The Boy Scouts’ Futile Isolationism
No one should be especially surprised that the Boy Scouts of America recently announced they would maintain their policy of excluding gay people from membership. There’s little indication that they ever seriously considered revising their position that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.”
WATCH: Romney On Boy Scouts: All People Should Be Allowed To Join ‘Regardless Of Sexual Orientation’
The BSA now claims that this policy has been under review for two years by a special committee, whose existence was never announced and whose composition is entirely unknown. They’ve stated that this mystery committee contained “a diversity of perspectives and opinions,” which apparently led them to conclude unanimously that the Boy Scouts should be for straight people only. And they’ve dismissed the significance of this issue with the flippant statement that “Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting.”
Legally speaking, the Boy Scouts are a private organization, and they’re fully within their rights to exclude whomever they choose for any reason at all, with no accountability to anyone. But we still have every right to expect them not to discriminate against people without good reason, just as we expect everyone else not to be racist, sexist or homophobic. Instead, the BSA has decided that the “life-changing benefits” of scouting should be denied to an entire segment of the population that they’ve deemed immoral, unclean, and poor role models. They have done this without even the barest explanation of why they believe this is so. Rather than pretending that there’s any sort of reason for this and hiding behind an unaccountable secret committee, it would have been more honest if they had simply told us, “Because screw you, that’s why.” That’s all it really boils down to when someone calls you immoral and refuses to say why.
Last month, the BSA offered a minimal justification for their current policy, saying:
Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.
Of course, this raises the question of whether opposite-sex attraction is a topic that the Boy Scouts program does discuss – and why same-sex attraction is so different that it must not only be left unaddressed, but literally banished. Does the presence of heterosexuals imply discussion of heterosexuality? If not, why is the mere presence of gay people considered synonymous with introducing and discussing homosexuality?
The notion that you can exclude the very idea of same-sex attraction just by banning anyone who possesses that attraction is pure fantasy anyway. Perhaps, like Anthony Esolen of Touchstone Magazine, they believe that any public awareness of homosexuality itself is corrosive to friendships between men, introducing the possibility of an element of attraction and making all close friendship suspect. Esolen’s solution, that being gay must once again be stigmatized to the point of being unthinkable, means requiring all gay people to live in secrecy, rather than expecting men who are friends to exhibit the maturity needed to recognize that homosexuality poses no threat to them. On an organizational scale, the BSA prefers the answer that’s most convenient to their prejudice.
But this is a genie that isn’t going back in the bottle. If the Boy Scouts don’t want to talk about sexuality, they certainly don’t have to, but removing so-called “known or avowed homosexuals” isn’t going to make anyone forget that they exist. This is the wrong answer to something that isn’t even a problem. And as a result of their moral laziness, families like mine have to explain to our sons why they can’t join the Scouts: because the BSA has decided that their parents just aren’t good people. The only thing life-changing about this is having to teach our 8-year-old how ugly the world can be.
Zinnia Jones is an atheist activist, writer, and video blogger focusing on LGBTQ rights and religious belief. Originally from Chicago, she’s currently living in Florida with her partner Heather and their two children.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.
According to Politico, there is an “early list” of proposed cuts (below) that “includes changes to Medicare and ending Biden administration climate programs, along with slashing welfare and ‘reimagining’ the Affordable Care Act.” Also, in addition to suggesting cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), “the document floats clawing back bipartisan infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act funding.”
Politico also reports that Republicans appear to be considering cuts to “the country’s largest anti-hunger program”—or, SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as food stamps. This would “spark massive opposition from Democrats and would also face some GOP resistance.”
There is far more, including siphoning about $2.3 trillion from Medicaid, a federal government program that has been providing critical health insurance for low-income adults and children for six decades.
READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
The early list, published by Politico, has positive-sounding categories like “Making Medicaid Work for the Most Vulnerable,” but within that are proposals like “Medicaid Work Requirements.”
Republicans have for years been trying to institute work requirements for Medicaid recipients, despite the fact that about two-thirds of recipients who are able to work are already employed.
“An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that a national Medicaid work requirement would result in 2.2 million adults losing Medicaid coverage per year (and subsequently experiencing increases in medical expenses), and lead to only a very small increase in employment,” KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) reported in 2023.
The list also proposes “Ending Cradle-to-Grave Dependence,” which, among other items, suggests “Reduce TANF by 10 Percent.”
According to the federal government, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federally funded, state-run program. Also known as welfare, TANF helps families pay for” items including food, housing, home energy, and child care.
