Follow
This statement concerning the BSA membership policy decision was released today from the Executive Board (Link):
For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, providing it’s youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. In the past two weeks, Scouting has received an outpouring of feedback from the American public. It reinforces how deeply people care about Scouting and how passionate they are about the organization.
After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy.
To that end, the National Executive Board directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting’s membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. This will assist the officers’ work on a resolution on membership standards. The approximately 1,400 voting members of the National Council will take action on the resolution at the National Annual Meeting in May 2013.
I think this is a wise decision. A more deliberative process and dialogue is never a bad idea.
I think it is my responsibility to provide as much useful information as possible and I invite you to join in the dialogue on the subject and look forward to working our way through the issues together.
Since the announcement of the pending membership policy changes I have fielded many comments and emails from those for and against the change. I want to note that there is a difference between meaningful dialogue and divisive argument.
It ought to be clear to my readers and listeners that I support changing our membership policy based on sexual orientation. At the same time I understand that there will be those who oppose it. No matter the outcome of the decision we will be challenged to continue to work together cooperatively.
The internet is not always the best place for thoughtful dialogue so, while I welcome your thoughts, there are some ground rules:
- You are a guest in my house. Be civil to and respectful of others. Discuss issues, do not attack individuals or groups.
- I moderate all comments, this is not “censorship”, it’s moderation.
- My house, my rules, my prerogative – the internet is a big place with plenty of opportunities to express your opinion.
When this subject is discussed on line there are typical circular arguments that cause more heat than light. Scouting is totally nonsectarian in matters of custom and religion. While I understand there is a spiritual component to Scouting I am not going to host arguments over doctrine or religious convictions. You can read more about the subject here.
We are also not going to argue the question of the origins or biology of sexual orientation. While I realize that there are differing opinions there are other places for those discussions. Here are some resources for learning more about the issue
If you’d like to contact me by email here’s how.
While it is true the most recent proposed rule change will not require a charter org to change it’s selection criteria for leaders or members, that largely overlooks the fact that we are all involved in a voluntary partnership. BSA has been successful because it was able to appeal to ideals which were shared by MANY religious and civic organizations without publicly condoning or condemning ANY divisive doctrinal points. Why are we abandoning that core principle? It really isnt productive to have a faction within the board continuously throw this up for public discourse or claim that it is their “cause” as Stephenson has done. On a micro scale, imagine the chaos of a troop committee continuously announcing they weren’t sure if their charter org’s doctrine was compatible with their program.
Debates on the rightness or wrongness of one’s sexuality or the rightness or wrongness of one’s religious convictions are probably equally useless. We are past that as a nation, some of us WAY past that. Instead, the decision to be made is much less complicated: will we, as an organization, stand with the majority of our current partners or will we abandon them to seek out new partners? Choose wisely.
I’m in favor of allowing gays, but I have a new question. Does the holding in the BSA vs Dale case still stand if they decide to not have National membership standards? If the BSA goes to local option, and the activists of the ACLU or Gay rights groups challenge it in Court, can the BSA win again? I’m not so sure with the make-up of the Supreme Court that local option would survive.
Thanks as always Clarke.
I don’t think this changes anything in that respect. The Dale V BSA decision determined that the BSA could set standards for membership – it did not (at least to my knowledge) limit what those standards could be. If the BSA alters the existing standard, or creates a new standard I don’t see why it would be subject to new challenges.
I love the civil discussion here compared to what I have seen on the Facebook pages of NESA and BSA. This page best exemplifies the values of the Scout Oath and Law that I remember (Courteous and Kind come to mind)
Some of the fondest memories of my childhood revolved around the Scouting program. I was involved in Scouting beginning with Cub Scouts from 1978-79 and the Boy Scouts from 1980-87 earning the rank of Eagle Scout in 1987. Not bad for a guy who did not make it past Bobcat in the Cub Scouts (for those wondering why I never earned the Arrow of Light). I was fortunate to have been afforded many opportunities in the Boy Scouts ranging from being inducted into the Order of the Arrow to being selected as a Senior Patrol Leader for a provisional Scout troop at Lost Valley Scout Reservation to being one of 35,000+ Boy Scouts at the 1985 National Scout Jamboree where I served as a Patrol Leader for my Jamboree troop.
