I was more than a little disturbed when I read this. In my opinion, this is nothing more than trying to knuckle down a group that has done far more good "for the children" than not in all its years. (Full Disclosure: I was a Cub Scout for a number of years many years ago, but only stayed a year in the Boy Scouts – just didn’t like the guys in the troop).
Here’s the headline:
Diaz seeks ‘dialogue’ with Boy Scouts
The solicitor says his own homosexuality didn’t enter into the city’s effort to force the local chapter to denounce antigay bias.
City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. said a recent push to force the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts Council to denounce the national organization’s antigay policy had nothing to do with his own homosexuality.
My problem right off the bat is that I doubt his words that it isn’t based on himself. And I have a hard time with the phrasing of the tag line, where it tries to protray, automatically, that the Boy Scouts are in the wrong. And, I believe this is certainly a case where he should be recusing himself because of his sexuality for a conflict of interest. Indeed, this phrase would be screamed out if a "traditionalist" with a chip on his shoulder was persuing a more progressive group. Frankly, this is nothing more than a blatant stab at once again forcing a political correctness mind set on a traditional morals based group that doesn’t want it.
"My own sexuality, my own sexual orientation, has never been hidden and never played into my decision," Diaz said in an interview yesterday with The Inquirer. "It has, perhaps, made me more sensitive to the issues."
"I’m trying to figure out what their policy means. Do they intend to discriminate against openly gay Boy Scouts?" he said.
Ya think? Just a little? Again, a little "painting" of the issue going on here? Contrast "…nothing to do with his own homosexuality…" and "….more sensitive to the issues." to "force the local chapter to denounce antigay bias".
The article goes on to show that Mr. Diaz IS trying to punish the group for sticking to its beliefs. Shouldn’t sensitivity work BOTH ways?
Last week, the Street administration threatened the scouts with eviction from the stately structure at 22d and Winter Streets they have occupied rent-free since 1928 unless they agreed to disavow discrimination against gays – or pay a fair-market rent.
The national organization, Boy Scouts of America, has a strict policy forbidding homosexuals from being scouts or leaders. The policy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and affirmed by the national council in 2002.
This action shows that even though the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right to assembly, the PC crowd wishes to ignore it and is punishing the group for sticking to its beliefs.
This is very similar to the fight that many Christian groups (again, traditional values) are facing on college campuses where their First Amendment rights are being trampled by college administrations who threaten their campus standing for the sake of being anti-discriminatory (see here at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).
“As FIRE has said many times, a Muslim organization has a right to be Muslim, a Jewish organization has a right to be Jewish, and a Christian organization has a right to be Christian. It is not tolerance but intolerance to forbid such voluntary associations,” concluded Lukianoff.
Well, if a Christian group (or Hindu, or Islam, or Jewish) is forced to accept members that do not accept their beliefs, or must allow non-believers to ascend to leadership positions, why bother having a creed or group at all?
Again, Orwellian thought police have reversed the meanings of words in this battle the higher moral ground (double-plus-ungood).
The last sentence in the Philedelphia Inquirer:
"I think I looked at this from a very balanced perspective," he added
No, the actions belie the words; it seems to be "accept my position, believe what I want you to do, or we put you out".
Please read the entire article and form your own opinion.