Republicans also suggest they can save $152 billion in the section titled, “Reimagining the Affordable Care Act.”
Politico got a hold of a leaked list of GOP plans to cut federal spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act
www.politico.com/news/2025/01…— Cynthia Cox (@cynthiaccox.bsky.social) January 10, 2025 at 2:01 PM
Politico adds that Republicans are “also eyeing repealing significant Biden administration health care rules, which could include ending a rule requiring minimum staffing levels at nursing homes.” It is unclear how that would provide cost savings to the federal government.
READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
They also suggest they can pull $468 billion in savings by putting President Joe Biden’s climate policies “on the chopping block.”
Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill on social media noted: “Huge cuts to SNAP – the country’s largest anti-hunger program – proposed in here…would quickly hit +40 million low-income Americans…it’s already triggering immense backlash among some GOP centrists + even more conservative Rs.”
“Speaker Johnson can’t afford any GOP defections,” she added.
Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast characterized the proposals as “Taking food stamps away from hungry children to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people.
Salaam Bhatti, the director of the Food Research and Action Center, remarked: “Cutting & gutting SNAP and kicking millions of poor people off the program at a time when people voted because they can’t afford to put food on the table is the most out of touch thing I’ve ever seen.”
“Trump voters in red states who rely on those programs are going to love this,” quipped Alex Gonzalez, a political analyst and editor-in-chief for Latino Public Policy Foundation. “Trump wants to cut $5.6 trillion from federal programs to fund $10 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Ironically, red states depend more on these programs than blue states.”
READ MORE: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically
Image via Reuters
President-elect Donald Trump, set to move back to Washington in ten days after he is sworn in as the nation’s 47th President, is reportedly in talks to buy back his former D.C. hotel, a source of constitutional concern during his first term, where foreign governments and dignitaries could spend lavishly. Some legal experts warned of possible violations of the Emoluments Clause.
“Donald Trump’s real-estate company is in talks to reclaim its former Washington, D.C., hotel, a move that could offer an early test of how the president-elect will handle potential conflicts of interest,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “Eric Trump this week met at his family’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with an executive from merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners, which controls the long-term lease on the hotel, according to people familiar with the matter.”
“An executive vice president at the company, Eric Trump discussed purchasing the lease, though the talks are still preliminary and may not lead to any sale, these people said,” The Journal added. “The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., is now a Waldorf Astoria and operates in the Old Post Office building, which is owned by the federal government and was leased to the Trumps. Trump opened the hotel in 2016, but sold the lease rights in 2022 for $375 million.”
READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
Bloomberg News, also reporting on what it calls “early talks to reacquire its former Washington hotel,” notes that critics “said the mixing of business and political activities was a conflict of interest. The hotel was at the center of at least two lawsuits accusing the president of violating the emoluments clause of the US Constitution, which bars presidents from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments.”
According to a report in The Independent, the Trump International Hotel Washington D.C. took in more than $3.7 million from foreign governments during Trump’s tenure as President. “This raises concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, which says that Congress should approve any gifts to officeholders from foreign governments.”
The U.S. Secret Service spent at least $1.4 million at his D.C. hotel as well, according to an ABC News report citing congressional documents.
“The Trump Organization on some occasions charged the Secret Service more than five times the government rate to stay at Donald Trump-owned properties while the agency was protecting him and his family,” ABC News also reported.
READ MORE: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically
Legal experts and a watchdog group are once again expressing concern.
“Instead of mitigating conflicts of interest ahead of his inauguration, looks like Trump is doubling down on corruption by trying to get the lease on the DC hotel back,” warned CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
CQ Roll Call White House Correspondent and editor-at-large John T. Bennett responded to CREW by saying, “Not sure why anyone would expect him to, after all these years.”
New York Times’ business investigations reporter David Enrich notes: “The Trumps are looking to reclaim their DC hotel, which is down the street from the White House and was a magnet for conflicts of interest in his first administration.”
READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map
Image via Reuters
President-elect Donald Trump, at 10:07 AM ET on Friday, was sentenced by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan after a jury of his peers found him guilty on 34 criminal felony counts of business fraud for what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg described as “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.”
He received no punishment. In 10 days, Donald Trump will become the first person to enter the White House as President of the United States as a convicted felon, barring any extraordinary efforts.
Trump’s “conviction, a Class E felony offense, is eligible for a penalty of up to four years in prison and several thousands of dollars in fines per count,” Politico reports. But Judge Merchan “instead issued a so-called ‘unconditional discharge,’ a decision that will spare the incoming president any jail time, fines or probation.”
