Homosexuals and the Boy Scouts- Revisited

[SouthernStyle]

Esprix - You need to get out of the pulpit. Now.

It always helps to read up on the background of something before you comment on it. Links are provided.

I said that I hadn’t read the decision. You replied with a sarcastic flair and referred to “links”. Then asked for someone else to think for you because you hadn’t read the decision either.

Thanks for the reference to the link to CNN. But a newspaper article (even an e-news article) about the decision is not the decision.

Oh, yes, the only positive male role models are heterosexual.

Great idea. Instead of discussing the merits and ramifications of the decision let’s act like a hot-headed bigot. Unfortunately, all you’ve proven is that you’re capable of bigotry.

Both the scouts and the scoutmasters are volunteers, and the organization is private. No one is holding a gun to some parents’ head and forcing their kids to join Boy Scouts. I’d like to hope that more people are intolerant of such exclusionary policies and would therefore find a viable alternative experience for their children.

Your first sentence says it all. Then you contradict yourself.

The organization is private. The people that actually run the organization decide the direction of the BSA and what they determine is best for its members. Many, many people are phobic about homosexuals. And it should come as no surprise that some of them are parents. The BSA has chosen an image for its organization that is unlikely to eliminate children of homophobes from membership thereby making it more inclusive.

You are the one advocating putting a gun to the heads of a private organization for your political agenda.

If you’ll read the issues posted here about “expressive association” you’ll get a better feel of what does and does constitute “freedom to associate” under the law.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have read all the posts to this thread and quite a number of other threads. It’s immaterial. The CS has told you ‘what does and does constitute “freedom to associate” under the law’.

Sorry for striking back, fellow posters, but he hit a nerve.

[Ike_Witt]

Esprix, am I reading your take on the situation correctly? Are you saying that you don’t agree with the ruling, but you accept it?

[doreen]

Esprix -

I don’t think that the SC did decide whether BSA was not a public accomodation.I believe the decision was only that the NJ law could not be applied because of the burden it placed on BSA’s expressive association without any compelling state interest.That expresssive association was based on the claim that the view that homosexuality is immoral is important to the BSA.If it was ,in fact an important part of their program ( if they were called the ([religion that teaches homosexuality is immoral] scouts ), I would agree with the decision,however in my experience, sexuality not only doesn’t come up, it’s avoided.( leaders are directed to direct boys to parents, ministers, doctors etc with questions about sex)

SouthernStyle-
I’m not going to deny that there are homophobic parents, but to be honest, the BSA could have completly avoided the whole issue. How? By letting the parents ,volunteers , churches, etc who run individual units decide whether a particular person is acceptable to them as a leader. That way, if one troop, (run by a Unitarian church ,for example , which doesn’t believe homosexuality is immoral , found a gay man to be acceptable, they could allow him to be a leader, while another troop (run by a church which believes homosexuality is immoral ), could reject a gay man. The way the BSA policies are right now , no gay can be a leader anywhere, even if accceptable to the parents in that group, while there are no corresponding rules barring adulterers , embezzelers etc. Those people have to be rejected on an individual basis.
The SC has decided what constitutes expressive association in this case for now, but it was a close decision and things change. I’m sure in the 1930’s the BSA could have legally excluded blacks, and I’m equally sure that the SC wouldn’t allow it now.

[capacitor]

According to dissenting opinion, which was unusual in that it was three times as long as the majority opinion, the majority basically took The Boy Scouts’ lawyers at their word that their creed is a justification to exclude homosexuals from influential positions. The dissent says that there was no evidence of that sort of the interpretation being followed before the firing of the Scoutmaster. For example, the Handbook suggests that questions about sex be deferred to parents, teachers, clergy.

[tripoverbiff]

First off, I’m an Eagle Scout, so I know a little about the BSA. Most of the funding comes from the dues paid by members, the fundraisers the members take part in, etc. So unless you want to tell boys they can’t be scouts, you probably aren’t going to be able to kick the BSA in the wallet very easily.

