By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
September 13, 2000
Last night, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, a liberal Democrat with impeccable radical feminist credentials learned a hard lesson: Don't mess with the Boy Scouts. It all started on July 19, 2000, exactly three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in favor of the Boy Scouts of America which said that the U.S. Constitution also applied to Boy Scouts as well as to feminists.
At a press conference Woolsey introduced her new "Scouting for All" bill, which was named for a group which wants to, in their words, force the Boy Scouts of America to change its standards to accept "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth and adults. Scouting For All is also advocating that the Boy Scouts of America end its discrimination against girls and atheists."
Woolsey, at that press conference announced with typical feminist smugness HR 4892 which would do "only one thing," she said.
"Revoke the Boy Scouts of America's federal charter. We are here today to send a message to the Boy Scouts and to all Americans: The Congress of the United States does not support intolerance!"
On July 13, Woolsey and ten other members of Congress, Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), John Olver (D-Mass.); Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.), sent a letter to the White House urging President Clinton to "resign his position as honorary head of the Boy Scouts of America in protest of the organization's policy against homosexuals."
The group claimed that "the BSA policy barring gays teaches intolerance and should not receive the support of the federal government."
She found out last night she was right about one thing: The Congress of the United States does not support her style of intolerance. Not even male fellow radicals like John Conyers of Michigan were willing to support her intolerant bill.
Rep. Asa Hutchinson, (R-AR) who served as one of the 13 House Managers for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, brought the offensive bill to the floor, to put the Congress on record where the Boy Scouts of America is concerned. He responded,
"The question is about tolerance. The Attorney General of the United States issued a statement in response to a request (by the Interior Department) for an opinion (on Clinton's Executive Order 13160) That opinion says:
"Boy Scout Jamborees are not federally conducted educational or training programs.""In other words, this is a private association and the Supreme Court has said they have a right to associate and to conduct themselves freely. That's what this country is about. They have African-American Scouts, Asian-American Scouts. They have a broad range.
"But they have some BELIEFS that they stand for and they don't want to be compromised. I believe that is consistent with freedom."
In that setting Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), who, with Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), is on the Advisory Council for Save Our Scouts (www.saveourscouts.com), took the floor:
"Mr. Speaker, as the Republican co-chair of the Congressional Scouting Caucus, as a proud Eagle Scout and as an unapologetic supporters of Scouting in America I stand here tonight to commend the Boy Scouts of America for what they have done these last ninety years in strengthening American character, developing good citizenship and enhancing the mental and physical fitness among America's youth."Instead of attacking the Boy Scouts, we should be celebrating the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of our First Amendment and we should applaud the Scouts for standing strong under the pressure to compromise their own principles.
"HR 4892 proposes to revoke the Federal Charter of the Boy Scouts of America because they have maintained a moral standard rejected by America's liberal left.
"But the Scouts, like everyone else, have rights to set their own standards and not to be targeted for doing so. That is what Freedom of Association is all about. That's what the Supreme Court confirmed in its decision.
"In recent months we have witnessed the despicable booing of Boy Scouts by Democrat delegates during their convention. A 55,000 signature petition delivered at the Boy Scout headquarters demanding that they scrap requirements for Scoutmasters and, in my own county, Orange County California, the ACLU and others have tried to force the Scouts to take God out of their Scout Oath AND we have also witnessed a malicious and reprehensible effort on the part of some corporations and even the United Way in some areas to choke off funding for the Scouts in an attempt to force them into submission.
"Everyone is free to choose their own lifestyle. I would stand-up for anyone's right to have their own privacy and their own lifestyle, as the Scouts stand up for that.
"But the Scouts, too, have their rights. We should be applauding them for standing up for their own principles and their own beliefs rather than trying to attack them now and destroy the freedom of association guaranteed by our constitution.
Rep. Chris Cannon, also one of the 13 house Impeachment Managers, saw the attack on the Boy Scouts as far more than a mere effort to destroy the Scouts, as bad as that is. It is an attack on everything America stands for:
"I rise today in opposition to this dangerous bill that attacks a treasured institution, The Boy Scouts of America. A small group of extremists on the minority side are attempting to revoke the Charter of an organization that has done much good.."The attack today is because this private organization, the Boy Scouts, demands traditional moral rectitude from its members. This attack on the Boy Scouts alone would be repugnant to most Americans.
"But today's attack goes beyond just the Boy Scouts. It's an attack on the fundamental values of America.
"Our debate on this bill is just one skirmish in a larger cultural war for our nation's heart and soul. The gentle lady from California has laid out the legal and governmental opposition to the Boy Scouts. This war is a big deal and it will affect us all.
