Homosexuals and the Boy Scouts- Revisited

[doreen]

Southern Style -

You make a good point, however first, BSA has specifically stated that the antigay policy had nothing to do with fears of gays being pedophiles.Second, in the past, BSA has known there were complaints about leaders molesting children, and did not prevent those people from registering in a new location.Had they prevented that from occuring, it would have done far more good than a blanket prohibition of gays.Third, it’s far more likely that a pedophile will present himself as straight (involved with a woman or even married) rather than gay ( they are actually often neither-many will prey on either boys or girls). What will the BSA do when a (presumed) heteosexual molests a child? The BSA’s responsibility is the same whether the molester is gay or straight.
Of course, someone could accuse the BSA of being irresponsible,and even file a lawsuit. I can accuse anyone of anything, but the accusation doesn’t make it so, and obviously, a lawsuit filed isn’t necessarily won.However, if you look at similar suits, the Catholic Church was only successfully sued when they had prior knowledge of sex abuse, and took no steps to stop it ( priest molests in parish A, is moved to parish B because of it , and then is allowed access to children) I don’t know of any athletic leagues that feel it necessary to have a rule prohibiting gay coaches because they might be accused of being irresponsible if one should molest a child.

As for how is the BSA going to make everybody happy, they can’t. It’s simply not possible Even if the homosexuality issue never came up they couldn’t. There are people who think women shouldn’t be leaders,there are others who believe certain religions shouldn’t be accepted, and I’m sure there are still some who believe there should be segregated troops.

[beakerxf]

*Originally posted by MrSleep *
**
Some previous posters have pointed out that the Boy Scouts have a monopoly on scouting, I think that’s a load of crap.

<snip>

We shouldn’t be attacking the Boy Scouts because they don’t accept gays. We should be wondering why no one who does accept gays has bothered to worry enough about teenage boys to form their own group to teach them how to become men.

The sad fact of the matter is that the Boy Scouts of America is the only organization for teenage boys worth noting because they are the only one that really gives a shit. They are the only thing out there. It’s a damn shame that the only people concerned with perserving this great heritage are also people that are not enlightened enough to recognize that gay boys need as much guidance as straight ones.
**

I really need take issue with this, Mr. Sleep. What you state here is, in part, the basis of the complaints for the Boy Scouts “monopoly”.

First of all, the Boys Scouts are not the only boy’s organization that cares. There are also the Big Brother programs, Boys Club, and if you search Yahoo you can find literally hundreds of other youth organizations (including some that, yes, have a gay focus).

What the Boy Scouts have is name recognition. Notice how they don’t even advertise, yet everyone knows who they are? Therefore, you recognize their name and assume they are the only group that cares. Every group, no matter what religion, race, or sexual orientation, will have a portion of it’s population that is concerned with the well-being of youth. It is not the monopoly of those who follow the Christian ethic.
Do I believe the Boy Scouts have a monopoly. Not really. They do get the better support from the community and have easier access to potential new members because of who they are, but they certainly are not my only choice for youth organizations.

Even though I’m homosexual, I take no issue with the USSC decision. The BSA should be allowed to determine who will and will not be a member of their organization. Of course, my children will never be allowed to join, but that’s just me and the BSA agreeing to disagree. I just find the whole incident unfortunate. They were vague as to their position on homosexuality and Dale, who had poured a significant portion of his life into the scouts, suffered for it.

**
SouthernStyle stated:

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.

**

This is the part I find confusing. Dales membership was not contested until he was inadvertantly outed by a newspaper. What would have happened if he had outed himself to the BSA earlier? Like, when he was 15, or something. Would he have been allowed to stay? I’m confused at what the cut-off age is for “ok to be gay/not ok to be gay” in the BSA.

Opinions anyone? How does this affect the experience for gay youth? Can they stay in until a certain point and then are booted out? Or can they only progress until a certain level and then merely denied leadership positions? Or will it be more of a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell type policy?