I made a lot of long lasting friendships in the Scouting program and the values that I learned from the Scouting program I still carry with me today as a husband, employee and parent. The Scout Oath, the Scout Law and the Eagle Scout Challenge are more than just mere words recited by an awkward teen in an khaki uniform and neckerchief. They are a reflection of the person that I am and still am striving to be today. With the recent news about National considering repealing the ban on LGBT members, it pains me greatly that there are some in our brotherhood, especially in our brotherhood of Eagle Scouts, that are using the words of the Scout Oath and Law to justify exclusion of people who sexual orientation differs from theirs. No where in the Scout Oath and Law that I recited at my Eagle Scout Court of Honor and at many countless Scout events and meetings were there asterisk that said “except if said persons are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.” To be honest, I find nothing “morally straight” about the current membership policy and believe that it would be in the best interest of the Scouting program to repeal the policy and open the program to all Scouts no matter who they are. If there is anything that LGBT youth need, its self confidence and assurance that they will be treated with dignity and respect. By keeping this outdated policy, the Boy Scouts are sending a harmful message to our youth that some youth have to lie about who they are and are not worthy of dignity and respect.
As someone who is a straight ally and wants my Open and Affirming UCC Church to sponsor a Scout troop as an extension of our youth ministry, I promise that if the Boy Scouts repeal this discriminatory membership policy that I and my church will do all that we can to ensure that this program will thrive for another 100 years. I love the Scouting program and am afraid that they will no longer be relevant if they keep going in their current direction. Those of us that want to change the membership policy are not looking to destroy the program. We want to keep it around because we believe that all members should be treated with respect and dignity and be afforded the same opportunities that we were afforded as Boy Scouts. While I would like to see a blanket non-discrimination statement from National, I believe that this policy is a step in the right direction that will eventually lead to a complete recognition from National that discrimination in any form is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law.
I have been involved in scouting as a parent and leader for 6 years. I am 100% in support of changing the policy of BSA to allow homosexuals into scouting. During my time as Cub Master I had the unfortunate duty to tell a parent that they could not be a leader because they were gay. The thing that bothered me the most about this is she was an excellent example to the kids that regardless of race everyone deserves to be loved and provided a loving home. This parent was an older white female that adopted a bi-racial boy who was addicted to drugs at birth. She and her partner of 20+ years adopted him when he was just days old. They have given him a nice home, supported and been involved with him in academics, athletics and wanted to do the same in his scouting career, from the age of 5 he had his goal set on becoming an Eagle Scout just like his uncle. Now his dream has been shattered because of this policy he has dropped out of scouting because his mom could not be there with him. You see his mom was a registered leader until she openly admitted she was gay. All of the kids in the den and their parents loved her as their leader and loved this child like no other. As a result of having to inform the parent she was unable to be a leader because she was gay the entire den of 10 scouts quit.
Some people will argue that allowing gays will create a drastic decline in scouting I can argue it is preventing the organization from growing to its full potential. As far as people trying to bring the timing and funding of FoS into the debate and postponing the vote until after this event I believe that is not a valid argument. By postponing the ruling some organizations may withhold funding until after the ruling to see if the ruling is favorable to them, others ma not but you are also forgetting about the organizations that currently do not fund BSA because of the current policy.
I am for the policy change on the basis that BSA should not discriminate. Diversity has and will continue to strengthen our great program. Gay does not automatically mean promiscuity. Gay does not automatically mean child molester. We as adult leaders need to blaze a path forward to inclusion.
As far as decisions based upon money…I think some of the responders are correct. BSA like any other body is subject to all types of pressure. There are large religious blocks that have strong representation at the national level and they get their voices heard. Folks who donate large sums of money get their voices heard. It is the way it is. The politics of Scouting is something I try very hard to stay away from.
