It's unlikely that I would encouraged my hypothetical son to be a Boy Scout in the first place, and that's part of the reason the Supreme Court's decision to allow the troupe of merry whittlers to exclude homosexuals from their ranks doesn't really matter. For the most part, the kind of people who wouldn't allow their children to join a group which discriminates on the basis of race, sexual preference or religion already know the Boy Scouts for what they are: A politically and ethically conservative organization with a woodsy bent.

Now, the Supreme Court decision is interesting -- I doubt they would have allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude blacks. Imagine the court issuing an opinion with a line like, "must preserve the right of private organizations to freely associate on the basis of their moral problems against blacks." Well, it sounds outlandish. But if a black person sued the Klan to be admitted, the court would have to issue such a statement, right? So, here's the real difference: everyone hates the Klan and everyone loves the Boy Scouts. The court made the only decision they could make. But they didn't go far enough.

They should have said, "we support the right of the Boy Scouts to hold whatever stupid, inane, and prejudicial views that they want, no matter how abhorrent." That is what they would have said if they were faced with my Klan example. That's what they should have said in this case.

While the Boy Scouts do have the right to bar homosexuals, they should be punished for it. They should be reviled for it, and parents should pull their kids out of the troupes. Also, the Boy Scouts should be cut off from any sort of public funding on the local, state and federal levels. They shouldn't be allowed to participate in publicly funded events of any sort and they shouldn't be allowed to assemble in our national parks and forests.

Those facilities are all supported by our tax dollars, and thus are obliged to not be used by groups that practice discrimination. Why does this matter? Because not only are the Scouts teaching a horrid lesson about discrimination, by telling their young charges not to associate with homosexuals -- they are also slandering a segment of the tax-paying population. The implication of the Scouts policy is that homosexuals shouldn't be around children while heterosexuals should. This conjures up all sorts of nasty thoughts that are rarely spoken. The thoughts -- that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals is demonstrably false, of course. The Scouts should at least admit that and apologize for any such implied slander.

Basically, it's time for the community to punish the Scouts, since the law is restricted from doing so. I don't believe that will happen, though. For some reason, anti-gay attitudes are still acceptable to the general population. No doubt this situation has and will improve, but not in the near future. Some of this is the fault of Dr. Laura and her minions, who were the result of a successful advertising boycott after the uptight radio shock therapist referred repeatedly to homosexuals as deviants and for suggesting they be normalized through therapy.

This is still basically a morally conservative country, we've not outgrown our puritan origins. It's kind of silly: you would think that the suffrage movement for women would have extended to blacks, but we needed a civil rights movement for blacks which should have extended to Latinos, but they need their own rights movement, which you think would have extended to other minorities... but it never ends because we only make progress one step at a time and the Dr. Lauras of the world are among us asking "What's so great about tolerance?"

The court did what it had to do and no kid of mine will ever be a Scout. That's maybe the best I can say about all of this. But it is sad that as a country we haven't grown up at all.

Michael Maiello was a Cub Scout for a year, but never a Boy Scout. He has always disdained paramilitary organizations.