As I have repeatedly pointed out, the accusation of homophobia against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is bogus.
The BSA aims to provide activities for young men outside of a sexual context. That’s why there are no girls (as least that I know of) in the Boy Scouts, and that’s why they don’t admit gays.
The issue of discrimination in the BSA is bogus: In the aftermath of Katrina, in each of the states adjacent to Louisiana, Boy Scout troops used their campgrounds and gathered enough volunteers to obtain a ratio of 1 volunteer for every 2 displaced persons.
Since the relief effort being done by the BSA started in September 2005, NEVER ONCE have the displaced persons been refused assistance on account of sexual orientation, race, religion, or any other reason at all. The only criteria was that the people were in need, and the Scouts are helping. There has been NOT ONE INSTANCE, I repeat, not one, of discrimination from the BSA on its hurricane relief.
Having established that point, I was reading The Anchoress yesterday and came across this post from Ace:
Democratic Strategeist Bob Beckel: Fact That Mark Foley Was Gay Should Have “Raised Questions” About More Innocuous Emails
Say again?
Bob Beckel, in Hannity and Colmes last Monday, said that innocous emails should have “raised questions” because Mark Foley is gay.
At the same time, as Ace and The Anchoress point out, the Democrat party
stands as a whole for the proposition we must have no suspicions about gay men who want to hang out with boys in the woods
As The Anchoress brings to our attention
Remember, was it the 2000 convention when some Scouts processed with the flag to open the Dem Convetion and they were boo’d and conventioneers held up signs saying, “we support GAY boy scouts”.
The Anchoress continues,
Now, of course, it is politically expedient to cast suspicion and doubt upon a gay man communicating with a 16 year old boy,
(and, may I point out, the age of consent in Washington, DC is 16, so from the legal standpoint a sixteen-year-old is not jail bait)
and the Dems love what is politically expedient. Which causes even this center-left journalist to call them a party without principles.
It’s not just the Democrat party. The ACLU’s culture of hypocrisy has been attacking the BSA while defending the despicable NAMBLA.
Foley’s a perv, and now the liberals are scandalized:
On dailykos, this situation is generating the kind of moral passion usually reserved for blind Bush hatred. Assuming it is genuine and not merely opportunistic, it makes me very curious. Why? Because there are many on the psychological left who would argue that what Foley did was not only not pathological but perfectly healthy, so long as the boy didn’t object, and Foley didn’t use his position of authority to exert illegitimate power over the boy. At bottom, it would be considered nothing more than an office flirtation with a willing participant.
And so, if Foley is neither a pervert nor a pedophile, what has the left so morally exercised?
Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These “Rights Activists” knew that representative Foley had relationships with “young men less than half his age.” They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections.
It’s time the Democrats, the Liberals and the Left started to look at what they defend.
Update: Via Larwyn, It would seem that if you can’t win an election on the issues, you win it on outing the gay members of the opposite party.
(Please vote for this article at Real Clear Politics)
(technorati tags Mark Foley, Boy Scouts of America, Democrats, Politics, ACLU)
