By Al Colombo

When the Los Angeles Council of Boy Scouts was asked to send a troop to the Democratic National Convention on August 18th, six Eagle Scouts and their leader attended. What happened after that, however, is both shocking and entirely uncalled for.

"When Gloria Johnson learned that a group of Eagle Scouts was about to take the stage at the Democratic National Convention, she immediately went into action. She and other California delegates grabbed poster board and markers and made signs that read, 'We Support Gay Boy Scouts.' "As the uniformed Scouts took part in the opening ceremony, the delegates, seated in the front of the hall, waved their signs - and booed" (Democratic delegates boo the Boy Scouts of America, Valerie Richardson, Washington Times, August 18, 2000).

Hi! My name is Mr. Democrat, and I'm for gays in Scouting.

According to Rick Hess, spokesman for the National Democratic Committee (DNC), Democrats want gays and lesbians to be treated with respect and this is why they booed the children.

"Democrats across the board support equal rights for gays and lesbians and we want to make sure they're not discriminated against," he said.

Is It About Disrespect?

The issue of gay men as leaders and gay children in the boy scouts has nothing at all to do with disrespecting gays. Instead, it entails the principle of acceptable risk. It represents a long-standing policy that says No one is to place young children in environments where they could be at risk. For this reason, scouts leaders are carefully selected to minimize risk and maximize true mentoring.

You say that not every gay male leader will prey on young boys? That may be true, but again, because the risk is there, an organization must assure that gays do not lead heterosexual boys. This principle should also apply to gay women as leaders in the Girl Scouts.

Those who do not agree that this represents an unacceptable risk to the children should know that sexual preditors almost always operate by seeking out situations that place them in close proximity with the target group--WHETHER IT INVOLVES BOYS OR GIRLS, GAYS OR HETEROSEXUALS!!

For example, in Medina, Ohio, an allegedly gay man was recently charged with molesting and raping five young boys.

"He joined organizations that would give him access to boys. He befriended fathers who had sons and then befriended the sons. He had relationships with women who had children."

"Prosecutors say Maggy, a former Boy Scout volunteer and a volunteer firefighter, befriended male children under the pretext of taking them to scouting activities. Maggy allegedly gave the children alcoholic beverages or used threats to make them perform sexual acts," said Marilyn Miller, writer, Akron Beacon Journal, Akron, Ohio.

The BSA is in the position where they must abide by Boy Scout standards when selecting leaders and accepting participants. So, please ask yourself; Does the acceptance of gays in the Boy Scouts represent an acceptable risk, whether it involves leaders or the children who participate? I think not.

An Agenda vs. Children?

For those who dare to step back and examine the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, it would appear that gay proponents have lost sight of the reason why scouting exists in the first place. What exactly is the mission of Boy Scouts? As follows:

Scouting is a world wide movement of youth groups whose objective is to help boys and girls develop character, citizenship, and physical and mental fitness by training members in wood, field, and handicraft activities and by encouraging community service. --Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1996 Edition

Instead of placing children above the gay agenda, those who advocate gays in scouting are all too willing to push the agenda under the guise of diversity, no matter what it would do to the young boys who belong to the Boy Scouts of America. By so doing they show little or no regard for the interests of heterosexual children.

As proof of this I submit the following evidence:

Richardson says that Rick Hess, DNC Spokesman, stated that most democrats support the Boy Scouts and what they do.

"At the same time, we want to see gays and lesbians treated with respect. Democrats across the board support equal rights for gays and lesbians and we want to make sure they're not discriminated against."

Clearly, what Hess is saying is that the Democratic party wants to put gay interests above that of heterosexual children, in this case young boys under the care of the Boy Scouts of America. Why would they be willing to jeapordize these heterosexual children? Could it be for votes? Could it be about the gay agenda?

Perhaps some of these Democrats are genuine in their concern. But it appears to be more about an agenda and votes than anything else.

Another example:

"Michael Perez, chairman of the National Stonewall Democratic Federation, called the protesters 'very supportive of the kids,'" said Richardson.

Prez's logic, however, is nothing more than double talk. For example, using Prez's logic, the Boy Scouts are just as supportive of gays as the Democratic delegates who booed are of a heterosexual-oriented Boy Scouts. These DNC delegates say they are supportive of kids, but it would appear that their tolerance ran amuck when a heterosexual organization like the Boy Scouts appeared at their convention to display the American flag. Quite obviously, they support children as long as it's on their terms.

I think not.
I know not.

What's The Solution?

Please allow me to share with you one possible solution to this problem. Perhaps someone could form an organization that focuses on gay children. Or, perhaps, any child who wishes to join. However, I must add that about the first time that a child is placed in a situation where they are sexually taken advantage of, be it a girl or boy, a gay or heterosexual, that organization will likely find itself in court.

Perhaps ALL of us need to look farther ahead than just our noses when we push an agenda that acts to negate the Constitutional rights of a certain group. The fact is, there is nothing at all to prevent the Democratic party from establishing a free-for-all children's group or a gay-oriented children's group, so long as they define it's mission and sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court supported the Constitution when they ruled on the Boy Scout organization's right to exclude gays. The matter should be closed now and folks should respect the court's decision, instead of embarking on a campaign geared to bash this heterosexual-oriented group.

In Closing

The bottom line is that preventing gays from joining the Boy Scouts has nothing to do with disrespecting gays. Instead, it has everything to do with acceptable risk, NOT putting heterosexual boys and girls at risk. It's not a minority issue and it's not an issue of sexual orientation--other than for those who are pushing the gay agenda.

My prediction is this. If ever gays are accepted in scouting, then we will no longer have a Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts of America. Why? Because no informed, caring parent of a heterosexual child would knowingly send thier boys and girls to camp under these conditions.

I ask you, isn't this dead horse beginning to smell?