Just a quick comment – I have heard many people voice concerns about situations that will arise if the policy is changed. The current policy allows gay scouts and leaders to participate.
I would expect very little will change if the ban is lifted in May.
I think the question we should be asking is “is discrimination, in any form, acceptable in Scouting”? In this case it’s being applied to sexuality. What if it were something else like learning disabilities, physical handicaps or as in the case years of years ago, color?
Many people are painting the issue of Gays in Scouting under a Christian based doctrine. The Scout oath asks that a Scout do his best, to do his duty to God and country. It doesn’t say which God or which set of beliefs to apply. There are other religions that are far more tolerant. Should we throw those Scouts out? Scouting in the UK, where it was formed, doesn’t have a sexuality test, why should we.
I’d argue that it’s time to move on from the historical fears that admitting gay Scouts is going to be the end of the world. Look past your personal prejudices and I think you’ll find that the Scouts are a whole lot less concerned about this than the adults are. The vast majority have grown to accept gays.
Well said, Mike. Substitute any racial or religious group for ‘gay’ and think about it for a minute. Discrimination of any kind is against the values of this country, and the values of Scouting. The UK isn’t alone in its non-discrimination policy. Canada has a similar policy, as does most of Europe. In fact, the European arm of the WOSM issued a proclamation back in 2001 recommending that “National Scout Organizations not consider homosexuality as a reason for any kind of discrimination within or outside Scouting.”
Change is coming. It’s not about being a “pro-gay” organization, just as it’s not promoting a particular racial group or religion. It’s about ending discrimination which is the only right stance for it to take.
(edited)
You really ought to try to get beyond the slogans here. When the safety of children is involved, you bet we discriminate. We do this because children in many ways are more helpless than adults and need special protection. Why do you think you signal your willingness to undergo some kind of background check when you sign up with BSA to be a leader? I am assuming that sex offenders or people with violent criminal backgrounds are rejected if they apply for membership. This is discrimination and I’m glad we do it.
At a unit level, there have been a number of times where our committee chair or scoutmaster decided not to extend an invitation to a parent to be an ASM or committee member. The person may have had obvious temperment problems or some other issue which could have harmed the troop in some way. They were citizens in good standing in the community (or at least had no criminal history), but they just weren’t a good fit for the troop. That’s discrimination and I have little problem with it, as long as it is done for justifiable reasons.
So let’s stop getting all high and mighty about “discrimination”. We do it and we should. The question is whether active, out there homosexuality should be a trigger.
Discrimination based on a behavior someone chooses is different than discrimination based things they don’t choose. As you correctly point out the central question is sexual orientation chosen or is it a natural part of the human condition over which one has no control.
I am in agreement with the vast majority of people who study human behavior who have determined that sexual orientation is not a choice. (See these resources)
Hello Clarke,
I distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts. For the purposes of this argument I will concede that there may be an hereditary component to homosexual orientation (however the jury is out on that), but that has no bearing on whether the acts are moral or not. There is good evidence that a predisposition to alcoholism can be inherited. However, that does not mean alcoholism is a good thing and we should celebrate someone who develops an addiction to alcohol. On the contrary, we celebrate when the person struggles against this inclination and remains sober. I think this is an excellent analogy to the situation of same sex attraction. Orientation may not be a choice, but actions are.
And no one is going to ask you to change that analysis, if you do not want to associate with some people that’s your prerogative.
Although I haven’t been involved in scouting since 1982, I keep this blog in my rss feeder and take a look once a month or so to see what’s being discussed. Last year you inspired me to look up high efficiency wood stoves.
I was a scout from age 8-18, and an Assistant Scoutmaster from age 18-20 before heading off to college. I am now 50, gay, and in a monogamous relationship for 18 years and counting. We don’t have kids but if we did I’d want them in scouting if they’d tolerate it. I’ve extolled the benefits of scouting to neighbors with sons that are scouting age.