[Dinsdale]

Issue of fundraising came up over the weekend. Someone mentioned that their large corporation employer had a policy of matching donations to various organizations, including BSA. I know for certain that their employer has very strong policy on nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

Sooo, it struck me that should your employer have a matching fund policy as well as a nondiscrimination policy, you might want to bring this apparent inconsistency to their attention. Same way you might want to check whether your local government/school district protects sexual orientation, yet allows BSA to use space.

Let BSA characterize themselves in a manner that allows them to discriminate. As distasteful as I consider the Supreme’s decision, I believe it was the correct decision. But no reason BSA shouldn’t bear the consequences of adopting such a position.

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by BF *

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.

Found a few cites, this one from CNN (1998):

Twin brothers William and Michael Randall, now 16, have been fighting to remain in the Boy Scouts since 1991. They have won numerous awards and commendations during their years in the group.

They are fighting the organization’s determination to kick them out because they don’t believe in God and want to omit the phrase about “duty to God” in the Boy Scout oath. They also refused to participate in religious activities required to move ahead in scouting…

When the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America expelled them from their troop, the Randall family sued. Since that time, the boys have been allowed to return and are working toward the rank of Eagle, the highest level of achievement.

As the boys keep scouting, their case continues to attract news coverage and the attention of pundits, some of whom have suggested that they start their own “Atheist Boy Scouts.”

The brothers say they don’t want an atheist troop. They don’t want to change the oath or anything else about Boy Scouts. They just want to stay.

On March 23, 1998, according to abc.com, the California state Supreme Court ruled that the BSA is not a business covered by California’s anti-discrimination laws:

The Randall twins joined the Cub Scouts at 7 and said their leader let them omit God from their oath. But they were rejected two years later when they tried to join a new Scout den after moving to Anaheim Hills. Since gaining admission through the courts, they have advanced through leadership positions and recently were recognized as Eagle Scouts by their troop, subject to national approval.

Monday’s ruling appears to allow the Boy Scouts to deny the awards and to expel the boys…

I can only assume that they were, indeed, booted out, although I couldn’t find a direct cite for it.

So here we have, like the gay Scoutmaster in the USSC case, two hard-working, longtime-devoted members of the Boy Scouts who did everything right, hurt no one and gave back to the organization, and then got turned on by that same organization for their beliefs and/or the core of their very being.

Does the BSA have the right to discriminate like this? Yup - the Supremes said so. Does that make it right? Not to me. This is a victory they should be ashamed of.

Esprix

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by DSYoungEsq *

In short, the USSC simply said that the BSA asserts it is anti-gay in its beliefs, organizes for the purpose of associating to communicate and promote those views (among others), and can’t be forced to accept a member who openly espouses a contrary viewpoint, even under a law designed to reduce discrimination against gays. It did not address whether the BSA was a ‘public’ or ‘private’ organization, because that ‘issue’ was not before it; it was not germane to the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment right of the organization.

DSYoung, thank you for the clarification. When I read the decision elsewhere I got bogged down in legalese and missed some of what you put a little more clearly.

Esprix

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by SouthernStyle *

I made no claim that the BSA has never excluded boys from the organization for arbitrary, capricious, prejudicial, or any other reason.

The claim that I did make is that the decision by the BSA to exclude homosexuals from positions of leadership and the Supreme Court’s endorsement doesn’t impact the ability of a boy to join.

Two different things.

But both go to the same end - Atheists and homosexuals are not welcome in the Boy Scouts, and both scouts and scoutmasters have been forced out.

Legal? Yes. But that doesn’t make it right (at least, IMHO).

Esprix

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by MrSleep *

We shouldn’t be attacking the Boy Scouts because they don’t accept gays. We should be wondering why no one who does accept gays has bothered to worry enough about teenage boys to form their own group to teach them how to become men.