Something interesting about folk who ask for “tolerance” is how quick they are to shout down with people they don’t perceive as practicing it. You don’t like the Boy Scouts’ policies? Oh. Well don’t join, then. You don’t like what a religious group says about your lifestyle? Well don’t become a member. Live and let live. The Boy Scouts include folks of all sorts of political and religious affiliation, and if the BSA leadership ever determines that it would like to change policy, it might. But until then, they have the freedom to decide how they choose leaders.

This issue has come up elsewhere. Tufts University just had a huge scandal when a Christian organization was kicked off campus without a trial for not allowing a homosexual in a leadership position, even though the group clearly believes that homosexuality is wrong. (They have since been readmitted.) What next? Could a Hindu organization be kicked off campus for not allowing a beef eater to be president? How about a chapter of PETA for rejecting a butcher, or the Pagan Society for turning down an open Christian evangelical for a leadership position? The point is, private groups have to be able to select who leads them based on whether that person believes what the group believes. If birds of a feather can’t flock together, what’s the use in having flocks at all? Everyone just meet on the lawn and argue. Yay for freedom of speech and assembly! We’re so glad to be able to form homogeneous bodies of no collective opinion!

Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”?

[pldennison]

So, biff, are they changing their name to “Straight Theist Scouts of America” anytime soon, and letting kids know when they recruit in schools that atheists and homosexuals need not apply, or are they just going to keep up the deception?

[MrSleep]

Here’s a link for the decision and the dissents:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html

This site has the full text for every SC case since 1990 and the important ones since the founding of the nation.

(hijack)
The Oyez Oyez Oyez site has a lot of cases as well, in addition they have the oral arguments for some of the cases:

http://oyez.nwu.edu/

I highly recommend listening to the arguments for 1997’s Reno v. ACLU, the Childrens Decency Act case. Some of the Supreme Court justices actually have a sense of humor.

[sailor]

A question to those who believe homosexuals should be allowed to join an organization that believes homosexuality is wrong:

Should gay organizations be forced to admit people who believe homosexuality is wrong?

Should pro-abortion organizations be forced to admit people who are against abortion?

etc…

[doreen]

If the BSA was an anti-homosexual group, or even presented itself as a group for heterosexual boys , there would be no question in my mind that gays shouldn’t be allowed to join. A closer example would be a civic group, (like a neighborhood association) which makes some general statement about members being of good character (like BSA does with “morally straight”) and then expels a person because they are living with someone outside of marriage (the morality of which its own members have differing opinions of) based on that very general statement.

[Mars_Horizon]

pldennison wrote: “are they changing their name to “Straight Theist Scouts of America” anytime soon, and letting kids know when they recruit in schools that atheists and homosexuals need not apply, or are they just going to keep up the deception?”
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the deception. This has been in the news for years, the fact that they discriminate against gays is not a mystery. The only mystery is why anyone who IS gay would want to associate with an organization which is known to be so very ANTI-gay.

[Esprix]

My, my, such touchy folks 'round here…

SouthernStyle

Esprix - You need to get out of the pulpit. Now.

And it might be in your best interest to stop telling me what I need or need not do. This is, after all, a public message board.

I said that I hadn’t read the decision. You replied with a sarcastic flair and referred to “links”. Then asked for someone else to think for you because you hadn’t read the decision either.

Firstly, you read sarcasm where it was not, so I’ll thank you to step off. Second, I have read the decision, but since I am not a lawyer, I summarized as best as I understood it, which is why I welcomed clarification if I was in error.

Great idea. Instead of discussing the merits and ramifications of the decision let’s act like a hot-headed bigot. Unfortunately, all you’ve proven is that you’re capable of bigotry.