Scouting gave me a lot in terms of a breadth of skills, a way to think about citizenship, a well developed sense of ethics and morals (but my own sense, not a rule-book sense), and a sense of self sufficiency and confidence through camping and backpacking. When I talk to adults around me I find that those who didn’t get to experience scouting missed out on a lot. Hardly any of them can tie a square knot, and I’d rather they just let me handle the wood chopping. Please.
So I think that scouting has a huge amount to offer to boys, and that includes boys who might be questioning their attractions or their gender roles, as well as for those boys who really don’t have any question at all about their attractions and roles.
I also think that there are gay and lesbian parents who would have a lot to offer to a pack or troop.
All that said, there are issues that I think are valid concerns to parents. Some may want their boys to be in restrictive troops, others may want their kids, regardless of orientation, to be in inclusive troops. Both are looking for environments to help their sons become the moral creatures the parents want them to be.
This seems like it’d work at the troop level. (In fact you might find troops with inclusive policies that don’t have a single LGBT or questioning member or adult.) However, it might not work quite so smoothly at multi-troop gatherings where the non-inclusive groups are reluctant to drink from the same streams or breathe the same air. This is obviously a challenge to address.
I think there are some constants here that people seem to lose track of. Scouts are minors. As adult leaders, your responsibilities regarding sexual activity of minors doesn’t change simply because you accept gay or bi youth in a troop. As an adult leader, you can’t really have any other stance than to tell kids to put off sex until they’re adults (and out of scouts). It seems to me that this would cover the issue in a wholesale manner.
As for the sexual behavior of adult leaders, it seems to me we would have frowned mightily on parents having loud sex at our family outings and they might not have been invited back. I don’t see any reason to change the standard for same sex parents.
Last point, and this is about adults and parents. The adult leaders in my troop were always parents or occasionally troop alumni. They had a connection to the troop. That’s where the adult participation should come from.
I don’t really care what decision they make…but it feels to me like they just kicked the can down the road knowing that with FoS coming up they stood to lose a lot of $$. It feels like they chickened out for the money.
I have fielded many comments that imply the decisions being made or contemplated are based solely on financial considerations. I don’t think this is true. I do think that, with a nation-wide organization involving millions of people, finances have some influence in every decision. I think the folks deliberating on this will consider more than just money.
The BSA stands to lose donations no matter what their decision is and I know they are cognizant of that fact so the money would not necessarily be the driving factor…so I would agree with you if this decision had happened at another time of the year.
The timing along with the Friends of Scouting fundraiser is just fishy to me. I don’t know how Friends of Scouting works in every area but where I live (Utah) each unit’s sponsoring ward is assessed a certain amount they are *required* to come up with. I am almost 100% certain that had the BSA gone through with their decision Tuesday they would NOT get the planned donations.
Again, I don’t care which direction the BSA goes. I wish they would just go ahead and do it.
The assertions and assumptions are flying, as they always do when there’s a spirited discussion. I’d rather we were looking a facts. We are all trying to figure things out and I don’t know that forming this sort of conclusion is all that useful.
Full disclosure: I am a committee chair for a troop and also employed by the church that holds the charter. The church does not get involved in the day to day operations of the troop and does not set leadership guidelines above and beyond BSA standards. The church does however, require employees and church leaders to sign a conduct covenant that confirms our belief in church doctrine and among other things states that we are not homosexuals. I also have an openly gay cousin in a committed long-term relationship with her girlfriend and my sister-in-law is gay and legally married with a child in the state of New York. I love and support them all.
Having said that my questions are not at all about morality. I have pragmatic questions.
