Levi Strauss Defunds Boy Scouts
by Pat Goltz
I first wrote this page a couple of years ago. Sadly, the Boy Scouts of America have caved in to the homosexual terrorists, and no longer maintain the stance for morally upright behavior they were once noted for. For this reason, I no longer support BSA. It should also be noted that I have not supported Girl Scouts for several years for the same reason. They allow Planned Parenthood to brainwash the girls into sexual misconduct, contraception, and abortion. The group that presently takes their place with sound moral and ethical footing is American Heritage Girls. For the boy scouts, there is a new organization, but I am not entire comfortable with them, so I do not list them at this time. So what I wrote here is past history, unfortunately. I still won't buy from Levi Strauss, because they were part of the reason the moral and ethical stance of the BSA was eroded. Homosexual behavior is very destructive medically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually. Experiencing "same sex attractions" is actually a NORMAL phase for most children, but it doesn't involve sexual ideation or BEHAVIOR, just a preference for associating with people of the same gender. The attraction to the opposite gender occurs after puberty. It is CRIMINAL to persuade any child he is homoerotic because he prefers the FRIENDSHIP of members of his own gender before he reaches puberty, and I consider it one of the most egregious forms of child abuse.
Please read this entire essay before jumping to conclusions about what I believe. This is a difficult issue, and I have experienced difficulty in expressing my opinion. So please bear with me.
The following represents an exchange between myself and a representative of Levi Strauss:
I have become aware that you are no longer funding Boy Scouts because of their stance against homosexuality. I think this is being so broadminded your brains are falling out!
The list you gave, age, political affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or religious belief, includes several characteristics that are states of being. Only political affiliation and religious beliefs are a matter of choice, but neutral in and of themselves. Sexual orientation really means insisting on engaging in certain behavior that has been shown to be a major cause of spreading serious disease. It is not in the best interests of young men to learn that this behavior is acceptable.
I won't be buying any Levi's in the foreseeable future. I think it is ridiculous that you would support "sexual orientation" when it is so obviously destructive, rather than the Boy Scounts, who build character.
If we won't stand for something, we will fall for anything.
Thank you for contacting us regarding the charitable contribution policy of Levi Strauss & Co. and the Levi Strauss Foundation. Customer feedback is very important to us and we appreciate your taking the time to express your opinions about this issue.
LS&CO. has an established commitment to nondiscrimination policies and practices based on the Company's core values and respect for individual freedoms. In accordance with this philosophy, our Foundation provides support to organizations which do not discriminate on the basis of age, political affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief.
The Boy Scouts of America has confirmed that their membership criteria is in conflict with our grant making policies of nondiscrimination on the basis of religious belief and sexual orientation. Accordingly, LS&CO. and the Foundation can no longer fund the Boy Scouts of America.
We recognize the valuable contributions Boy Scout programs have made to millions of young men. It is not our intention or goal to be punitive or to force the Boy Scouts -- or any other organization -- to change its policies to comply with our funding guidelines. LS&CO. employees are welcome to volunteer their personal time and resources to any organization they choose, including the Boy Scouts of America.
We value your comments and feedback and will be passing them on to senior management for their review and information.
Thank you for writing.
I see that I can no longer buy anything marketed by Levi Strauss in the foreseeable future.
The Boy Scouts is an organization that attempts to raise good citizens, and to instill in young men ethics and values that will stand them and society in good stead. Homosexual behavior is medically dangerous, and very destructive of [some] individuals emotionally and spiritually. I make a distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual behavior. We all have tendencies that we have to control. But teaching young men that homosexual behavior is acceptable and should be tolerated is not in their best interests, nor is it in the best interests of society. Rather than refusing to fund the Boy Scouts because they are trying to teach some ethical principles and responsible living practices, Levi Strauss and other contributors ought to be increasing support to them.
While it may not be your intention to be punitive or to force the Boy Scouts to change its policies, this is in fact what it is. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There is no need to coerce the Boy Scouts to change what they do. Homosexual people have every right to form a competing organization if they wish. It is homosexual intolerance of other people's right to freedom of association that brought this to a head in the first place. Homosexuals have absolutely no right to try to induce people to refuse to fund an organization just because it disagrees with homosexual behavior and will not associate itself with it. This is not a case of being tolerant. Rather, it is a case of being intolerant of people with [certain] moral principles, such as the Boy Scouts. So do not think that you can do this in the name of tolerance. That is a subterfuge of the worst order.