I don’t see where my statement (note the :rolleyes: at the end which I use to clearly identify when I’m being sarcastic) is without merit. Your argument is that parents who voluntarily allow their children to participate in a purely volunteer-run organization should be allowed to dictate who runs that organization. My remark was meant for those parents who therefore want to exclude gay men because they don’t want to somehow unduly influence their “impressionable and formative teen boys,” as you put it, which we all know is a bunch of horse hockey (unless, of course, earning merit badges and learning respect and self-reliance are negative influences). I understand that you agree with the SC for its decision, but do you agree with these parents?

The organization is private.

That issue has really only just been decided, and the arguments that it was really a public organization had merit; alas, the SC did not see it that way. Now that the issue has been decided, yes, you’re right - its members have the right to run it as they see fit.

The BSA has chosen an image for its organization that is unlikely to eliminate children of homophobes from membership thereby making it more inclusive.

I’m not following this. Could you clarify, please?

You are the one advocating putting a gun to the heads of a private organization for your political agenda.

AFAIK, there is no existing equivalent organization equal in scope to the BSA, so the BSA could be viewed as having a monopoly on this particular brand of education. If there were another such organization that had a more inclusive set of core values, perhaps then the consumer would have a viable choice in the matter; as it stands, they’re the only game in town, so there was a case made (and lost) to force them to be treated as a public accommodation instead of a private organization.

adam yax asked:

Are you saying that you don’t agree with the ruling, but you accept it?

What choice do I have? They are the law of the land. But I’m not happy about it, no, especially considering the fact that the BSA has basically spat upon all of my gay friends who were scouts and thorougly enjoyed their time there. Many of them have been left disillusioned by the organization, and it’s sad that they went so far out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot, IMHO.

tripoverbiff wrote:

You don’t like the Boy Scouts’ policies? Oh. Well don’t join, then. You don’t like what a religious group says about your lifestyle? Well don’t become a member.

There is a wide range of choices for religious affiliations, but what are the other organizations that are the same as and as big as the BSA? Before they broke up Ma Bell, did you tell people who bitched about the phone service not to have a phone?

This issue has come up elsewhere. Tufts University just had a huge scandal when a Christian organization was kicked off campus without a trial for not allowing a homosexual in a leadership position, even though the group clearly believes that homosexuality is wrong.

Seems to me they need to do a little more research on Christian theology - homosexuals can be and most certainly are Christian, and Christianity in general does not say that homosexuality is a sin, but rather homosexual acts are. Also, university student groups are not “private,” they are under the strict auspices of the university and the student body.

The point is, private groups have to be able to select who leads them based on whether that person believes what the group believes.

Yes, but up until the ruling it was in question whether the BSA was actually a private organization or not. The matter has now been decided.

Esprix

[pldennison]

Maybe because being in the Boy Scouts is, oh, I don’t know, FUN? And is a way to make friends and learn stuff? And because their existing friends might be Scouts already?

[pldennison]

The amusing thing is, the BSA’s own literature currently states:

“Specifically, the BSA endeavors to develop American citizens . . . have personal values based on religious concepts . . .understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems . . . have a keen respect for the basic rights of all people . . .”

Let’s see:

" . . .have personal values based on religious concepts . . . " They may want to change that to “theistic concepts.” No atheists allowed. Because my personal values are based on a “religious concept” that excludes gods, I am not eligible.
" . . . understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems . . ." Except, of course, for equal protection.

" . . . have a keen respect for the basic rights of all people . . . " Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

[Esprix]

Mars Horizon wrote:

The only mystery is why anyone who IS gay would want to associate with an organization which is known to be so very ANTI-gay.

If you join the Boy Scouts when you’re 6, start struggling with your sexuality in adolescence and don’t come to terms with it until you’re an Eagle Scout, that’s a long, long time trying to reconcile the organization you’re a part of that you love with its’ attitude that is against you. It’s not like some elementary school kid is going to say, “Nah, I don’t think I’ll join - I think I might be gay.”