I don’t believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles so I won’t entertain the idea that a 50 year old gay scoutmaster is a threat to a 16 year old heterosexual boy. But most teenage boys and girls are filled with raging hormones. There is a reason that male and female Venture Scouts may not tent together. What happens when an openly gay teen is on a backpack; whom does he tent with? Two gays in a tent is similar to a male and a female in a tent because there is a similar attraction. Not all males and females would engage in sexual activity if sharing sleeping quarters, and neither would two gay youth, but we separate the male/females. So should we separate the two gay youth? Should we allow males and females to tent together? What about the parent that does not want their straight son tenting with a gay scout? What about the conservative charter organization that bans gays but wants there scouts to go to the National Jamboree that is being lead by a gay Scoutmaster? Will YPT change? There are so many questions that keep racing in my head and I don’t have answers for and I don’t thing I’m a bigot or narrow minded for thinking them.
I feel that BSA needs to take a stand one way or another. To say it’s up to the charter organization is not brave, and yet a scout is brave. When units have logistical questions about protecting youth, by not clearly defining its policy, the BSA is asking charter organizations to decide how to conduct affairs that deal with YPT.
Several people have raised the same concerns and I am doing my best to address them. I do not think expressing them makes you a bigot or narrow minded, and I think they can be answered with a little thought and consideration.
.. most teenage boys and girls are filled with raging hormones. There is a reason that male and female Venture Scouts may not tent together.
I think that the concern over sexual activity is one reason for them not sharing a tent, but there are also issues of modesty and privacy involved. There’s a difference between gender and sexual orientation.
What happens when an openly gay teen is on a backpack; whom does he tent with? Two gays in a tent is similar to a male and a female in a tent because there is a similar attraction. Not all males and females would engage in sexual activity if sharing sleeping quarters, and neither would two gay youth, but we separate the male/females. So should we separate the two gay youth? Should we allow males and females to tent together? What about the parent that does not want their straight son tenting with a gay scout?
Naturally we’d maintain that Scouting is not a place for sexual activity, no matter what a person’s sexual orientation.
You may find it helpful to look at the question without considering sexual orientation. Theoretically Scouts could engage in sexual activity, yet it does not seem to be a major concern. There are a number of things that can theoretically happen when heterosexual boys are in a tent with other boys or heterosexual girls are in a tent with other girls, but it is theoretical, not an actual concern. If there was an actual concern it would be widely discussed and probably a part of our training.
These are Scouts, after all, and they have agreed to a standard of behavior, we trust them in many situations to do the right thing.
We can also look at other Scouting organizations who have no ban based on sexual orientation. I have Scouting friends in the UK and Canada and I asked them if what you describe is a concern in their organizations or if their youth protection measures were modified when their policies changed. They knew of no such problems, and there were no changes to the way they did things.
We can also look at what the Department of Defense has done since the don’t ask, don’t tell policy was rescinded. They have specifically prohibited the establishment of separate facilities or sleeping quarters based on sexual orientation – so it’s apparent that they don’t see this as a major concern.
We can also look at other situations where people of the same sex but different orientations are in close quarters; the National Outdoor Leadership School, Outward Bound, high schools, middle schools, indeed any public bathing or bathroom facility – have they experienced problems that caused them to change their facility arrangements? I haven’t found anyone who has established any kind of extraordinary measures in this respect.
What about the conservative charter organization that bans gays but wants there scouts to go to the National Jamboree that is being lead by a gay Scoutmaster? Will YPT change?
As a former camp director I have seen hundreds of different Troops with differing standards of conduct, differing methods and styles of leadership. There are some adults who I’d just as soon not have my Scouts or my son involved with because I don’t agree with the way they work with Scouts or I don’t think they are a suitable role model. It’s always been a parent’s prerogative to make choices like this and will continue to be. Those who feel strongly about sexual orientation will make the choices that best reflect their values, and I’d note that many parents want nothing to do with an organization that practices discrimination according to sexual orientation.
There are so many questions that keep racing in my head and I don’t have answers for and I don’t thing I’m a bigot or narrow minded for thinking them.
I certainly don’t think of you as a bigot or narrow minded – once you think these things through, though, you may see your concerns are more theoretical than actual.
I feel that BSA needs to take a stand one way or another. To say it’s up to the charter organization is not brave, and yet a scout is brave. When units have logistical questions about protecting youth, by not clearly defining its policy, the BSA is asking charter organizations to decide how to conduct affairs that deal with YPT.
