Miscellany: 8/01/12

Quote of the Day
Contentment is natural wealth, 
LUXURY is artificial poverty.
Socrates

Gay Rights, Boy Scouts, and Catholicism

I don't like to write about gay issues. I personally don't know gay people, but I wish them well. It may surprise young adults today, but most people of my generation have had a "live and let live" attitude towards gays. Many if not most of us straights don't personally approve of gay lifestyles on religious or moral grounds, but we accept gays as fellow Americans whom have an unalienable right to pursue happiness.

When I was in the Navy, I had heard a couple of Navy women I knew casually through my assignments were lesbians (not together). The officer was an interesting lady whom created board games as a pastime; she loved Disney World with a passion and offered to go with me on my first visit there. I met the other while working at the Staff Judge Advocate's office before leaving the Navy. I was madly in love with Ann, a gorgeous petite Italian American yeoman (administrative assistant). Ann, for God knows what reason, was involved with, and loyal to, this married guy with a family on the West Coast. Ann and I hit it off from the start: it was like we had known each other all our lives. Ann later told me that she thought I was hilarious.

Technically, as an officer, I wasn't supposed to socialize with the enlisted personnel, and dating between officers and enlisted  is especially frowned upon. So I was very discreet around Ann (at least I thought I was), but Ann knew I liked her. As for the fraternization policy, I was due to separate from the Navy in a few weeks; I wanted to date Ann after I left the service. Ironically, my little sister, an Air Force nurse, did meet her future husband, an enlisted man, on the job. She had to show up her big brother...

Ann had this enlisted friend (I don't recall her given name; let's call her Amy). Amy KNEW that I liked Ann, probably picking up on nonverbal cues. Amy was terrible; she repeatedly lobbied Ann to use her influence over me to do tricks for their amusement, e.g., literal quote: "Tell Ron to go get us some ice cream cones."  (Ann refused to abuse her influence over me, but in fact I would have gotten her a banana split if it put a smile on her beautiful face.) Ann did ask me one day to drive Amy around looking for her lost cap; I would have driven Amy to Miami if Ann had asked me to. As Meatloaf sings, I would do anything for love.

I can't recall how the topic of homosexuals came up with Ann. What I did know that that the Navy would often bring in recruits for the nuclear fleet as petty officers; there was an extended obligation. Supposedly (I don't know because I never went on a sub while I was in the Navy) the Navy treated its personnel very well under the circumstances of living for long stretches of time underwater; for example, they served great chow like lobster. But some men quickly tired of the lifestyle and wanted to leave. One alleged way they tried to find a loophole out of the Navy was to use Navy regulations. So the stories I heard went this way: straight guys, wanting out, would deliberately get caught engaging in homosexual sex acts. I remember I was training for Officer of the Day duties (including going through the local barracks); we came to one of these barracks which reportedly was home for those "gay" personnel being transitioned out of the service  As soon as I walked into the barracks, I was overcome with a powerful stench of vomit, almost making me gag.

So I was talking to Ann, when the topic came up (maybe she was working on related paperwork), and I told Ann that I didn't know any homosexuals. Ann laughed and said that yes I did--Amy was one. (I think my best friend Joe later told me about our female colleague.) In any event, nobody I ever knew in the Navy cared what other people did on their own time so long as it didn't affect their professional responsibilities. Nobody I knew wanted to sabotage a fine soldier's career over his or her personal life.

I remember learning from co-workers shortly after moving to Houston that Montrose was a gay section of town. I simply kept my distance; I know that Texas has had a lot of blue laws or other dated Bible belt laws on the books (including busybody ones involving homosexual conduct)--when I lived in Irving, I couldn't buy beer at my grocery store. But as far as I knew, these homosexual conduct laws weren't enforced. Have there been random acts of violence against gays? No doubt.

Am I in a state of denial about the fact that gays can be victimized by intolerant people? No. For example, I've written several commentaries against the anti-gay, anti-Catholic Westboro Baptist Church.

I think all of us have certain characteristics that make us stand out at times. For example, I'm left-handed, I wore glasses as a kid and young adult, I was/am a geek and academic overachiever, I have blue eyes,  I'm a Franco-American, I started out kindergarten speaking only French, I have battled a weight problem for most of my adult life, I'm Catholic, and while I worked for several weeks in Brazil back in 1995, I learned that a number of Brazilians do not really care for Americans all that much. [I also have double-jointed thumbs like this; I think only about 2% of the population  has them. People seem to be strangely fascinated by my being able to bend my thumbs back at a right angle.]

