Street's Ousting Of The Boy Scouts An Act Of Political Cowardice

[fgoodwin 23]

Street's Ousting Of The Boy Scouts An Act Of Political Cowardice

 

http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16997240

http://tinyurl.com/qhhrm

 

08/02/2006

By: GREGORY J. SULLIVAN, Special To The Evening Bulletin

 

The decision by Mayor John Street and supported by the Fairmount Park Commission to punish the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America for its adherence to the organization's long-standing prohibition on openly homosexual members and leaders is the triumph of political correctness over sound policy. What is more, it is a betrayal of an organization and, most especially, the young boys who desperately need the moral instruction of the Scouts more than ever.

 

Since 1928, the Scouts have occupied the city-owned building at 22nd and Winter Streets. The Scouts have been charged no rent; the city's boys have had the advantage of the excellent character-forming work of the Scouts. (Actually, more than just the city: the Council is the third largest in the country and serves 87,000 children in Philadelphia, Delaware, and Montgomery counties.) For decades now, this arrangement has been enormously beneficial for both parties, particularly the city: for boys involved in the group, the Scouts provide what may, in many cases, be the only real male authority in their lives. Mayor Street knows how utterly important this authority is for children; but he has decided - and this decision is a very large mistake - to swim with the current of political correctness.

 

Philadelphia's fair-practices ordinance prohibits discrimination against, among others, homosexuals. Mayor Street has offered to allow the Scouts to stay and pay rent at fair-market value or leave. One major problem is that the city provides space under these very favorable terms with 75 community organizations, including religious groups. The city's battle with the Scouts could be the first in a long war against any group that is less than enthusiastic about homosexuality, which means with virtually all community and religious groups. Does Mayor Street really want to go in this direction to satisfy the clamor of homosexual activists?

 

The fact is that the restrained prohibition on avowed homosexuals as members and leaders in the Scouts advances the conventional view on sexuality that has been, until the day before yesterday, almost universally accepted. Homosexual conduct - as opposed to the orientation which is itself of no moral significance - violates the natural law. This view, though bitterly rejected by elites today, has been the standard one from St. Paul on. Opposition to this conduct is not, as is often assumed, irrational bigotry but a reasoned acknowledgement of heterosexuality as normative. The Scouts endorse this view.

 

The Scouts had a similar struggle over its policy in New Jersey. In the case of the openly homosexual James Dale, who was dismissed from the Scouts because of his well-publicized homosexuality, the New Jersey Supreme Court expressed its disgust at the Scouts' policy by deliberately misreading the state's antidiscrimination statute. Clear statutory language that excluded the Scouts from application of the antidiscrimination law was brushed aside in pursuit of the court's policy preference of homosexual inclusion.

 

The United States Supreme Court narrowly overruled this outcome, finding that the Scouts have a right to free association under the First Amendment. (Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion echoed the contempt of the New Jersey high court in its condescending denunciation of the "atavistic opinions" of those, like the Scouts, who interpose moral opposition to homosexual conduct.) And yet the systematic harassment of the Scouts continues.

 

The city can and should be squeezed by the federal government. There is a federal statute (the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005) that permits the Department of Housing and Urban Development to deny money to the city if its discriminates against the Scouts; the organization must be given equal access to public facilities. The city received approximately $62 million last year, so denial will have a major impact.

 

The city, however, should take the initiative and enhance the common good by enacting an exception to the antidiscrmination ordinance to allow the Scouts to pursue their admirable work. A free society must be vigilant in guarding the right of private groups to define themselves. An exception to the ordinance would be the salutary vindication of this principle. In pursuing the course he has chosen, Mayor Street is sacrificing the concrete good the Scouts do in the city and surrounding area to satisfy an aggressive minority. That is not leadership in the cause of vindicating sound principle; it is political cowardice.

 

Gregory J. Sullivan (Gregoryjsull@aol.com) is a lawyer in Bucks County(This message has been edited by fgoodwin)

[Hunt 11]

No new facts. To discuss this case intelligently we need to know:

1. What does the lease actually say?

2. What other organizations have similar leases, and what are their membership/leadership policies? (Do any Roman Catholic churches or charities have such leases, for example?)

[fgoodwin 23]

Hunt, this author introduces the issue of federal funds flowing to the city of Philadelphia and how those funds may be affected by application of the "Support our Scouts" Act.

 

I hadn't seen that nuance in other article, but perhaps you have?

[Hunt 11]

I think it was in one of the other articles. It's probably an empty threat, unless the city allows other groups with discriminatory membership policies to retain similar leases. The Support Our Scouts Act calls for equal access only.

[ManassasEagle 10]

"1. What does the lease actually say?"

 

It's been mentioned several times in the various articles on this topic that the lease says that the Scouts have the lease "in perpetuity" AND "the lease can be terminated with one years notice". From that, it sounds like the city is well within its legal rights to terminate the lease.

 

"2. What other organizations have similar leases, and what are their membership/leadership policies?"

 

Ahhh, this is the interesting one (and, to my memory, a piece of "new" information contained in the referenced article). The article states "the city provides space under these very favorable terms with 75 community organizations, including religious groups". Here's where a lot more information is needed. If any of these 75 organizations are provided space under similar terms AND if any of those organizations restrict membership based on sexual orientation and/or religious beliefs, then they must be included in these eviction proceedings in the same way the Scouts are. To not include the other organizations (if any) means that the current proceedings are aimed at the BSA and those justifying the eviction lose their "moral high ground" for their arguments. On the other hand, as long as any proceedings are enacted equally, the BSA really has no leg to stand on.