NOM's Mandatory Anti-Gay Discrimination Initiative

2012 was a tough year for the National Organization for Marriage. Will they react by pulling back to moderate their goals, or will they thrash about, careening desperately into greater and greater extremism?

Now we know.

NOM does not want the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay scoutmasters. What this has to do with promoting a healthy marriage culture, I can’t say. But NOM prez Brian Brown is emphatic:

…the Scouts are considering a proposal to abandon their longstanding national policy, and instead leaving the decision of allowing homosexual scout leaders to each individual council.

As we know from the marriage battle, capitulation is not a strategy for preserving our cherished values. When homosexual activists demanded “rights” and “benefits” many well-meaning policymakers responded with “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships,” believing that this “compromise” would preserve marriage while providing tangible benefits for same-sex couples. Though many in the gay community lobbied for these changes, once enacted they quickly adopted a strategy of condemning them as “second class” and used them to successfully file lawsuits redefining marriage.

Even though their supporters have relentlessly pressured the Boy Scouts to admit openly homosexual men as scoutmasters with the responsibility of mentoring America’s youth, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) now says the “compromise” the Boy Scouts are considering does not go nearly far enough.

They will settle for nothing short of capitulation – homosexuality-affirming troops in every locale across America, tolerating no exceptions, period. Any parent or young man who holds a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality will be attacked as bigoted and accused of discriminatory conduct. You can imagine the lawsuits that will follow.

The BSA Board of Directors will be voting very soon on this new policy proposal — perhaps as early as Monday — and they are seeking public input into their decision. We need to make it clear that compromising honorable values is no path to organizational victory.

Actually, I can’t imagine the lawsuits that will follow. Despite NOM’s victim project, it’s never shown us a lawsuit in the U.S. based simply on someone holding a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality. This is their great fundraising fiction. Perhaps that explains why they have such money problems.

Let’s be clear on why Brian’s all a-flutter.

The Boy Scouts are not being required by law to stop discriminating.

They are not instituting a national non-discrimination policy.

They are not recommending that any local council stop discriminating.

They are merely pondering whether to let local councils decide for themselves.

And Brian Brown is freaking out. He’s drawing a battle line here and we should note it. I’ve searched for anything that would make Brian’s argument unique to the Boy Scouts, and I can’t find it. He’s made a case, right or wrong, that it’s a threat to religious liberty for private organizations to have no official policy on anti-gay discrimination. Brian’s reasoning — and correct me if I’m wrong — implies there is only way to protect religious freedom: make sure everybody out there implements and enforces a mandatory policy of discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

This is Dark Ages stuff. In Brian Brown’s utopia, no one will dare sue for anti-gay discrimination because no one will dare reveal themselves as gay. No one will come out to their friends. No one will acknowledge their partner. Because every group, every charity, every employer will have a mandatory no-gay policy. Anything less is “compromising honorable values” and opening good people up to lawsuits just for holding a belief.

And he wonders why we worry about second-class status.


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

5 comments to NOM’s Mandatory Anti-Gay Discrimination Initiative

  • 1
    Deeelaaach says:

    I don’t think Brown wonders at all why we worry about second-class status.  He has no concept of what it is to live a so-called second-class life. 

  • 2
    Mike says:

    That’s a very good point, one that I had not seen before, thank you so much for writing this up.  At the moment, the proposed membership change would allow Chartering Organizations, the ones that actually “own” the unit (and should be providing support financially, giving space to meet and be the final ones to select leaders).  I haven’t seen anything as of yet about local councils and their volunteers/employees.

  • 3
    tavdy79 says:

    Have you ever watched a dying fly? They buzz about upside down on the floor, making a phenomenal amount of noise, but to all intents and purposes totally impotent. A couple of months ago there was a dying fly in my aunt & uncle’s house, buzzing about near the bottom of a radiator. It didn’t buzz about for very long through, because a big house spider came out of the hole in the floorboards where the radiator pipe came through. it grabbed the fly and the annoying buzzing stopped as it sank its fangs in, than dragged the corpse down to its lair.
    This is just like NOM: the closer they get to the end the more noise they make and the less effective they become. Eventually a big nasty dose of reality (very probably debt-related, since they seem to be spending money faster than they can collect it) is going to sink its fangs in, and they’ll be gone.

  • 4
    Scott Rose says:

    “Judeo-Christian values” is a bullshit phrase.  Jews don’t belive in Jesus, or hell, so there’s that.  Over the centuries, more often than not, Christians were slaughtering Jews. In colonial Maryland, it was illegal not to believe in Jesus.  The first offense got your tongue bored, and you were fined. The penalty for a third offense was death.  Worldwide, both Conservative and Reform Judaism endorse unconditional LGBT equality.  In the special election to replace NY Congressman Anthony Wiener, NOM campaigned against Democrat David Weprin, an Orthodox Jew who had voted for marriage equality in the New York State Assembly.  

  • 5
    Regan DuCasse says:

      The Illinois Family Institute went on a tear about how the policies of the BSA was being ATTACKED by aggressive homosexuals. The tenor of their article was that the BSA’s leadership was so intimidated by homosexuals, that they were having a hard time ignoring them and the coercive nature of these homosexuals would have them in court again, even though SCOTUS declared the BSA able to arrange their policies as they saw fit.
    So there HAD to be some kind of threat involved for the BSA to be considering such a change in their policy.

        No amount of irony escapes anti gay organizations. Not ever. The comment thread that followed went on and on about how many Christians, especially were going to find themselves in jail or their businesses closed down for speaking out against the homosexuals.
       And before my own comment was blocked and eventually disappeared from the thread, I asked them if they realized that no religious person had EVER been jailed or censured for speaking out. Nor lost businesses they didn’t choose to unless they’d breached a non discrimination contract with a civic ordinance.
      Although it was true about SCOTUS and it’s decision, did it not occur to anyone in the IFI that members of the BSA leadership had close relatives or people they loved who were gay they knew served honorably in the BSA or they had been gently PERSUADED by this reality and no coercion was involved and never has been?
    And if the BSA, by this persuasion, changed their policy, what was the IFI poised to do?
    What would their intention be for the BSA?
     Would it surprise anyone here for those local troops to have any support pulled if they allowed any gay kids or gay Scout masters?
      See? Hypocrisy, if not irony. Every time.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>