Granted, I have not been physically or verbally assaulted over my differences (well, I was minding my own business when I got unexpectedly cold-cocked by a passing bicyclist of color in a random act of violence while jogging around the perimeter of UH one evening; it was noticeable enough for my auditing professor to comment about my purplish eye days later), but I'm sure that women I've dated have heard this song (well, not so much the going home with me bit):



My attitude with respect to gay rights has been: I respect individual differences; I respect your right to privacy, your ability to associate freely with other adult gays, and for your personal relationships to have certain legal protections.

However, there's a line between tolerance and capitulation to gay agenda ideologues inimical to traditional institutions and hypocritically hostile to individuals and groups holding traditional positions on faith and morals. There has been a saturation of the popular culture that traditional  (heterosexual) marriage--an institution thousands of years old--is "discriminatory", that the related concept of family, based on the heterosexual process of procreation, necessary to sustainable society, is "arbitrary", that you can mix and match gender no differently than changing one's wardrobe.

Political correctness has run amok: just professing support of the traditional institutions can result in personal attacks, boycotts, etc.(i.e., the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle). Apparently certain expressions of free speech are more equal than others. In television and movies, people who espouse a pro-gay point of view are invariably portrayed as victims, virtuous and intelligent; those who hold a more traditional perspective are caricatured as aggressors, stupid and intolerant. Real life is more complex.

Enter the Boy Scouts of America. Like millions of other American boys, I joined Cub Scouts and then Boy Scouts. I remember that as a typical overachiever, I made Tenderfoot in record time for my troop. I stopped at Star Scout, two ranks below Eagle Scout. I'll simply note that I ran into some organizational politics, and there was also a fundraiser for a trip. After my side won the vote for the trip destination, the troop leaders didn't like our choice and decided to have a Democratic-style "re-vote" after twisting a few arms. This was so morally outrageous that I decided to leave Scouts.

On the other hand, at least 4 of my nephews reached Eagle, just like their father, my brother-in-law. Ironically, my best friend from UH, who had himself been an Eagle Scout, was in Scout leadership when my first nephews made Eagle Scout.

Here is the Scout code:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Now, to be honest, I don't recall spending a lot of time in Scouts discussing comparative religions, the Federalist Papers, or sexual politics. However, it's safe to believe that the Scouts have held to a persistent core set of traditional (generic) religious and moral beliefs. It would be absurd presentist bias to assume that the Scouts intended openly gay, anti-American or atheist Scoutmasters or Scouts from the get-go; they focused on old-fashioned American values. They don't want the organization to be used by special interest groups (e.g., gays or atheists) for political purposes; that's not what Scouting is all about. Scouting is a positive experience; we never spent time disparaging others whom don't share our core values. Boy Scouts don't first ask if the old women they help cross the street have a different sexual orientation or are Communists.

Anyone who thinks these exclusions from leadership or membership are arbitrary, let me point out that the Scouts would also not likely select or retain leaders or members whom are porn stars, drug dealers, Wiccans, or leaders of political groups advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. (No, I'm not suggesting anything in common among these groups beyond ineligibility for roles in Scouting.)

This is NOT "discrimination" any more than the next Pope will not be a Buddhist, Muslim or Mormon. It is a VOLUNTARY organization. An organization has the right to choose its leaders or members for whatever reasons--or no reason. It is not accountable to any self-appointed morally self-superior culture police.

If you want to start up a "more inclusive" youth organization, have at it. (Personally, as a boy I would not have joined an organization where you earn Gay Pride Parade merit badges...)

SCOTUS in 2000 decided 5-4 to uphold the rights of the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Dale came out as gay while an assistant Scoutmaster. From Wikipedia:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist's majority opinion relied upon Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984), in which the Supreme Court said: "Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." This right, the Roberts decision continues, is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" like a "regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate."

We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.

The barrage against the Boy Scouts continues from multiple sources. Keep in mind no one is suggesting that the Boy Scouts have a hidden agenda here against gays, atheists or whatever: they are simply maintaining long-standing cultural/moral values.

A family member recently forwarded me a copy of a commentary from a well-known progressive Catholic periodical. It is not my intention to single out the misguided authors but it proves a good example of the intolerant, judgmental groupthink I've been referring to:

Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy finds no support in Catholic teachings

Because the U.S. Catholic hierarchy strongly opposes legislation that would grant lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people fuller equality, Catholics can be forgiven for assuming that church teaching always supports one particular "side" in our country's culture wars.

