By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
September 5, 2000
"The Boy Scouts can still hold their Jamborees on federal lands even though they bar gays from being scouts of leaders, Attorney General Janet Reno says," the Associated Press article began. The next sentence said it all: "Friday night, Reno moved swiftly to quash an issue that had rapidly begun to enter the presidential campaign. She was responding to a request last month from the Interior Department for guidance on how President Clinton's executive order June 23 barring discrimination against homosexuals would affect the Interior's relations with the Boy Scouts."
Actually, as bad as Clinton's Executive Order was, anyone with a 4th grade reading level would have been able to see it did not apply to the Boy Scouts. The Order reads in part:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13160 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
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 921-932 of title 20, United States Code; section 2164 of title 10, United States Code; section 2001 et seq., of title 25, United States Code; section 7301 of title 5, United States Code; and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to achieve equal opportunity in Federally conducted education and training programs and activities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
The Executive order is for Federally conducted education and training programs and activities. Is a Boy Scout Jamboree a "federally conducted education and training program" or "activity." No. It isn't.
The Executive Order goes on to say:
Section 1. Statement of policy on education programs and activities conducted by executive departments and agencies.
1-101. The Federal Government must hold itself to at least the same principles of nondiscrimination in educational opportunities as it applies to the education programs and activities of State and local governments, and to private institutions receiving Federal financial assistance. Existing laws and regulations prohibit certain forms of discrimination in Federally conducted education and training programs and activities -- including discrimination against people with disabilities, prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., as amended, employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion, prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-17, as amended, discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion in educational programs receiving Federal assistance, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving Federal assistance under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
Note that actual law is referenced for discrimination against people based on disability, race, color, national origin, sex or religion. However, Clinton adds three new categories which have no basis in the law:
"Through this Executive Order, discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, and status as a parent will be prohibited in Federally conducted education and training programs and activities.1-102. No individual, on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, or status as a parent, shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in, a Federally conducted education or training program or activity.
In August, the Associated Press reported, the Interior Department asked "for guidance on how President Clinton's executive order June 23 barring discrimination against homosexuals would affect Interior's relations with the Boy Scouts of America." Was this merely a White House trial balloon to see what the American public would do if the Boy Scouts were so blatantly discriminated against? Apparently. As AP put it:
"Within hours after Interior's request became public Thursday, GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush, who is dedicating proceeds from the sale of his book "A Charge to Keep" to the Scouts questioned whether the Interior was on the verge of "throwing the 90-year-old scouting organization off federal lands."
The thought of excluding the 6.2 million Boy Scouts of America from Federal Parks because it persists in standing by the Scout Oath and Covenant has jolted many people. In spite of widespread attacks and lawsuits against the Scouts made by those who want the organization to allow homosexuals, or girls or atheists into it have not slowed growth of the organization. It has grown overall by seven per cent in the past three years, even as the movement has been under fire for its policy of excluding homosexuals. In the San Francisco area, where homosexuals are politically influential, membership increased by 28 per cent in two years - despite efforts of homosexual activists to encourage teens to choose youth groups that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. At the end of a long-running lawsuit brought by a New Jersey scout leader fired when found to be homosexual, the Supreme Court ruled last June that the BSA was legally entitled to bar homosexual leaders.
An Interior spokesman, Jon Wright, said the department had no "intention of severing ties with the Scouts. He characterized the memo as an attempt to get clarification from the Justice Department on how the president's order might affect the relationship."
The question indicates an ominous trend. Clearly Wright is assuming that the President might, and has the right to, "sever ties with the Scouts" if it chooses to in order to force them to adopt the President's views on homosexuals.
Based on the outpouring of support over the Labor Day week-end for "Save Our Scouts" (http://www.saveourscouts.com), it appears that on this issue the Democrats may well have made a real tactical blunder. The response seems to indicate that many Americans are fed up the tax financed attacks on organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America.
Disgruntled groups that want the Scouts to lower its standards have caused the group to divert huge amounts of its funds to frivolous lawsuits. Many Americans have applauded the use of government power to destroy businesses, such as the tobacco companies or gun manufacturers. Yet, there is a principle involved in government coercion through use of its massive power that seems to have escaped people. If it is OK to destroy tobacco companies and gun companies through the use of government power, what principle do we point to when government chooses to destroy a group like the Boy Scouts of America, because it does not conform to government views?
To comment: mmostert@waveshift.com (Note: My e-mail address mmostert@originalsources.com is down due to technical problems in changing servers. It should be up again by Wednesday.)
To Sign SAVE OUR SCOUTS Petition go to: 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
