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.
Trending: Democrats are God’s Judgement On America
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 of teenagers.
The new McCarthyite inquisitors demand to know, “Are you now, or have you ever been, affiliated with the Boy Scouts?”
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 homosexual 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.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.