" Mr. Speaker, perhaps no civic organization has done as much as the Boy Scouts to instill the core American values of faith, loyalty, duty, honor, patriotism, community service and individual responsibility in the young men of this nation. We will prevail today in defeating this attack on the Scouts but only because the spotlight of American attention has been focused on our opponents.
" Someone on the other side has disavowed this bill that they once co-sponsored because the glare of attention has exposed the extremism of their views.
" I urge my colleagues and fellow citizens to oppose this bill.
J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) touched on a point that I've been thinking about in the last couple of weeks. The Boy Scouts of America are not the only group that chooses membership criteria that certainly can be shown to be in violation of "anti-discrimination" laws or pledges. Clinton's Executive order 13160, for example is entitled: NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SEX, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY, RELIGION, AGE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND STATUS AS A PARENT IN FEDERALLY CONDUCTED EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
If no group can discriminate against others based on sex, then the Girl Scouts, Women's Shelters, and Men's Shelters would also become targets of the feminists, and should be banned, since they all are sex-based. There could be no religious group allowed- No Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist organizations or even Churches. . There could be no homosexual or lesbian groups, websites, clubs, bars, etc. Italian or Chinese or German or Irish groups would have to be banned.
Rep. Hayworth said:
"Mr. Speaker, as an Eagle Scout I rise in strong opposition to the so-called "Scouting for All" act, because, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, the so-called "Scouting for All" act means constitutional rights denied. It's as if we tear freedom of association out of the document."Another federally chartered organization, the Jewish War Veterans - we don't see the Southern Baptists or the Buddhists demanding membership in the Jewish War Veterans. Jewish War Veterans -a federally chartered organization - have the right of freedom of association based on their spiritual beliefs.
"I suggest that those who put such an emphasis on sexual identity to have another freely formed association - the sexual identity seekers of America, if that predicates one's world views. THAT is the choice!
"The profound intolerance of those who claim to preach tolerance is incredible Those who would boo the Scouts and the vice-president of the United States, the standard bearer of his party, not standing foursquare for this federally chartered organization…SHAME on those who bring shame to this nation by trying to profoundly alter the Scouts!
Bob Barr (R-GA), another of the 13 House Impeachment managers that Bill Clinton swore and most of the national media warned would be defeated in the Year 2000 Elections, pinpointed the real issue that has prompted the attacks on the Boy Scouts of America - their moral component:
"Mr. Chairman, one of the sorriest, most painful exhibitions of a cynical "political move," to use the words of the gentleman from Michigan (Rep. John Conyers), that our nation has ever witnessed was a couple of weeks ago at the Democrat National Convention when members of a Boy Scout troop at the invitation of the Democrat National Convention, appeared before that body to lead that body in the Pledge of Allegiance and for that show of patriotism those Scouts were booed and hissed at by the body that sits on the other side in support of this resolution."Not being content at hissing and booing the Boy Scouts, they have now moved the forum of their denigration and assault on the Boy Scouts of America to this chamber. They truly ought to be ashamed.
"What is it, I ask my colleagues on the other side, they find so reprehensible in the Scout Oath which includes words that 'Scouts are physically strong.' Do they object to that? That scouts should be 'mentally awake.' Do they object to that? That Scouts should be 'morally straight.' Apparently, there's the rub. That's what they find so reprehensible about Scouts, that they would boo at a Scout and hiss at a Scout for standing up and leading our nation and their PARTY in the Pledge of Allegiance and why they now come before this body, before this flag, before this speaker, before the American people and tell us that the Boy Scouts for being morally straight are so reprehensible in their eyes that they ought not have the historical charter granted by this body.
"Have they no shame, Mr. Speaker? Have they no shame? And now we have the gentleman on the other side (Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) say he doesn't even have the courage to stand up and vote for the resolution they support. This resolution ought to be SOUNDLY defeated."
HR 4892 will be voted on today. I predict it WILL be soundly defeated, which is encouraging. However, even more encouraging to me was watching a group of men stand up not only for the right, but to do it with such masculine fervor. After years of mealy-mouthed whining and pandering from the White House, it was really great to see such a display of firm, protective masculinity in our Federal government. None of the women in the House, on either side of the issue, apparently had the nerve to either stand up for Lynn Woolsey or stand up for the Boy Scouts. Hopefully, today some of the women in the House will have the courage to stand with those men and vote against Woolsey's effort to use Federal government power to denigrate and destroy one of the few organizations left in America that teach boys how to be real men.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To sign Save Our Scouts petition: http://www.saveourscouts.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
