Gay Today: World

Gay Group Praises
Boy Scout Court Decision

Compiled by GayToday

Washington, D.C.--The president of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) praised the U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday that says, as GLIL perceives the ruling that: "the Boy Scouts of America are free to choose their own leaders, even if it means excluding gay men as Scoutmasters.

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, founded in February 1991, hopes to advance its founders' views about economic and personal freedom as well as their concepts of what constitutes individual responsibility. GLIL claims a membership "across the United States and in several foreign countries."

Richard Sincere, GLIL president, hailed the Supreme Court ruling which "by a vote of 5 to 4," he says, "recognizes that freedom of expressive association is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Despite what others might say, this is a victory for the rights of gay men and lesbians to form groups, gather for expressive purposes, and pursue their own visions of happiness with freedom and dignity."

GLIL had filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, arguing that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to set their own standards for membership and leadership positions, even if that means the Boy Scouts may exclude openly gay Scout leaders from participation in the organization.

GLIL members say that Chief Justice Rehnquist's commentary shows that he reasoned in the manner of their group's brief, especially when he wrote that:

Related Stories from the GayToday Archive:
Gay Group Files Brief Favoring the Boy Scouts

Boy Scouts Lose Access to Connecticut Facilities

GLIL's amicus brief before the Supreme Court

GayToday does not endorse related sites.

"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."

"Our brief had emphasized our disagreement with the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gay members and leaders," said Sincere, a former Boy Scout himself.

He continued:

"But if government forces the Boy Scouts to change that policy, the constitutional rights of all of us -- not just the Scouts, but everyone, gay or straight -- will be diminished.

"Freedom does not belong only to those with whom we agree. Gay men and lesbians have suffered when freedom of association has not been respected.

"We benefit when freedom of speech and freedom of association are vigorously protected. A Supreme Court ruling against the Boy Scouts would have had the perverse effect of hurting gay and lesbian Americans."