The sad fact of the matter is that the Boy Scouts of America is the only organization for teenage boys worth noting because they are the only one that really gives a shit. They are the only thing out there. It’s a damn shame that the only people concerned with perserving this great heritage are also people that are not enlightened enough to recognize that gay boys need as much guidance as straight ones.

These are the very reasons the BSA should allow a more inclusive stance - they’re the only game in town, and in the end they harm the boys they ride out on a rail, and deny others the chance to experience the great thing that Boy Scouting should be. In the end, I think this will hurt the BSA, and that, in the end, is very sad.

Esprix

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by tripoverbiff *

… the Boy Scouts, like the United States, is not specifically religious in nature. However, both base their foundation on religious ideas… So while the U.S. doesn’t, and shouldn’t, promote a particular religion, without an idea of a just God, its original justification for existing is moot.

I think the Boy Scouts are sort of the same way. I was never taught anything religious there, but there was sort of an unspoken idea that it was fitting for all of us to go to church and know our Maker. If a campout ended on Sunday, we often had a mini service that morning, at which we would pray and sing and perhaps read from the Bible. Shocking? No one was forced to participate, and no one was evangelized. If anyone disagreed, they weren’t harmed by it, any more than I would be harmed by attending a religious service run by Buddhists.

All I say is that I don’t think that the sort of philosophy that makes Scouting unique can be entirely seperated from a belief in God…

You know what? I basically agree with you. But I still think that being exclusive is a lousy thing to be proud of.

And if you had “mini-services” on Sundays, then you most assuredly were being taught religion, and if, as a teenager, you felt uncomfortable doing that, you would have had a pretty hard time being indoctrinated into such activity. Lucky for you you were “normal” and fit in - a lot of kids aren’t so lucky, and alienating them further is, IMHO, reprehensible.

… if someone wants to start the Alternative Nongenered NonScouts based on the idea that there’s no true religion but anything you believe is okay, and that morality is purely a matter of your personal convictions, etc, I don’t forsee a lot of success. It might have its own merits, but I don’t think it would have the merits of Scouting.

Oh, I didn’t realize that scouting taught the “one true religion” - so much for your “based on but doesn’t teach religion” theory. If and when such a scout group exists and/or is formed, I’m going to send every young person I know there to get exposure to an organization that teaches tolerance for differences, not de rigeur acceptance of what somebody else says is right - that’s a moral compass I’d follow any day of the week.

Esprix

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by doreen *

There was a big problem a year or two ago between BSA and the Unitarian Church. BSA does not itself give religious awards to boys, but authorizes awards granted by religious bodies to be worn on their uniform. The workbook for one of the Unitarian awards made some reference to not discriminating against homosexuals and as a result BSA would not authorize any Unitarian awards.

Actually, that’s not quite accurate, but I don’t have time at the moment to copy the relevant information. Comprehensive links can be found at UUA & BSA Correspondence & Documentation.

Esprix

[divemaster]

I don’t have anything to add; I just hate to see Esprix talking to himself!

Eagle Scout and proud of it.

[Esprix]

*Originally posted by divemaster *

I don’t have anything to add; I just hate to see Esprix talking to himself!

Here’s a summary of the BSA/UUA situation:

In May 1998 the BSA withdrew permission for the UUA to award the UU Religion in Life merit badge because of disagreements over the UUA’s version of the Religion in Life manual, which had not been approved by the BSA. In it, the Boy Scouts are described as a secular organization (the BSA says it’s ecumenical) and it specifically disapproves of the BSA’s anti-gay policies. They wrote, “The current version of Religion in Life does not adhere to Scouting policies and is inappropriate for distribution to Scouting youth in connection with the administration of the Religion in Life religious award. Until such time as the UUA materials can be redrafted to a form acceptable to the Committee, youth may not be awarded a Unitarian Universalist religious emblems in Scouting or wear the emblem on a Scout uniform. This includes the Love and Help emblem {for Cub Scouts} as well.”

