The Family Research Council (FRC) has been one of the leading voices in the media condemning the effort to repeal the Boy Scouts' ban on openly gay members. FRC's talking points, however, are the same ones the organization used to lobby against the repeal of the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT) policy - all of which turned out to be completely baseless.

Since news broke that the Boy Scouts would be reconsidering their ban on openly gay members, FRC has been making the rounds on mainstream media outlets warning that lifting the ban would heighten incidences of sexual abuse and undermine the organization's retention.

If FRC's talking points sound familiar, it's because they're carbon copies of the (thoroughly disproven) arguments the group used while lobbying against the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members. 

“Gays Will Increase The Rate Of Sexual Assault”

FRC on the Boy Scouts' ban:

So what exactly is the incentive?... Is it safety? Because unless something changed in the last seven months, the Scouts are still dealing with the fallout of more than 2,000 cases of child molestation with the current policy in place! Can they honestly tell parents that entrusting little boys to men with same-sex attractions is somehow going to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse?

FRC on DADT repeal:

The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase.

“Gays Will Undermine Troop/Unit Cohesion”

FRC on the Boy Scouts' ban:

This is not just about scout leaders. It would be about scouts that are attracted to people of the same-sex. Is that right, for Boy Scouts who are out wanting to learn the basic tenets of scouting to have to worry about whether or not the boy in the tent with them is attracted to them? Is that right?

FRC on DADT repeal:

Sexual attraction among members of the same sex -- living, exercising, fighting and training alongside one another in the closest of quarters -- could devastate morale, foster heightened interpersonal tension and lead to division among those who, more than virtually any other group in society, need to act as one.

“Gays Will Undermine Recruitment/Retention”

FRC on the Boy Scouts' ban:

While some people may disagree with the view that values, ethics, or morals require abstinence from homosexual conduct, it is hardly unusual that parents and leaders of Boy Scouts believe this. In fact, it remains a majority viewpoint even in the general public... Parents, Scouts, and leaders are likely to abandon the Boy Scouts of America in droves if the organization abandons them.

FRC on DADT repeal:

Repeal the homosexual ban, and there will be some candidates, with the encouragement of significant others like parents, who will remove themselves from the military's pool of eligible candidates.  Conversely, there is no evidence qualified homosexuals - who make up barely two percent of the American public - will flood into the military to make up any shortfall. 

In the case of DADT, not a single one of FRC's doomsday predictions turned out to be anything more than baseless fear mongering - motivated by the group's extreme anti-gay animus. FRC demonstrated that, when it comes to serious policy analysis, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

So what's changed?

Now that the Boy Scouts' final decision on its gay ban has been postponed until May, it's likely that media outlets will get another opportunity to cover the controversy. When they do, they should ask how groups like FRC have any credibility when it comes to predicting the consequences of repealing the ban.