Parents have every right to place their trust in the Boy Scouts. If parents don't want their children to be exposed to the approval of [what they see as] a destructive lifestyle, then they have that right, and it is an infringement of their rights and that of their children to freedom of association and to observe their own moral, religious, and ethical principles.
The bottom line is that this hurts boys, which is to say, children. They are the ultimate victims, as worthy programs of organizations like the Boy Scouts are made unavailable to them. It is unconscionable for homosexuals to be so intolerant that they would willingly hurt boys in order to promote their personal agenda.
And by the way, I am a feminist.
As a sign of protest for the intolerance of such companies as Levi Strauss, I will make my very first contribution to the Boy Scouts. I will continue to support them financially as long as this kind of intolerance continues to be practiced.
I will make it a point to let other people know, through my web site, that Levi Strauss has chosen to side with personal and sociologically destructive behavior. My web site is very popular, so this will get a lot of exposure.
Should Levi Strauss reconsider its position, I will be delighted to let the world know about that as well. In the meantime, please pass on the word that I am deeply disappointed in your current position, and I hope you will rethink and change your current policy.
Writing about this issue is a difficult one. I have discovered personally that I can write as carefully as I know how, but people will still misconstrue what I said, either accidentally, or, more often, deliberately. So I need to state my position as clearly as I know how. It is as follows: I personally associate with homosexuals, knowing that they are living a homosexual lifestyle. I distinguish between who they are as people and the behavior in which they engage. I do not agree with the behavior. But it is their right to engage in it, privately. I agree that they have a right to freedom of association with each other. I also agree that people who do not approve of their lifestyle have a right to freedom of association which means they can refuse to associate with practicing homosexuals.
When we were first married, my husband and I rented from, and later purchased a home from, two men we were reasonably sure were homosexual partners. I once participated in a judo club in which there were several lesbian members. I freely randori'd with them, visited them in their homes, and went to their conference. I learned a lot from them, and I have them to thank for the fact that I learned how to express nonsexual affection for others. One of my sons has held a job singing in a congregation that has a lot of homosexual members. He also freely associated with them (past tense because his present time constraints mean he doesn't have time for the rehearsals while he is going to school). He got his values from us. We homeschooled him. So his values didn't come from school or from associating with his peers, in this case. More recently, a close e-friend revealed to me that he is a homosexual. This made absolutely no difference in our friendship as far as I am concerned, and I think he would agree with me. I did tell him plainly that it would be unwise for him to engage in homosexual behavior, and he understands my position clearly. But he still wishes to be my friend.
We never rejected anyone because of his or her behavior. We try to counsel against behavior that is unwise or destructive, but we have never turned away a friendship over it. The issue here isn't the homosexual behavior, to my mind, but the gay activist demand that everyone else accept their behavior. People have a right to judge behavior. I may not agree with their judgment, but true tolerance means I tolerate people I disagree with, and I stand up for their right to disagree.
This lesson was forcefully brought home to me in 1974. At that time, I was a member of the National Organization for Women, and the Columbus, Ohio chapter was contemplating expelling me for forming the organization known as Feminists for Life, and speaking out against abortion as a feminist. The chapter called a meeting to consider my case, and I was given fifteen minutes to speak in my defense. I chose to use those fifteen minutes to attempt to warn the members about the dangers of abortion for women and for feminism. After I spoke, Benson Wolman, a fellow N.O.W. member, and at the time, executive director of the Ohio Civil Liberties Union, spoke on my behalf. Regrettably, he didn't recognize that unborn women have rights, but that's another issue. What he said on my behalf was most interesting. He said that N.O.W. had a legal right to expel me, but they had no moral right to do so, because I was exercising my freedom of speech, and N.O.W. claims to be for freedom of choice. I think this is very, very instructive. Mr. Wolman recognized that tolerance requires us to tolerate viewpoints with which we disagree. He is the true liberal. On the other hand, people who insist that people who do not approve of homosexual behavior must accept it are being intolerant of those who disagree with them. It is easy to tolerate people who agree with you. True tolerance tolerates those who disagree, no matter how repugnant that may be to you personally. And that's where I come from on the issue of homosexuality. I tolerate homosexual behavior among consenting adults. I do not tolerate the demand that people who disagree with homosexual behavior are required to tolerate it, or associate with people involved in it.