In June 1998 the UUA, through its president Rev. John Buehrens, asked the BSA to reconsider, levelling charges of religious discrimination and justifying their attempt to reconcile the BSA’s views and the UUA’s views for the sake of trying to keep the UU scouts involved in the BSA’s activities without compromising their religious beliefs. Further, they point out the BSA defines itself as an “inter-faith” organization, and would never think of doing the same to Jewish, Buddhist or other scouts. Rev. Buehrens also pointed out the long, happy history between the two organizations. In closing he said that meetings had been arranged for later that year to discuss these concerns, but, “… In the meantime, I must tell you that I believe that your letter has put your committee and the BSA in an untenable and nearly ridiculous position. We will not acquiesce in such discrimination. We will not stop distributing a Religion and Life manual that reflects our religious principles. We will not stop providing Religion and Life awards and Love and Help emblems to Scouts and Scout leaders. If you and the BSA honestly believe that it will promote or defend Scouting to refuse our awards or to have Scout officials tear them off the uniforms of boys, I think that you are sadly mistaken. Most Americans will see such actions for what they are: blatant discrimination against children on the basis of their religion.”

A meeting was held September 29, 1998 in Boston between Rev. Buehrens and other members of the UUA and Thomas Deimler and Mike Healy of the BSA. Buehrens wrote a letter to Lawrence Ray Smith, Chair of the BSA’s Religious Relationship Committee, on September 30 saying he was encouraged by the positive meeting. He said two steps would be taken: One, that the UUA would publish a new manual, written “so as not to offend the BSA in any way” (meaning any place where there was a difference of opinion there would simply be a reference to other publications); and two, that a UU representative join the BSA’s Religious Relationships Committee.

Smith’s response of October 19, 1998, although not exactly glowingly supportive, says to go ahead with the new manual, and once it was reviewed and approved they could go from there. Buehrens wrote on October 23 that he was “personally disappointed” that more wasn’t done, but remained hopeful for a positive result.

A final version of the manual, with BSA input, was submitted on February 18, 1999. On April 23 the BSA approved it and reinstated the UU Religion in Life badge, with positive comments about the cooperation shown. Buehrens wrote on April 28 that he still wanted a UUA representative in the BSA, and hoped that their work would help the BSA realize some positive change in the future, but was glad this issue had been resolved.

However, on May 7, 1999, Smith wrote Buehrens again, saying that because the manuals would be distributed with “resources appropriate to dealing with issues of homophobia and religious discrimination,” the badge privilege was once again revoked, claiming this was never discussed. “… this simply reopens the entire issue of using boys as a venue to air your differences with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.”

Buehrens wrote on May 18 that all of this had been discussed, and was shocked over the BSA’s retraction. He said the materials provided were designed to help youth deal with harassment and how to understand what God might mean to them, both designed not to teach that the BSA is wrong, but rather to supplement what the BSA teaches (respect for others, and faith in God) with what UU’s believe. He says even the BSA admits the entire “no gays” stance is completely a political issue, and that other religious groups may become the BSA’s next targets if they don’t agree with what they teach. He concluded by saying, “prejudice, once it takes hold in one’s soul and is rationalized against one group can easily spread to include other objects of prejudice. Evidently Unitarian Universalists have now become such objects for the BSA. No wonder they have not been honorable in their dealings with us.”

On April 26, 2000, the USSC started hearing the BSA v. Dale case, and the UUA filed an amicus curiae brief in this case in support of Dale (along with many other religious groups). When the ruling came down in favor of the BSA, Buehrens said, “Unitarian Universalists and others know that it is homophobia that is the sin, not homosexuality.”

Esprix

[Mr_Bear]

I have been invloved in BSA since I was a young child, made Eagle Scout, and have severed as a Scout Master for several years and have a son who is close to becoming an Eagle Scout.

Here’s my two cents worth!