Merchan told Trump, “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgement of conviction, without encroaching on the highest office of the land is unconditional discharge,” The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports.
READ MORE: ‘MAGA Friendly’ Fetterman Blasted for Accepting Trump Mar-a-Lago Invite
Trump said Thursday night he will appeal the conviction.
The President-elect was allowed to appear virtually and was accompanied by his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump has indicated he will nominate Blanche to be the United States Deputy Attorney General.
an image from Trump’s sentencing pic.twitter.com/ds2yP7hoKQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2025
A billionaire real estate magnate who entered politics with no experience in 2015 by showcasing his wealth and attacking Mexican immigrants, Trump found his 2016 presidential campaign in jeopardy after the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. It showed a grown man making lewd comments about women, including what many perceived as him joking about, and appearing to brag and admit to, sexual assault. Originally recorded in 2005, it was released just one month before the 2016 election to widespread and bipartisan condemnation. Denying his comments were admitting to sexual assault, Trump called it “locker room talk.”
Trump was found to have paid “hush money” to adult film actress Stormy Daniels—with whom he reportedly had a sexual encounter—in what prosecutors said was an effort to protect his presidential campaign.
A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump in March of 2023. He was arraigned days later. The jury trial was held in April of 2024. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts.
Trump had made desperate attempts to delay sentencing, which originally had been scheduled for July 11, and had already been postponed twice. But Thursday night, after three New York courts refused his requests, the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay Friday’s sentencing.
“Over the past week, Trump’s lawyers filed hundreds of pages of high-pitched arguments in four courts, at every level of the NY judiciary and SCOTUS, in a failed bid to stop these proceedings,” reported Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.
During Friday’s sentencing, New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass berated Trump and his actions.
“This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way,” he told Judge Merchan, according to Courthouse News reporter Erik Uebelacker.
Steinglass added that Trump “engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposely bred disdain … for the rule of law,” Uebelacker also reported.
Klasfeld reported that Steinglass also told the court: “Today’s sentence ‘cements’ Trump’s ‘status as a convicted felon’ and ‘gives full respect to the jury’s verdict.'”
“After confirming that prosecutors recommend a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Klasfeld added, “Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass tears into [Trump] and his ‘threats’ to ‘retaliate against prosecutors.'”
READ MORE: Alito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert
Politico’s Kyle Cheney observed, “The reality of Trump’s long-delayed sentence means he will have to fight the appeal while in office, a dynamic his lawyers argued would be a distraction on the presidency. But an appeal is also his only chance to erase the ‘felon’ label, and he seems eager to begin that process.”
“NOW you can call him a convicted felon,” remarked NBC News Justice and Intelligence Correspondent Ken Dilanian.
Some critics, including legal experts, are expressing disappointment and frustration.
“Donald Trump sentenced to a complete and total victory over the justice system,” civil rights lawyer Matthew Segal, the co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, wrote from his personal social media account.
“Trump, escaping all punishment for dozens of felonies, says he’s been treated ‘very unfairly,'” observed Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall.
“45, 47, Felon,” remarked former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, an MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst.
SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah, a lawyer, lamented the outcome: “No where can you find a person convicted of 34 felonies who is sentenced to no penalties. Period,” he wrote.
“Trump should not be heading to the White House. He should be reporting to prison,” he added.
Obeidallah also predicted that “Trump will 100% commit more crimes in the next few years. How do I know that? Simple, because Trump knows he will never be held accountable.”
Former TIME magazine managing editor Richard Stengel, who served as an Under Secretary of State for President Barack Obama, commented: “I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to live in a country where no person—not a president-elect, not a president—is above the law.”
MSNBC/NBC News legal correspondent Lisa Rubin notes that “now that the sentencing is over, the gloves could come off. Why? Merchan has no more leverage over Trump. The sentencing is over, and so, according to a June 2024 order, is the gag order Trump constantly complains about and frequently distorts. That order expressly expires with ‘the imposition of sentence.'”
READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map
Image via Reuters
‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
‘MAGA Friendly’ Fetterman Blasted for Accepting Trump Mar-a-Lago Invite
Alito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert
News3 days ago‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’
News4 days agoAlito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert
News4 days ago‘MAGA Friendly’ Fetterman Blasted for Accepting Trump Mar-a-Lago Invite
News3 days agoTrump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports
News3 days ago‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts
News4 days ago‘All Eyes on SCOTUS’ After Trump Loses Sentencing Bid at Top NY Court