Getting back to the issue of the Boy Scouts, there is a lot more at stake here than there might seem to be on the surface. The actions of companies such as Levi Strauss, and of groups such as the homosexual groups, are designed to deny us freedom of association guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court found that the Boy Scouts have that constitutional right, as do we all. Any political association that seeks to deprive us of that right to freedom of association is anti-freedom, no matter how much they claim to want freedom for themselves. The homosexual organizations claim that they should have the right to associate intimately with people of the same gender, yet they would deny this same right to the rest of us, to associate with whomsoever we choose. This is hypocritical, and it is an attempt to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Were the homosexuals simply seeking equality, that would be one thing, but they are trying to foist special privilege for themselves on the rest of us. Intolerance of others in the name of tolerance is unacceptable. Levi Strauss has a perfect right to refuse to fund the Boy Scouts. But I also have a perfect right to refuse to patronize Levi Strauss when they do. The fact that the Supreme Court found, correctly, that the Boy Scouts have a right to make rules about how they will operate should be instructive. Trying to accomplish by indirection what the Supreme Court refused to grant is intolerance of the highest order. The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of the Boy Scouts. Levi Strauss refuses to do so. And that is the issue here.
The bottom line is that the gay rights movement is attempting to deny parents who don't want their boys exposed to the homosexual lifestyle the right to participate in an organization intended to benefit boys. The real victims of this whole controversy will be the boys of impoverished families who cannot afford to participate in scouting without help from others. It is because of those victims that I have spoken out.
Perhaps the most disgusting part of all this for me personally is the fact that I don't want to be forced to choose sides. I want to befriend all, and I don't want to be forced to choose who is to become my enemy. But the recent actions are highly polarizing in nature, and intended to force us to choose, and to fracture our social fabric. While there are homosexuals who live decent and honorable lives, far too few of them speak out against these atrocities against personal freedom. One such who has spoken out clearly is a more recent personal friend, Jayelle Lukash, a bisexual woman. In her article, Pick on Someone Your Own Size, speaking about the incident where Democratic convention delegates booed the Boy Scout Honor Guard, she says, "What I had never seen, until the Democratic convention incident, was Queers who would deliberately hurt kids just to make a point. I was stunned by the realization that the ignorant, crass-ass motherfuckers are on my side, too. Damn it, I don't want to share my movement with those people!" Well said, Jayelle!
The bottom line is that being forced to choose sides means that I tend to side with the people who did not force that decision upon me. I always have done that, no matter what the personal cost, which has been considerable at times. And I always will. When people force me to make that choice, I feel a sense of outrage. I feel that the gay rights activists have declared war on Middle America, with no justification whatsoever.
So if you see this as an injustice, please speak your mind. It is not just the freedom of association of the Boy Scouts that is at issue here; it is the freedom of association of all of us.
We now have local homosexual groups which are being funded by taxpayers demanding that governments refuse to fund the Boy Scouts. In my opinion, the government should fund neither. But if they must fund one, they cannot legitimately do so without funding the other.
Because some local governments have been asked by local homosexual groups to defund the Boy Scouts, I highly recommend that you look into this at the local level, and if you observe this, to take appropriate action. Also, please make your views known to your other government officials, to Levi Strauss, to the Boy Scouts, and to any other group that becomes involved in this controversy. Thank you.
To email Levi Strauss, click here.
To reach the web site of Boy Scouts of America, click here. Please support them!
Also, please support the American Center for Law and Justice, which is supporting the Boy Scouts in their legal battles.
Save Our Scouts is an independent organization collecting petition signatures of people who support the Boy Scouts.
Grassfire Petition Requires you to give an address; please use caution if this concerns you.
Scouting Legal Defense Fund American Civil Rights Union
For further reading on how medically dangerous homosexuality is, please read Medical Consequences of Homosexuality. Please note: this is extremely graphic, and will tell you exactly why homosexuality is a deadly deathstyle. If you have a weak stomach, it would probably be better if you don't read it. Since this is a family-friendly site, I am giving you the link rather than printing it in its entirety. But we must become aware of the threat homosexual practices pose to all of us. This makes it doubly important that we support the Boy Scouts and any other organization willing to take a courageous stand. Our lives are at stake.