The Supreme Court has been on a roll lately. They upheld Miranda, then they declined to grant the Elian petition, then they killed the partial-birth abortion bill, and now they uphold the right of the Boy Scouts not to have gay scoutmasters. I admit, I am happy with all four decisions. With respect to the gay scoutmaster, if I were a member of the board of the Boys Scouts of America, I would have voted to allow him to stay, but I agree that this is a private organization, and they have the right to freedom of association. I would have phrased it differently, that there is no Constitional right for a gay person to be a scoutmaster, that the Constitution is silent on this type of issue.
I believe that being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice, it's something people are born with. I don't find it offensive or repulsive. One of my sisters is gay, and my best friend from college is gay. He's an emergency room doctor, he just celebrated his 20th anniversary with his boyfriend, who is a pediatric surgeon. But they don't make their sexual orientation publicly known at work. I think they have the right to live together, to love each other, and to express their love for each other in bed, just as heterosexuals do, but I think they should be discreet about it.
I suspect that throughout its history, homosexual men and women have been scout leaders, but no-one would know if they were discreet about their sexual lives. Not that this man was indiscreet, but he did become co-president of a gay organization while in college, which is how his orientation was made public.
I am sure the undercurrent in this case is the fear of pedophiles, and I do understand that pedophilia is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals, but I don't think it's the place of the law to tell people that they shouldn't be irrational when it comes to private association. I am sure that the Supreme Court would also uphold the right of a gay organization to exclude heterosexuals, or at least rule that there is no constitutional right of heterosexuals to associate with homosexuals.
I also note with interest that school groups which sponsor scout troops filed amicus briefs on the man's behalf, and now state that they may have to reconsider sponsoring troops due to their own non-discrimination policies. These are issues that should be worked out at the organizational level, not by Supreme Court fiat.
washingtonpost.com |
