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".