It’s early days yet, there were a lot of similar concerns when women were permitted to become leaders in Scout troops and girls were admitted to Explorer posts and Venture Crews (possible sexual activity between men and women being a chief theoretical concern that has never become an actual concern).
I think we’ll be fine if we listen to each other and don’t get too jumpy, thanks for being in touch – I hope I have answered your questions.
I’m concerned by a couple things. (OK – by a lot, but I’ll only mention two right now.) First, I’m concerned that many people seem to think that if we somehow can poll every Scout, Scouter, and parent, that we’ll arrive at a simple majority opinion and that will be that. On the contrary, social change is often fraught with dissent, and some groups have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new paradigm. Civil rights in the south is only the most obvious example. I’m of the opinion that Scouting will eventually need to make the tough choice, fully admit all comers, and trust the program to work. That will upset many people, and the organization will change. But in the long run, that change will be positive for all.
Second, I think that if the BSA Executive Board wants to have any credibility, and to be able to have an informed discussion, they’ll need to have full transparency. That means they’ll need to release the 2-year study that was the basis for last year’s decision. One of the premises of the “keep it as it is” side of the argument is that Scouting studied the issue and made an informed decision. Without details of how that decision was reached, I can’t understand it or trust it.
As I said, there are many, many questions and issues to tackle here. These are just the first two that come to mind.
Baden powell at Brownsea camp had boys of different classes. In 1907 this was unheard of. He wanted boys of all social groups to work and get along. I like teaching boys to get along ,isn’t that citizenship in a nutshell? wonder what old B.P. would do ?
Clarke;
Many years ago, in a military leadership course for Sergeants we discussed gays in the military and society. It was then that I decided that my oath to defend the constitution applied to defending the equal rights of all citizens. Further, my internal debate led to a a decision in scouting, that if we are not trying to present positive values to those who might be viewed as immoral by a section of our society, we are hypocritical. Wouldn’t they be the ones “most in need” of our program?
Clarke, I unabashedly admit that the two best leaders I ever served under were lesbian First Sergeants. I’d follow them to the gates of Hades.
Hello Clarke,
I’m the new scoutmaster you had on the podcast a few weeks ago. I do not agree with your stance and found your quick arguments last week unconvincing. However let’s set that debate aside for now.
As the scoutmaster of a secular troop, if the proposed policy had been approved, I would have had to have had a parent’s meeting and had a long, philosophical discussion about homosexuality in society. Not only that, this issue would have to continually get revisited every time we got a new committee chair or scoutmaster. Since I support traditional values, I expect I would eventually get drummed out of my Troop. This is because the pro-gay groups are not going to accept even the policy articulated. They will not be happy until BSA is 100% pro-homosexual. They’ve already said it and I expect they will start leaning on secular organizations to go their way.
So the net effect of this policy change would be to completely polarize BSA. People like me, whose honor requires a stance opposed to yours, would get relegated to particular ghettos, or we’d leave if the atmosphere became strongly intolerant of our values (I have encountered some who think the current proposed change is the break point). That would be a tragedy because I do value being in a troop with parents who hold a diversity of views.
I’ve concluded there is just no compromise on this issue, Clarke. Your supporters here think someone like me is a bigot and apparently don’t want people like me around, unless we smile, shut up and give our money and time. I love Scouting and really wish there were a way out. I’d love you to explore one with me, but you just can’t have A and not A at the same time.
In fact, the other side also believes this, since they are using money and petitions to push their case and are not interested in compromise. So I will be doing the same.
I have been in your shoes for a decade or more, just on the other side of the question. My chartering institution would probably not elect to admit gay leaders or Scouts so I may have to make some changes myself.
I’d like to note that during my tenure as a leader I have disagreed with the existing policy, I have not tried to force my views on anyone, haven’t been an activist or a troublemaker specifically because I knew that, if the tables were turned, I would want someone to be as understanding and tolerant of my position.
