Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

NOM’s Mandatory Anti-Gay Discrimination Initiative

Rob Tisinai

February 2nd, 2013

2012 was a tough year for the National Organization for Marriage. Will they react by pulling back to moderate their goals, or will they thrash about, careening desperately into greater and greater extremism?

Now we know.

NOM does not want the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay scoutmasters. What this has to do with promoting a healthy marriage culture, I can’t say. But NOM prez Brian Brown is emphatic:

…the Scouts are considering a proposal to abandon their longstanding national policy, and instead leaving the decision of allowing homosexual scout leaders to each individual council.

As we know from the marriage battle, capitulation is not a strategy for preserving our cherished values. When homosexual activists demanded “rights” and “benefits” many well-meaning policymakers responded with “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships,” believing that this “compromise” would preserve marriage while providing tangible benefits for same-sex couples. Though many in the gay community lobbied for these changes, once enacted they quickly adopted a strategy of condemning them as “second class” and used them to successfully file lawsuits redefining marriage.

Even though their supporters have relentlessly pressured the Boy Scouts to admit openly homosexual men as scoutmasters with the responsibility of mentoring America’s youth, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) now says the “compromise” the Boy Scouts are considering does not go nearly far enough.

They will settle for nothing short of capitulation – homosexuality-affirming troops in every locale across America, tolerating no exceptions, period. Any parent or young man who holds a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality will be attacked as bigoted and accused of discriminatory conduct. You can imagine the lawsuits that will follow.

The BSA Board of Directors will be voting very soon on this new policy proposal — perhaps as early as Monday — and they are seeking public input into their decision. We need to make it clear that compromising honorable values is no path to organizational victory.

Actually, I can’t imagine the lawsuits that will follow. Despite NOM’s victim project, it’s never shown us a lawsuit in the U.S. based simply on someone holding a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality. This is their great fundraising fiction. Perhaps that explains why they have such money problems.

Let’s be clear on why Brian’s all a-flutter.

The Boy Scouts are not being required by law to stop discriminating.

They are not instituting a national non-discrimination policy.

They are not recommending that any local council stop discriminating.

They are merely pondering whether to let local councils decide for themselves.

And Brian Brown is freaking out. He’s drawing a battle line here and we should note it. I’ve searched for anything that would make Brian’s argument unique to the Boy Scouts, and I can’t find it. He’s made a case, right or wrong, that it’s a threat to religious liberty for private organizations to have no official policy on anti-gay discrimination. Brian’s reasoning — and correct me if I’m wrong — implies there is only way to protect religious freedom: make sure everybody out there implements and enforces a mandatory policy of discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

This is Dark Ages stuff. In Brian Brown’s utopia, no one will dare sue for anti-gay discrimination because no one will dare reveal themselves as gay. No one will come out to their friends. No one will acknowledge their partner. Because every group, every charity, every employer will have a mandatory no-gay policy. Anything less is “compromising honorable values” and opening good people up to lawsuits just for holding a belief.

And he wonders why we worry about second-class status.

 

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Joseph Singer
February 2nd, 2013 | LINK

Of course it doesn’t have anything to do with marriage equality. It has to do with the geh. As long as it has anything to do with the geh it must be eeeeevil!

StraightGrandmother
February 2nd, 2013 | LINK

Rob,
I had not thought about it quite this, but you are right.

David in Houston
February 2nd, 2013 | LINK

“They will settle for nothing short of capitulation…”

That’s funny. I was going to describe Mr. Brown the exact same way. He is intent on forcing his religious ideology on every one else (including those living in other countries), without ever acknowledging that we don’t live in a Christian theocracy, and that you don’t have to be religious in order to get married. Hypocrites don’t come much larger than Brian.

Richard Rush
February 2nd, 2013 | LINK

“And Brian Brown is freaking out.”

It’s no wonder. He’s in the persecution business which is apparently paying him a half million dollars a year, and he’s supporting eight children. The lesson of the November elections was that he’s in a business catering to a rapidly declining market. So where does he go next when his resume shows his most recent job was the persecution of gay people, and he was a failure.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/01/fred-karger-reports-noms-brian-brown.html

iDavid
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

Richard,

Glad I read your post before I hit my Publish button…..

Hunter
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

Brown has lots of company in the shrill department — it guess that’s what happens when your cash cow starts to dry up.

gsingjane
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

I am very sorry to make this prediction, and I hope like heck the events of the coming week prove it incorrect.

I think the worst thing HRC could be doing right now is trying to pressure BSA into adopting a nation-wide non-discrimination policy. Yes, I understand the idea that it’s better to have one policy for everyone, and of course every boy should be able to be in an equality-minded troop. However, insisting on a “one size fits all” solution, right now, completely ignores BSA’s culture and the fact that they’re trying to please most of their constituencies here and preserve themselves as a going concern. (It also gives the very strong sense that HRC doesn’t understand much at all about BSA and way it operates.)

The fact is, if BSA institutes a nation-wide policy, they will lose probably a third to half their Scouts, right off the bat. It’s not reasonable to ask BSA to do that. And, they will also be seen as “caving” to the “homosexual lobby,” and believe me they don’t want to do that, either.

Kicking the issue to the councils is splitting the baby for sure, but in this case a split baby really is better than none. And what also really concerns me is that, when National does go to vote on this, it’s going to be really easy for the more conservative voices to say, look, the pro-gay people are telling us, “it’s got to be all or nothing,” and we’re not ready for “all.”

And, we will wind up with nothing.

Boy do I ever hope I’m wrong.

Ben in Oakland
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

Poor poor BryBry.

Your about 6 Inches away from joining and a few martinis Generalissimo Delgaudillo in the Department of Hysteria.

Homosexuality affirming troops in every locale in America, tolerating no exceptions? Shades of Little Rock, Miz Scarlett! Oh, you don’t mean the military, you mean Boy Scouts. Jack booted Boy Scouts, I’m sure.

I Don’t intend to be mean, but YOU’RE SUCH A DRAMA QUEEN! What with your obsession with homosexuality, and your dramatics, I’m starting to wonder a little about you.

All right, I did intend to be mean.

JohnAGJ
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

@gsingjane: Agreed. I’m willing to split the difference on this one and wait for the culture to catch up to bring about further change. Opening up BSA fully isn’t as important to me as ending DOMA or enacting ENDA and I’m concerned this side matter may negatively impact those efforts. Pressure can still be brought to bear against those councils which keep the ban, while those councils allowing gays will help bring about the needed change through example.

Markanthonydog
February 3rd, 2013 | LINK

They need money. All their supporters are anti-gay, so they are just following their customer wishes. I was always supprised they didn’t get more in to the DADT issue.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.