The BSA does have the right to admit or not admit anyone to their ranks. They have always had a publicly stated set of rules, which have guided them and made them successful. Why change? Where is it written that because some people no longer agree with a rule or policy that it’s wrong. The BSA has changed, a number of their programs and policies to accommodate the new modern thinking, but they have taken a stand on some core values. THEIR core values. If you don’t agree with them, then go form your own group, start your own program, if you have the guts. Some people and groups acutally have guiding principles which don’t change with public opion. I have no problem with any one or group who say what they belive in, and live by it. I do have a problem with people who insit that I change to their way of thinking or acting. The BSA didn’t ask this young man to change what he belived, all they said was,that what he belives is not in agreement with their position and told him to leave. Where is the problem? I have asked adults to leave a troop becuase their life style outside the troop was against the core values of BSA. I didn’t tell them to change they have the right to that life style (use of alcohol). The bottom line is an organization has the right to establish their values and live and operate by them, if you don’t agree with them, form your own organization with your value system and be happy!

Right or wrong that is my opinion!

[Esprix]

One of the things that bugs me about this debate is that the BSA defines “morally straight” and “clean” as “heterosexual.” Doesn’t seem like much of a badge of honor to me.

*Originally posted by Mr Bear *

They have always had a publicly stated set of rules, which have guided them and made them successful. Why change? Where is it written that because some people no longer agree with a rule or policy that it’s wrong.

Probably because it seems to me they didn’t define themselves as a heterosexuals-only club until someone called them on it. There have always been gay scouts and gay scoutmasters, but until someone was kicked out, unfairly, because of something they do outside of scouting. Ultimately, they won, but at what cost?

The BSA has changed, a number of their programs and policies to accommodate the new modern thinking, but they have taken a stand on some core values. THEIR core values.

With core “values” like these… :rolleyes:

If you don’t agree with them, then go form your own group, start your own program, if you have the guts. Some people and groups acutally have guiding principles which don’t change with public opion.

Now, really, is this kind of snide commentary something acceptable from an Eagle Scout?

I have no problem with any one or group who say what they belive in, and live by it. I do have a problem with people who insit that I change to their way of thinking or acting. The BSA didn’t ask this young man to change what he belived, all they said was,that what he belives is not in agreement with their position and told him to leave. Where is the problem?

Ah, yes, let’s completely disregard his many, many years of faithful service, volunteerism and advancement of the very same organization. The BSA may have the right to admit or kick out who they please, but I really think they’re cutting off their nose despite their face. After all this publicity, there are probably a sizable number of people who won’t allow their kids to participate.

I have asked adults to leave a troop becuase their life style outside the troop was against the core values of BSA. I didn’t tell them to change they have the right to that life style (use of alcohol).

Yeesh. Good luck with your arbitrary “my club/my rules” platform.

The bottom line is an organization has the right to establish their values and live and operate by them, if you don’t agree with them, form your own organization with your value system and be happy!

Well, sho’nuff I basically agree, and I hope a viable alternative to the Boy Scouts comes out of this whole debacle. I still think the BSA are a bunch of short-sighted bigots, though, and should be embarassed by such discriminatory policies.

Right or wrong that is my opinion!

Same here.

Esprix

[Esprix]

From planetout.com:

Saturday July 15 02:21 PM EDT

Scouts Win Round in CT Lawsuit

SUMMARY: A judge will force Connecticut to allow employee payroll deduction gifts to the Boy Scouts while the Scouts try to prove they’re being discriminated against.

Those who believed the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling officially labeled the Boy Scouts of America as a group that discriminates based on sexual orientation will be disappointed by a July 13 federal court ruling in Connecticut which seems to reopen the question. Because of Connecticut’s civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, the state’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) had ruled unanimously in May that Scouts could not receive contributions from state employees by means of payroll deductions; as Commissioner Andrew Norton said at the time, “The state can’t discriminate, businesses can’t discriminate and further, the state can’t associate with groups that do.” In June, the Boy Scouts of America filed a federal lawsuit claiming they were being discriminated against based on their views and asserting their freedom of association. Now U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton, citing the Supreme Court decision, has said he will be granting the Scouts an order to force their return to the State Employee Campaign Committee (SECC) list while the case continues.