The church's hierarchy is in no way more progressive now than it was then, yet the bishops returned to this theme [rather than being ostracized, gays and lesbians "should have an active role in the Christian community] in their 1998 pastoral message Always Our Children.

The Boy Scouts of America, for instance, have recently reaffirmed their policy of excluding gay boys and gay leaders from that organization. As parents of a straight son who was a scout and a gay son who was not, we'd like to know the scouts' reasoning. 

In central Massachusetts, 15 scout leaders wrote to their local newspaper disassociating themselves from the scouts' policy. We call on Catholic bishops, parishes, schools and parents to take similar action. The Boy Scouts have made a significant moral miscalculation

Readers can read the whole commentary, but let me point out a few things. The issue the Scouts have has to do with "openly gay" men and boys; if I had a Boy Scout friend whom confided to me that he was gay, I wouldn't have said a thing to the Boy Scouts. The Scouts don't want a mixed message in terms of their promoting traditional moral concepts. Gays realize that there are consequences to outing themselves. The Scouts have been clear that they don't wish to endorse the gay lifestyle or a gay rights political agenda.

Do gay rights advocates have free speech rights? Of course. Do they have the right to impose their points of view on any or all groups, including those with views different from their own? No. Is an exclusion from a private group "discriminatory"? No. If I want to join a group which consists only of MIS PhD's; it may seem "discriminatory" since it refuses to accept less than a PhD or doesn't allow other majors, but the group is intended to reflect shared experiences as an MIS researcher. What would be discriminatory is something like my rejecting a research article for publication simply because I knew the author was gay, regardless of the merits of the paper.

Let me briefly talk about the Church here: the Catholic Church has consistently taught "love the sinner; hate the sin". Jesus hated the sin of prostitution, but He accepted the person whom sins as a worthy gift from God. The Church has always been unambiguous here: the proper role for sex is within the context of marriage (between a man and woman) and family. (Incidentally I expect the authors' polemical assertion about the Church's failure to support "fuller equality" is an indirect reference to the Church's principled opposition to "gay marriage".)

Incidentally, I never applied to the priesthood, but I think I heard at some point they were supposed to screen for sexual orientation, that only heterosexual men were supposed to be ordained. In fact, there is specific reference to something like that in a relevant 1961 document. (Note that all priests take a vow of celibacy.) Faithful readers may recall that I started college with the intent of eventually studying for the priesthood and in fact had a preliminary conversation with a Jesuit. What caused me to change my mind? I was dating this one very pretty blond. (She was an "older woman"; I was an 18-year-old junior and she was 4 years older.) I came to pick her up for church one day, and she's wearing red hot pants. I never realized during the time we were dating that she had been hiding two magnificent legs. I don't even think I was consciously aware that  I really liked women's legs. It was like my eyes were magnetized to them.

Finally, to give yet another example of how special interest groups have tried to intimidate parties holding traditional values, let us consider the utterly absurd case of Boy Scouts of America v. Barnes-Wallace. (Before going further, note that Cato Institute is sympathetic to most gay issues under individual liberty.):

The City of San Diego leases portions of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island to the San Diego Boy Scouts, which use the land to operate a camp and aquatic center and have spent millions of dollars to improve and maintain facilities on the properties, eliminating the need for taxpayer funding.

While the Boy Scouts' membership policies exclude homosexuals and agnostics, the Scouts have not erected any religious symbols and do not discriminate in any way in administering the leased parklands. Nevertheless, a lesbian couple with a son and an agnostic couple with a daughter challenged the leases under the establishment clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Although none of the plaintiffs have ever tried to use the parklands or otherwise had any contact with the Boy Scouts, the Ninth Circuit found they had standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they were offended at the idea of having to contact Boy Scout representatives to gain access to the facilities.

Cato's brief argues that the Ninth Circuit's decision dangerously confers standing on anybody wishing to challenge the internal policies of expressive associations having any business with local government; chills public/private partnerships of all kinds for reasons disconnected from the beneficial services civic organizations provide the public; and generally represents a radical extension of standing jurisprudence — opening the courthouse doors to anyone claiming to be subjectively offended by any action and manufacturing litigation out of political debates.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Four Seasons, "Sherry"