Green Room

Irony of Ironies: Boy Sprouts May Be Sued to Death – for Homosexual Molestation!

posted at 10:07 pm on April 28, 2010 by

First, the Left filed hundreds of lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America demanding that they be forced to allow gay scouts and gay scoutmasters into the organization. That tactic failed when the Supreme Court found that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was a private, religious organization, and that it had a First-Amendment, free-association right to set standards of morality for membership.

But now the BSA must defend many lawsuits filed by former scouts who allege they were molested by gay scoutmasters.


At least now we know why the Boy Scouts have steadfastly refused to relax their standards. As I have argued before, sending a pack of barely pubescent boys into the woods, in charge of a man who finds young boys sexually attractive, is a prescription for disaster — whether or not the scoutmaster does anything: All it would take to cost the Scouts millions in damages is for a troubled lad to falsely claim an openly gay scoutmaster molested him; most jurors would be far more inclined to believe that accusation than if all evidence showed that the scoutmaster was strictly heterosexual.

I certainly will not second-guess the facts of the present case, in which a jury has ordered the Scouts to pay $18.5 million; I have no reason not to believe the jury’s decision that the victim was indeed molested, and that the Scouts knew that scoutmaster had a history of molesting boys. But doesn’t this underscore the urgency of keeping openly gay boys and men out of the Boy Scouts in the first place?

  • Most worrisome is the destruction a real molester can inflict, both to the victim and to the BSA itself, its reputation and its finances.
  • But think of the harm a Boy Scout can cause via a false accusation against an openly gay scoutmaster.

    Whether due to emotional problems, revenge for some real or imagined insult, fear of exposure after he himself makes unwanted advances to the scoutmaster and is rejected, or if he makes the charge for purely mercenary reasons — either the lure of “jackpot justice” or if he is bribed by those who hate the Boy Scouts — such an accusation, false though it be, can devastate the organization. Enough of them can destroy the organization utterly, a potential with which a large number of utterly ruthless enemies of the Boy Scouts must be well aware.

  • Even without molestation, boys just going through puberty may have an exaggerated fear of molestation or ogling; what an adult should be able to handle might still traumatize a teen.

    An embarassed boy may be terrified that the scoutmaster might see him undressing or in the shower; he might be afraid to ask questions about his bodily changes; knowing that the scoutmaster in general finds boys or yound men physically attractive, the boy might well not want to be seen with the scoutmaster, worried that others will draw the wrong conclusion. As mentoring is a primary function of the Boy Scouts, an openly gay scoutmaster or an openly gay scout cannot help but cause problems.

    I had a friend in junior high (now called middle school, for those readers just recently graduated from junior high); call him M. M. was rather high strung as it was; then one day he found, stuffed in his school locker, several pages of gay porn pictures. I thought it was kind of funny (no, I didn’t put it there); but M. actually broke down sobbing, right in front of other schoolboys. Imagine how that affected his subsequent career at that school…!

Simply put, it’s not something that young boys should have to confront if they don’t seek it out, and certainly not while bonding nonsexually with other boys on scouting trips.

I detour now to contrast openly gay scoutmasters or scouts in the Boy Scouts to openly gay soldiers in military service, thus responding before the point is even raised. The most important distinction is of course age: There’s a vast difference between an eighteen year old military recruit and an eleven year old Boy Scout. The former is expected to be able to handle sexual subjects — as well as, you know, killing people — without hysteria; the latter may have no personal experience with sexuality whatsoever… and may be very, very vulnerable.

Also, by the time a person is old enough to be in the military, he almost always knows his sexual preference; he is much closer to being fully formed as a sexual being. But a pubescent or even pre-pubescent boy may still be confused or uncertain about his sexual identity and not prepared to confront the subject in such a visceral or tactile way. He just wants to hike and earn merit badges, not wonder whether he really has the hots for his scoutmaster or tentmate or just likes and admires him a lot.

Finally, I passionately believe that one of our fundamental rights is to defend the society in which we live; it’s an extension of the fundamental and universal right of self-defense. Contrariwise, nobody has a constitutional “right” to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America; it’s a private club, like a bowling league or a synagogue.