In the courtroom, Assistant Attorney General William Prensky, representing the state, proposed putting an asterisk by the Scouts’ name on the SECC list to indicate that litigation is in process. Scouts attorney George Davidson responded, “We should not be relegated to the back of the bus as second-class citizens or given a badge of inferiority.”…

The Scouts have been collecting about $10,000 per year from Connecticut employees through the SECC…

In their filing, the Scouts asserted that SECC includes several agencies that “discriminate” on other grounds prohibited by state law, including Services for the Elderly, the National Black Child Development Institute, and Catholics for a Free Choice. Davidson described them as “organizations on the list with different varying points of view.”

But Maureen Murphy, an attorney representing a coalition of gay and lesbian groups, told the Bridgeport Connecticut Post that the Scouts “are trying to say the state cannot have anti-discrimination requirements with any of its contracting entities,” pointing out that the Scouts are the only group on the SECC list which has refused to sign a required anti-discrimination statement…

Esprix

[Myrr21]

In fact, the BSA use considerable force to remove anyone who tries to provide a serious alternative to them. This specifiaclly is in cases where the organization in question makes the BSA look bad–as in the case of a gay Eagle Scout who left (of his own accord) and tried to start a scouting group (don’t know about the name thing) that included gays. They used all their power as a “wholesome” group to get him shut down (I put wholesome in quotes because, as a former member, I know that that was where I got porn and fireworks and such).
Using a public CPu that is about to reboot–I will try to post a reference shortly.

[Esprix]

Reminds me of the Olympics - they’ll allow such organizations such as the Dog Olympics, the Rat Olympics, the Diaper Olympics, but went to court to force the Gay Games to stop using “Gay Olympics” in the early 90’s.

Esprix

[Dinsdale]

Interesting article in the Chicago Trib yesterday (from NY Times News Services)

Said Scouts’ bold position was hurting them financially. Several large companies and organizations had discontinued donations. Said the lost $ was unlikely to really hurt the organization, but they might be cramped by efforts to prevent them from using public schools, state parks, etc.

[Esprix]

Us UU’s have had problems with them for quite some time, long before this ever reached the USSC, on both their anti-gay and anti-Atheist stances. I’m unaware of numbers of congregations that have stopped letting them use their facilities any longer, and don’t know if the UUA has an official recommendation on whether or not to let them.

I’d hate to see their good works die, but I’m somewhat satisfied that their decisions are having repercussions.

Esprix

[Dinsdale]

Yeah. Figured you’d weigh in here. How ya doin? But to start up church again after the summer off sinning, hey?

I couldn’t get a useful link to the article - that portion of the Trib site requires registration. I’ll try to temember to bring in the hardcopy tomorrow and type some of the more interesting parts.

Said all the folks involved were torn, including politicians and company officials considering charitable donations. They all liked and respected a lot of things BSA does and did, but for various reasons they are prohibited from supporting groups that discriminate.

I guess there is some major action going down in Connecticut, which if it occurs, will really strictly limit BSA access to a really wide range of state facilities. Most other states and localities are going at it piecemeal.

BSA said it would sue to retain access, but of course that will cost $.

The article ended with a really snide comment, something along the lines of “we are just helping BSA follow its private agenda.” Like you said, these aren’t exactly unforeseeable repercussions.

[lissener]

FWIW, the article is in the NYTimes online. It requires registration, but I registered like 6 years ago and have never received one email from them. I have not evidence of any kind of negative repercussion for having registered, so I recommend it (and I inserted a misspelling into my name when I registered, so I’m fairly certain they’ve never sold my name, either.)