Boy Scouts | Family Research Council | News | Rick Perry

BigGayDeal.com

Rick Perry: Keep Boy Scouts Anti-Gay Policy

Boy Scouts PerryAfter addressing hundresed of Scouts during today's Texas Scouts' 64th annual Report to State, Governor (and one-time Eagle Scout) Rick Perry once again asserted that gays should not be allowed in the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Associated Press, Perry told reporters which way he hoped next week's expected vote on the anti-gay poiicy would go: "Hopefully the board will follow their historic position of keeping the Scouts strongly supportive of the values that make Scouting this very important and impactful organization. I think most people see absolutely no reason to change the position and neither do I."

The AP followed up with more questions for Perry: "He also disagreed that allowing members of all sexual preferences would make the Scouts more tolerant: 'I think you get tolerance and diversity every day in Scouting.'"

The Human Rights Campaign has already responded: "Governor Perry and the Boy Scouts are both completely out of touch with where America is going on this issue. There should be one national, non-discrimination policy. We can't quite wrap our heads around why that is so difficult to do in 2013."

Earlier this week, The Washington Post published an editorial piece calling for an end to the policy: "There can be only one moral and practical conclusion to this process — an end to official discrimination against gays and lesbians. Since the Boy Scouts are a venerable American institution and still do a lot of good, we are rooting for them to get to the right place."

In tandem with tomorrow's Scout Sunday (the annual celebration that recognizes current and former Scouts), The Family Research Council has inserted themselves into the issue by calling for their members to contact the organization asking for the ban on gays to remain. The hate group has started circulating propaganda with the following text: "...allowing homosexual leaders would place the BSA on dangerous ground."

Read the entire thing here.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I do not understand why gay people like to call anti-gay people closet cases. Yes, it has happened, but it is ridiculous to think that it's always the case and it's simply stupid to call someone a fag for calling us fags.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 3, 2013 11:45:42 AM


  2. For the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves to discriminate against gays and lesbians in scouting. Why can't a gay person be in scouting? Because he's presumed to be a likely child molestor? Anyone who does anything inappropriate with an underage person should not be in scouting - but this is true for straights or gays alike. Because children and youth will actually meet an openly gay person? Gay people exist. Young people can't avoid learning about them. Parents can't expect to raise children in a world where homosexuality is not discussed. What are they planning to do when gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states? Children will ask about the situation, and they'll have to be told.

    A policy of exclusion serves no purpose at all - except to let conservatives keep their heads in the sand a little longer. Eventually a future and more liberal BSA will end this policy. Why delay the inevitable?

    Posted by: Mary | Feb 3, 2013 2:38:45 PM


  3. Rick Perry: drunk, cokehead, closet case supreme. Sit down and shut the hell up.

    Posted by: MikeInQueens | Feb 3, 2013 2:41:24 PM


  4. How long is Texas going to put up with this anti-gay, anti-woman asswipe? I feel for my friends stuck in this armpit of America. Texas and Mississippi are neck and neck in the race to the bottom.

    Posted by: DC Arnold | Feb 3, 2013 3:41:35 PM


  5. I'd like them to attempt, for once, to talk more specifically about why GAY SCOUTS shouldn't be allowed in. Meaning, really, why the gay scouts currently in the group shouldn't be allowed to Come Out.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 3, 2013 3:49:52 PM


  6. Shouldn't it be policy not to let fools speak for your organization, town, school, state, country, etc. etc. etc.?

    Posted by: Garst | Feb 3, 2013 4:27:28 PM


  7. Gee. I saw the story about Rick Perry and the story about fish brains below it. I figured they were one in the same.

    Posted by: Geoff | Feb 3, 2013 5:12:44 PM


  8. @walter: The "wide stance" thing is funny, but just as an historical note, Larry Craig never said that. A copy of the tape showed that he said he was a "wide guy", and had to keep his feet apart to keep his pants off the floor. The guy who arrested him paraphrased that as "wide stance" in the police report, but "wide stance" was not a phrase Craig actually used.

    Of course, "wide stance" has been a joke ever since.

    Posted by: Bill | Feb 3, 2013 5:28:58 PM


  9. Not quite sure what senator Craig was doing at the time. If he was pissing, his pants are supposed to have an opening. If he was sitting on the toilet seat, the could have held his pants up or taken it off. In other words, he didn't need to have a "wide stance".

    Posted by: simon | Feb 3, 2013 5:44:32 PM


  10. @simon: Craig was sitting on a toilet seat, regardless of whatever else he was doing. Apparently he was extremely fastidious - he lived in Washington on a yacht in an area popular with other government officials, and his neighbors noted that he was always going around cleaning up scraps of paper, or what have you, so the dock would be immaculate.

    The funny version of the story can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITSdd0fpCMY

    Craig's side of the story, whether you believe it or not, was that he couldn't bear the thought of his pants touching the floor. Meanwhile he claims to have a very large girth, so the only way to keep them from sagging to the floor was to keep his feet far apart. Holding the pants wasn't an option as he needed his hands to manage the toilet paper. Taking his pants off (while in the stall for reasons of modesty) and while preventing them from touching the floor would require flexibility and possibly balance that was beyond him, plus his considerable girth probably made it a tight fit just getting in there. Plus, to take off his pants, he'd have to take off his shoes and risk getting his socks on the floor.

    A good lawyer could have gotten him off if he had refused to plea bargain. It was apparently a high turnover nab them, book them operation, and to get the high turnover, they cut corners. They didn't wait for something unambiguous such as the victim saying "your stall or mine?"

    I read once that some guy arrested in some sex sting once tried to get off using the legal principle, de minimis non curat lex, which in idiomatic English is "the law does not concern itself with trifles." In Latin "minimus" means "smallest", but an "is" ending is needed grammatically due to it being the object of a preposition and plural. Basically, he argued that his "male member" was so undersized that the behavior was not criminal. The judge probably laughed but didn't reduce the sentence.

    Posted by: Bill | Feb 3, 2013 7:30:42 PM


  11. Typical fool from texas: Always sticking their heads in other people's business (ie King Bush 2).

    But hey, the BSA had to drop their ignorant and bigoted policies because they were getting low on cash. Perhaps the people of Texas would like to socialize the BSA?

    Posted by: mmike1969 | Feb 3, 2013 7:44:57 PM


  12. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «NYT Revises Ed Koch Obit To Include Details About Aids« «