The BSA is among other things a religious organization; and as such, it promotes a moral code that is necessarily “divisive” and “exclusionary”: It divides the population into those fit to join and those unfit to join, and excludes the latter. Among other things, you cannot profess disbelief in God and still join the Scouts; but of course, Wiccans, Druids, worshippers of Crom, and even atheist agitators are legally allowed to join the service. Recruiters are forbidden by law from discriminating on the basis of religion.

Thus I demonstrate no contradiction or hypocrisy in supporting the full integration of openly gay servicemen while simultaneously opposing the same integration among the Boy Scouts and similar youth organizations. In fact, I’m hopping mad that the Girl Scouts appear to have caved completely on this subject… though of course, it’s nowhere near as bad for a lesbian scoutmaster (scoutmistress?) to lead girls into the woods than for a gay male scoutmaster to lead boys into the woods. (If you can’t see why, ask in comments.)

Thus my defense of the policy; now my fear about the legal strategy itself. Anent the lawsuit in question and the $18 million verdict it spawned…

I have no information about the provenance of this suit, but here is my worry: The Left, having been thwarted by the federal courts (which finally held that the BSA is a private organization, so can exclude gays and atheists without violating anyone’s civil liberties), might now take a different tack — and use accusations of gay molestation to sue the Boy Scouts out of existence.

Of course, this would send a message precisely the opposite of what the Left’s first line of lawsuits sent; but if our national socialist movement had the chance to destroy one of its most hated enemies, the Boy Sprouts, would the Left really care how it did so? It may already be sponsoring, or even inventing out of whole cloth, such lawsuits; just as I’m sure many of the similar molestation suits against the Catholic Church were discovered and promoted, if not actually fabricated, by leftists more interested in destroying the Church than obtaining “justice” for the (real or fake) molestation victims.

What a sick irony that would be. I certainly hope the Scouts can weather this storm; what a dreary world would be revealed by the BSA’s obliteration.

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


What are the boy ‘sprouts’?

SnKArcbound on April 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM

I thought the Boy Scouts had already caved and started allowing gays into the ranks. Am I misinformed?

astonerii on April 28, 2010 at 10:21 PM

astonerii, the courts have pretty consistently ruled that the BSA is a private organization and thus can set their membership policy as they wish. I heartily agree. As usual though, there is a worm in the apple.

The U.S. Army gives the BSA special access to a base, Fort A.P. Hill, for its national Scout jamboree and the U.S. Department of Defense spends approximately $2 million per year in taxpayer funds to assist the BSA in staging it. On April 4, 2007 the US Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling on the basis of a lack of standing to sue, thus allowing the 2010 and future Jamborees to go forward with continued DoD support (see Winkler v. Rumsfeld).

The quote is from wiki. We the taxpayers fund in part the annual Jamboree. The BSA should stop accepting this governmental assistance if they want to claim that they are private.

GnuBreed on April 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM

GnuBreed on April 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Darned tootin’!! Any organization that claims they are private should totally avoid any government expenditures on their behalf. Roads to churches shouldn’t have to be paved by municipalities, foundations like the Red Cross should start paying property taxes on those fancy-schmancy buildings they have, and the Rotary Club shouldn’t be able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve banking system to clear their members’ dues checks.

cthulhu on April 29, 2010 at 1:41 AM

cthulhu, as a former Montgomery resident, I can assure you that the SPLC got plenty of government help in building their HQ. I’m thinking confiscate it and turn it into a warehouse.

SDN on April 29, 2010 at 9:23 AM

It may already be sponsoring, or even inventing out of whole cloth, such lawsuits; just as I’m sure many of the similar molestation suits against the Catholic Church were discovered and promoted, if not actually fabricated, by leftists more interested in destroying the Church than obtaining “justice” for the (real or fake) molestation victims.

I fear you’re right. I would like to see the end of the Catholic Church, by people losing the faith–not by lawsuits and molestation charges. It’s ashame that we can’t argue issues intellectually and not resort to dishonest tactics. I’m not as naive as the last sentence may make me sound.

thuja on April 29, 2010 at 9:34 AM

cthulhu on April 29, 2010 at 1:41 AM

OK I’ll play. A road built through private land exclusively for the use of a church, or any other private organization, with public monies is not something I would support. It would be decided though at a county or state level and not by the federal government.

