus never specifically mentions homosexuality, he explicitly forbade divorce. Matthew 19:9 states that "whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." In Leviticus 20:10, the Bible states that all persons who commit adultery must be put to death. Therefore, all persons who divorce for personal reasons (i.e., abuse, incompatibility, etc.) must be punished with death. Clearly, such a drastic action is not supported by fundamentalists, the same persons who condemn homosexuals on the basis of a few passages in the Bible. Despite Jesus' strong condemnation of divorce, many Christian fundamentalists do not adopt this view towards their divorced friends and acquaintances. Likewise, Christian fundamentalists reject homosexuality on the basis that God did not create Adam and Steve; instead, he created Adam and Eve. Because God wanted men and women to be fruitful and multiply, these evangelicals charge, homosexuals are defeating God's purpose for them. However, to follow this line of thought, the Bible would therefore condemn all single persons, nuns, priests, and childless couples for not engaging in the act of creation. Nevertheless, anti-gay Christians do not judge these persons to be immoral. Because God is present inside every person, regardless of sexual orientation, many Christians are strongly in favor of treating homosexuals with kindness and respect. Jesus would not have accepted the unjust treatment of individuals on the basis of their homosexuality. Instead, Jesus went out of his way to love and care for the most socially rejected persons. He touched lepers, healed the blind, and shown love to society's outcasts. He reassures us that "neither height nor depth, neither principalities nor powers, neither things present, nor things to come, nothing, nothing can separate us from the love of god." Rather than preaching intolerance, Christian fundamentalists should adopt Jesus' love ethic and follow the Christian commandment to love one another.

Conclusion The Supreme Court needs to establish precedence and eliminate the cancer of discrimination. A ruling in favor of Dale would improve the position of homosexuals in all areas of society and prevent organizations from discriminating against other minority groups. It would be a victory not just for gay scouts but for all who believes in civil rights and the inherent value of all human beings. BSA's discrimination affects not only the rights and proper privileges of minorities, but it also undermines the notion of equality upon which this nation is founded. BSA's anti-gay stance is in conflict with the scouts' oath to "respect and defend the rights of all people." Homosexual scouts must be given equal legal protection and be allowed to belong in BSA without fear of discrimination. BSA's arguments against Dale are the result of baseless assumptions, self-righteous judgment, and prejudices, and must be discouraged. From a social justice perspective, BSA's discrimination against homosexuals offends the human dignity of such persons and implies that homosexuals have little inherent worth.

[Home] [Breaking News] [BSA & Race] [Post Dale Events] [BSA & Gays] [B SA & Religion] [Girls in BSA] [BSA Funding] [BSA & Schools] [World Scoutin g] [Girl Scouts USA] [Bookstore] [BSA in the Courts] [Groups] [Links & Info]  [Site Updates]

This page was last modified on Wednesday, 25 June, 2008.
© 2001-2008. All Rights Reserved. For more information, see the the copyright/disclaimer page.
E-mail Contact: Webmaster@BSA-Discrimination.org

Please note that all unsolicited communication to this web site
become the property of BSA-Discrimination.org
and are subject to publication.