Esprix

[Mars_Horizon]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of an adult considering membership in BSA. If I was gay, I wouldn’t even consider it. But it might be different if I was a kid. We all know the pressures to fit in when you’re young…

[SouthernStyle]

Good point **Mars Horizon". I’d touched on it earlier but noone responded. Maybe the direct approach is better.

**Doreen[/n] - I like your rebuttal. So many posts seem to be emotionally based, but you clearly wrote from your intellect.

I agree that the BSA could have handled it differently. But there are also problems with dealing with in on a local level, as you suggested.

The BSA has stood up and said, “This is what we are. If your child joins in Miami, Florida or Helena, Montana the same rules apply to membership, character, expectations, etc. The BSA is not a loose fitting cover over 1,000 small autonomous groups”.

Their exclusion of a homosexual from positions of leadership is no different that their exclusion of atheists and agnostics.

This position and the Supreme Court decision have absolutely no bearing on membership in the Boy Scouts. In no way do they affect a boy’s ability to join the scouts because he’s gay, or sympathetic to gays, or black, or hispanic, or atheist, or agnostic, or anything else.

And this seems to be forgotten in the whole picture. The BSA is an organization established for the good of its members.

Does defining a set of restrictions over their leaders allow greater opportunities for membership? probably.

I’ll continue this afternoon. Right now duty calls.

[Esprix]

SouthernStyle wrote:

Their exclusion of a homosexual from positions of leadership is no different that their exclusion of atheists and agnostics.

This position and the Supreme Court decision have absolutely no bearing on membership in the Boy Scouts. In no way do they affect a boy’s ability to join the scouts because he’s gay, or sympathetic to gays, or black, or hispanic, or atheist, or agnostic, or anything else.

Wrong - two boys in California were kicked out of a troop because they were atheists. IIRC, they have not been allowed back in. I will find a cite if I can.

Esprix

[Mars_Horizon]

Growing up I always thought the Scouts were a pretty nifty organization. The more I read here though, the more I don’t think I would ever want my kids (assuming there are some someday) to join. I’m Christian, but some of my dearest friends over the years have been atheists, agnostics, gay, whatever. I’m not sure I could tell any of them with a straight face, “Hey I’ve joined the Scouts!”…

[tripoverbiff]

>>So, biff, are they changing their name to “Straight Theist Scouts of America” anytime soon, and letting kids know when they recruit in schools that atheists and homosexuals need not apply, or are they just going to keep up the deception?<<

I know you aren’t being serious, but it’s silly to expect a group to list all their beliefs in their name. You want something you can refer to, not a paragraph you have to quote.

One issue I think a lot of folks seem to be upset about is the perception that all of a sudden, they’ve decided to exclude gays, when it was never policy before. I don’t know if the policy has a history or not, but you can’t expect every policy to date back to the beginning. If something becomes an issue, a decision is made and policy is created. Just like the United States. You can’t argue that becuase the Founding Fathers wrote nothing about e-mail fraud that there should be no law. It wasn’t an issue then. When it became one, a decision was made. Same for this issue with the Boy Scouts. Are you going to let the organization make their own decisions, or force them to do things your way?

As for the arguement that there is not an alternative to Boy Scouts like their are other religious organizations, well, that’s not their fault. You can’t criticize them for lack of peers. If they are the only ones doing what they do so well for boys, that’s not their fault. Nobody’s stopping anyone else from creating the Alternative Nongendered Scouts.

[BF]

I was hoping to stay out of this but… Esprix, while you search for the link on the two boys who were kicked out, I can provide a small amount of info. As it was, the kids were twins, who were raised atheist (but supposedly the parents let them make their own decisions.) When they turned 16, they both decided to be atheists themselves. At this point they realized that there were numerous references to a god they didn’t believe in (the Scout oath, for one), so they petitioned the BSA to change, alter whatever, the rules so they didn’t have to say god. The BSA basically said these are our rules, and if you don’t want to play by our rules, leave. Simple as that.

signed,
Dare I say it?? An Eagle Scout and staunch BSA supporter.