Sometimes I think lots of people in society have taken leave of common sense.

Issues that wind up in court today are issues that 20 years ago weren't given a second thought.

Take the case of the gay scoutmaster.

James Dale was an assistant scoutmaster in Monmouth County, N.J. He was expelled 10 years ago when his troop learned from a newspaper article that he was gay.

The scouts told Dale that they "specifically forbid membership to homosexuals."

Dale, who was co-president of a student gay rights organization at Rutgers University, sued, of course, saying that this was discrimination.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dale, saying that the Boy Scouts are a "public accommodation" to which the state's anti-discrimination law applies.

The scouts claimed a First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association.

So now the case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court is in a bit of a tizzy over it.

What to do? What to do?

On the one hand, if they say the scouts have to include homosexuals in their ranks, who, then, can they exclude? Would the Boy Scouts have to include girls? And what about other groups? Would women's clubs have to include men? Would gay groups have to include heterosexuals?

On the other hand, if they rule that the scouts can exclude homosexuals, does that give other organizations the freedom to ignore anti-discrimination laws?

See, I think it's all much easier than that. I think common sense should rule.

Remember the guy that sued the Hooters restaurant chain because they wouldn't hire him as a waitress?

You've probably heard about Hooters. They've built a reputation on having bikini-clad waitresses.

So a guy goes in, applies for a job and sues when they say they only hire women. Is that discrimination? Of course it is.

But is it egregious and harmful? Of course it isn't.

Then there was the case of the exclusive women's apparel shop in Chicago.

This place was really exclusive.

When you went in there, you were assigned a clerk to help you. The clerk assisted you in making your selection.

Then she accompanied you to a very posh dressing room, where she helped you in and out of your clothes. She helped you try on your selection.

She made suggestions on possible alterations. You know, a nip here, a tuck there.

Anyway, a guy comes in and applies for a clerk job. The store says, sorry, we only hire women for those jobs.

The store gets sued.

Is it discrimination? Absolutely.

Is it insidious and anti-social? No way.

Nonetheless, common sense seems to elude us. We need courts to tell us what should be obvious.

In the case of the gay scoutmaster, common sense would seem to dictate that the scouts should be able pare from their ranks anyone who would seem to avow a lifestyle averse to its mission.

This does not mean, necessarily, that gay guys aren't qualified to be scoutmasters. I'm sure there are gay men who could interact with boy scouts positively and without actively advocating or promoting homosexuality.

But to me, that's not really the issue.

I think the "morally straight" portion of the Scout oath is what tips the scale.

We could argue whether or not homosexuality is immoral, I suppose, but what you and I consider moral isn't the issue.

It's what the scouts consider "morally straight" that matters.

The scouts are associated with traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. That's what "morally straight" means to them. That definition most certainly excludes homosexuality.

The more politically correct moral codes of today define homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. A certain percentage of the population has a moral code that does not preclude homosexuality.

But that is not the moral code to which the scouts adhere.

I don't see this as a court case about homosexuality. It really doesn't matter what you think about homosexuality - good, bad or indifferent.

The question is whether the scouts should be forced to abandon their moral code and adopt an updated, enlightened, politically correct moral code.

The question is whether the scouts must be forced to associate with people who don't share their views.

Common sense must prevail on that question.

*****

I suppose I need to weigh in on this whole Elian Gonzalez thing. Everybody else has.

Just two quick observations. I think the kid needs to be with his dad.

I mean, really, those relatives in Miami seem a little wacky. I think whatever it takes to get a semblance of normalcy back in that kid's life is what is needed.

And I think it should be up to his dad, not a bunch of attorneys, to decide where he will live.

As for the predawn raid, I think that was a little heavy-handed. The helmets, flack jackets, flashlights and automatic weapons were a bit much.

The good news is that nobody got hurt. The bad news is that it made the government agents look like a bunch of thugs.

I hope it doesn't undermine the public's trust in them. [[In-content Ad]]