THE BIG BROTHERS OF GREATER LOS ANGELES IS IN TROUBLE with the forces of law and order.
This organization—dedicated to matching fatherless boys with adult males who can guide, counsel, and advise them—has had the temerity to exclude homosexuals and bisexuals from its pool of potential candidates on the grounds that they will be improper role models.
For this sin against the “human rights” philosophy, Big Brothers has been made the defendant in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The ACLU is suing in order to end this act of blatant discrimination against its client, one Richard Stanley, an avowed bisexual.
Can’t happen here in Canada, you say? Nonsense. There is nothing in the law of this “true north strong and free” land of ours which would preclude such an eventuality. The only surprise is that this particular bit of imbecility first came to light south of our border. (However, in a related case, a Beaver Scout leader in Solstead, Alberta has recently been demoted by Boy Scouts of Canada officials because of her atheism.)
Make no mistake about it. If Mr. Stanley and the ACLU prevail in this case, it will spell the death knell for groups such as Big Brothers. If these organizations can no longer guarantee the female heads of single-parent families that their sons will not be placed in an intimate situation with adult male homosexuals or bisexuals, they will soon enough be unwilling to have anything to do with the program.
But do not homosexual and bisexual men have the “right” not to be discriminated against in this matter? That is, do they not have the “right” to have innocent young boys placed in their tender care, against the wishes of their parents or guardians if need be? Even to ask such a question is to see the utter ludicrousness of it.
No one has the “right” to impose himself on an unwilling victim. If anything, the bisexual man has more of a “right” to enter into a dating relationship with the boy’s mother against her will than into a Big Brother relationship with her son without her permission.
For at least she is an adult; he is not. And of course, no man, of whatever sexual preference or practice, has a “right” to utilize the law of the land to force a woman to enter into a relationship with him. Even less so, then, can he properly use the courts to become Big Brother to her son.
And this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the homosexual or bisexual will use his Big Brother status to seduce the youngster. Rape and other abuse of position are certainly not unknown in the heterosexual world.
Our conclusion follows solely from the fact that in a free society, all relationships should be based on mutual consent. Every person thus has the right to ignore, or boycott, or discriminate against those one would rather avoid.
_____________________
Alaska Highway News (Fort St. John, British Columbia), March 19, 1988.