The Herald’s page one article on Sept. 17 concerning the Boy Scouts and the gays was quite enlightening (“Local Scout leaders abuzz over gay ban”).
Bob Hayman, who has a 36-year history with the Scouts, and is himself an Eagle Scout, says that he didn’t know about the ban on gay leaders. Who is he trying to kid? Adult leaders are carefully screened to prevent potential harm to our sons and homosexuals have always been denied leadership positions in the scouts. The homosexual lifestyle is in direct contrast to the Scout oath to be morally straight. Besides, what rational person would knowingly invite, or even allow, a homosexual adult to sleep side by side with their sons in close quarters on a campout?
The Supreme Court decision is, as The Herald article points out, creating a stir. Parents and right-thinking people are greatly relieved. Homosexuals, leftist activists and the political-correctness police are working overtime to pressure the Scouts into changing a fundamental right of association and personal safety. Where is their tolerance?
But I think the thing that surprised me most was Hayman’s statement that what the Scouts were doing was not consistent with the Scout Oath, and that the Scouts stand for “tolerance.” The Scout oath and law talk of and promote reverence, trust, loyalty, the moral code, courtesy, respect for law and duty to God. It says nothing about inviting those with perverted lifestyles to be leaders and role models for our young men. Perhaps Hayman should dust off his Scout handbook and read it again.