By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer,
on Facebook at “Focal Point”
While the Boy Scouts of America
have foolishly and uselessly allowed homosexuals to become scouts, they have
drawn the line at allowing sexual deviants to be scoutmasters.
Allowing gay scouts is foolish
because it risks exposing young teens to older teen males who have a sexual
interest in other boys. Scouts usually camp two to a tent. Any parent in his
right mind want to send his 13-year-old boy on one of those trips?
And it is foolish because it
won’t work, by which I mean it will buy them no good will from the Gay Gestapo
whatsoever. The BSA only abandoned the sexual standards that had guided the
organization since its founding out of craven capitulation to the deviancy
cabal, which insisted on it as the price of admission to their version of
polite society. But the move was destined to fail because the BSA didn’t go the
full Monty and allow homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters.
Their sop to the gay lobby was
bound to please no one. And it didn’t. Parents have been pulling their sons out
of scouting so fast it’ll give you a nosebleed, and BSA’s cowardice prompted
the formation of a pro-family alternative, Trail Life USA. And homosexual
activists are outraged that the BSA offered them only half a loaf.
We’ve often made the point that
nothing is ever enough for the gay lobby. You can only appease them by giving
them every single solitary thing they want, and even that is not enough. They are like the leech described in
Proverbs 30:15: “The leech has two daughters; ‘Give,’ and ‘Give,’ they cry.” In
the case of the BSA, the gay leeches demand that young boys be exposed to
active homosexuals or they will make the BSA feel their wrath.
And so the Gay Gestapo has made
a big-time move in California. The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee
on the Code of Judicial Ethics is now proposing that any affiliation with the
Boy Scouts disqualify any man from ever serving as a judge in the Golden State.
Yes, you read that right. If you
happen to be a fan of sexual normalcy and want impressionable young teens to be
protected from sexual predators, your professional career in the law will be
over, perhaps before it has ever begun.
The Scouts are to be identified
as a group that practices “invidious discrimination,” which, of course, is
exactly what the California Supreme Court would not only be practicing but
celebrating with this new diktat. You can’t get much more “invidious” than
wrecking a man’s career because he believes in protecting the sexual integrity
The new McCarthyite inquisitors
demand to know, “Are you now, or have you ever been, affiliated with the Boy
The point of this new ban is to
“enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” according to
the benighted and self-deceived souls on this committee. How exactly, one
wonders, does one enhance confidence in “impartiality” by a blatant display of
the worst kind of partiality imaginable?
This is Orwellian to an
astonishing degree, a fact made more notable by the fact that the members of
this committee seem fatuously oblivious to the reality that they are practicing
the very sins they condemn. The Supreme Court, in the name of tolerance, would
be terminating with extreme prejudice the judicial careers of anyone who does
not hold pre-approved opinions about the wonders of sodomy.
Thus the Court, in a burst of
wild-eyed and renegade activism, would violate every First Amendment right of
every potential judge. Exercise your right to the free exercise of a religion
that rejects homosexuality? Disqualified. Exercise freedom of speech by
mentioning the health risks of homsoexual behavior? Disqualified. Exercise
freedom of the press by writing about the importance of man-woman marriage for
the upbringing of children? Disqualified. Exercise freedom of association by
hanging with an organization that wants sexually normal leaders? Disqualified.
“Invidious discrimination” is
the mildest term that applies to such pig-headed, Nazi-esque tyranny.
California still has a chance as
this proposal is coming from an “advisory” committee. This advisory committee
should be forthwith advised that its proposal is headed to the nearest toxic
waste dump where it belongs.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or
American Family Radio.)