Exemption from property taxes for private organizations is also a state issue, not a federal one. You don’t pay federal property taxes, at least in general. I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas like that though.

The Federal Reserve is a private organization itself. Besides, I’m going to guess here that the Rotary Club has to pay a bank for their checking account just like everyone else.

Did I not support the right of the BSA to practice discriminatory rules of membership, such as no gays or no atheists? I sure did. Even though there is a silly federal law, called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and subsequent additions to that act), that mentions something about not discriminating. These civil rights are even applied to private businesses! Oh the shame.

I merely objected to federal dollars going to the support of a private organization that practices discrimination.

GnuBreed on April 29, 2010 at 9:44 AM

First of all being gay does not mean you’re going to molest children. Pedophiles molest children not homosexuals.

Secondly your logic is faulty. Male genitals are not the only requirements for molesting children. Thus you’re theory that a lesbian girl scout leader is okay, because, ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ she’s missing the equipment.

I know many gay & lesbians who are not pedophiles and who believe it’s immoral.

You know what a good indication of a pedophile is? Someone who wants to be with children – coach, teacher, boy scout leader, etc.

hotdax on April 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Past behavior is also a good indication of future abuse.

Boy Scouts were negligent for allowing former assistant Scoutmaster Timur Dykes to associate with Scouts, including Lewis, after Dykes admitted to a Scouts official in 1983 that he had molested 17 boys.

As in the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts knew this guy had a problem but instead of protecting kids they let him continue.

Also the sexual orientation of the offender is not mentioned in the article.

One more thing: The only group that is going to bankrupt the Boy Scouts is the Boy Scouts. Hopefully this was not the norm and they dismissed bad scout masters. Somehow I have a feeling that they, like the Catholic Church (and probably other organizations) just ignored the molester and transfered him.

hotdax on April 29, 2010 at 3:34 PM

First of all being gay does not mean you’re going to molest children. Pedophiles molest children not homosexuals.

hotdax on April 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM

But homosexuals are five times more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals are.

itsnotaboutme on April 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

It always seemed like an odd argument to make (in trying to force the BSA to accept gay leaders). I don’t think anyone would think twice about saying NO if a heterosexual male aked if he could lead a group of 14-16 year old girls on a camping trip alone. Even if he was a great guy and people trusted him, wouldn’t common sense say that would be a bad idea, not just for possible molestation, but, as the post pointed out, possible false accusations? How would it be any different for a homosexual male taking out a group of 14-16 year old boys camping?

DrAllecon on April 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Wait a second. Boy scouts aren’t 14-16, Gays don’t find young boys attractive (just as I don’t find little girls sexually attractive) and I have indeed been in charge of groups of children of both genders in various capacities and find the insinuation that because I’m a man I’m just a heartbeat away from molesting some kid outrageous.

The BSA can do what they want. The real issue with molestation (aside from the light punishments we give out for it like probation) is responsibility. When I worked youth programs the good ones had safe guards like rules against any adult being alone with any child. If the BSA is sending children into the woods with one adult, hetero or homo, they’re being irresponsible.

Pedophilia is not an orientation, On my site I point out all the time that fact that supposedly “gay” child molesters also have hetero sexual partners and victims. men “attracted” to little girls are routinely found in gay relationships.Just because the left is pushing the idea that gays and perverts are one and the same doesn’t mean it’s the truth.The man who kidnapped Shasta Grone molested her but had a long history of molesting boys, bottomed for a man in prison, had raped grown women etc. His sexuality was based around sadism, not attraction to any one. All child rapists are the same.

Rob Taylor on April 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM

First they came for the priests, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for the Scoutmasters, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Scout. Then the anal-probing aliens came for me…

I can think of no better reasons than these to keep the anal-probing aliens away from any positions of responsibility.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Rob Taylor on April 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM

A guy who likes boys is a gay.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM