Is there not a reason why the Boy Scouts are called the Boy Scouts? Are there not perfectly valid and sensible reasons for gender segregation before adulthood in youth social organizations? How are the Girl Scouts in any way "inferior" to the Boy Scouts as a youth social organization? How would the Girl Scouts react if boys demanded to be allowed into their youth social organization? And why is it automatically incumbent upon the Boy Scouts to justify themselves and how they "do business" rather than on the female plaintiffs to make the case for why they should be allowed to force the changes they want?
I will acknowledge that this is the sort of identity politics nonsense that is quaintly anachronistic in this age of homosexual "marriage" and "transgender" insanity. You could almost forget that, as I believe it was Time magazine reported like it was some sort of stunning revelation twenty or so years ago, that boys and girls are different. And, as such, again, there is ample justification for having separate scouting organizations for boys and girls.
Pat Buchanan once coined a very succinct axiomatic maxim of conservatism: "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." Implied in that phrase is the burden of proof being on the girls who are trying to bludgeon their way into the Boy Scouts.
Anybody think that's where the proof burden will rest?
Me, either:
What are the legal prospects for the California girls who want to join the Boy Scouts of America?
Five girls, ages ten to thirteen, have asked the local council to be admitted as full-fledged Boy Scouts. Should they eventually take their case to court, they won’t be able to rely on Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions, because Congress wrote in an exemption for the Boy Scouts. Structurally, the exemption resembles the one that Congress gave Major League Baseball from antitrust laws: It doesn't really have a principled basis, but reflects some combination of tradition and lobbying power.
Aaaaaaand that will be why the Boy Scouts will lose. Again.
But I digress.
The girls could instead try to use State anti-discrimination laws to demand membership. The Boy Scouts would, however, have a response. They could claim that they’re committed to the exclusion of girls as a matter of their core definition, and therefore invoke their constitutional right to associate in a discriminatory fashion.
Straight out of the First Amendment, and what should conclusively and preemptively kill this case aborning. At least per the founding document's original intent. But as we all know, the Constitution now means whatever the Left wants it to mean to conform to their radical, extremist communist agenda, which most definitely includes laying waste to traditional American social and civic organizations like the Boy Scouts.
In any case, the BSA has already conceded that line of defense, as it would be based upon Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the homosexual scoutmaster case that the Scouts won in court fifteen years ago but on which they foolishly capitulated earlier this year. And this is why you don't yield ground you don't have to yield - it opens the floodgates for the feeding frenzy. The BSA has already effectively committed identity suicide, and now every enemy is swooping and stampeding in to flense its expiring carcass.
My guess? A demand for lesbian scout mistresses will be next.
No comments:
Post a Comment