Certainly the things that unite us are greater than the things that divide us.
Hello Clarke,
Didn’t mean to be a drive-by commenter. I do sympathize better with your position now in terms of feeling out of step with the organization you’re in.
From my sense of your blog posts over the years, I know you are not an activist in this area, but the debate is being driven by those who are. We can’t ignore this.
However, you did not answer my main point that this issue is going to lead to a more highly polarized movement.
You also have not addressed the fact that groups like the “Human Rights Campaign” weren’t satisfied with the original compromise, so BSA would still be in trouble with them.
If you are interested in something that might be middle ground, I’d begin by separating the issue of admitting openly homosexual scout leaders (adults) from the issue of how older youth in the program are treated if they think they may suffer from same-sex attraction.
In a scoutmaster conference or an Eagle board of review, I would never, ever drill down on a scout, looking for atheism or issues of same-sex attraction. I’d consider it a violation of his privacy. If a boy volunteered such information to me, I would tell him that he is young, should set the issue aside, concentrate on studies, sports and scouting (generally preparing himself for adulthood). Sometime after he is 18, he can revisit the issue, long after he is done with the Scouting program. I would never tolerate making fun of such a scout; he needs support. Note that this is very close to what is already in the Scoutmaster handbook I have from 1998 (I am getting the training again in a few weeks). National could do something saying that we don’t use BoRs or conferences as inquisitions, seeking out ideological impurity.
It is really a very rare boy who is absolutely certain about his orientation at these ages, so I think this policy would allow Scouting to support him regardless of where he thinks he may be headed. A boy this age who is an activist is likely being used and pushed by someone older that he is, with some definite agenda. That is an abuse of the youth and I don’t think it should be supported.
As to adult leaders, I personally would distinguish between someone struggling with same-sex attraction and someone who is an active homosexual. I don’t have any solution on this, but I will not accept a policy which forces my implicit or explicit endorsement of homosexual acts. My honor and reverence to my own faith will not allow it. BTW I can make secular arguments supporting my position based on natural law, so it is not primarily a religious issue.
In these discussions, a lot of analogies have been made to the civil rights movement. It is true that America has largely changed its mind on segregation and racial prejudice. However, let me call your attention to the abortion debate. 40 years after the US Supreme Court “settled” it, the issue is still completely unresolved and actively fought politically. Many of you here think the debate on homosexuality is like the racial debate. I think it is like the abortion debate: fundamentally a moral issue on which there really can be no compromise.
“However, you did not answer my main point that this issue is going to lead to a more highly polarized movement.”
We are already polarized, we always have been, all you have to do is talk with eight or ten other Scouters to find that we disagree about a lot of things! We remain polarized only when we focus on what divides us rather than the things we hold in common. I’ve been on the other side of this question for many years and it brings me no pleasure to know that others now share this kind of distress. I think I can offer some insight on getting along, I’ve worked hard at it, it’s not all that difficult to do!
“You also have not addressed the fact that groups like the “Human Rights Campaign” weren’t satisfied with the original compromise, so BSA would still be in trouble with them.”
The BSA has always had detractors and various segments of society pressuring them to do this or that. The BSA has never really been a cultural leader, it follows the changing status of different groups sometimes many years after the fact. I would not assume that this change is simply being contemplated to placate detractors, perhaps the folks looking at this feel it is an appropriate response to the changing status of LGBT people and it is a morally and ethically important step to take.
Nothing I am reading in the proposed change requires you to condone something counter to your religious convictions – in fact it explicitly states the opposite “The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”
I can understand that such a change may cause some people to leave, just as the reaffirmation of the policy did last year and the Dale case did more than a decade ago. It may also keep people from having their children in Scouting, just as the existing policy has caused some families to stay away.
Hello Clarke,
Ok, you are trying to answer what I asked about and I acknowledge that. I don’t find much in your answers though. You also seem to be naive in terms of where this is taking us, but I guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out.
I offered you a possible middle position on the situation of scouts with same-sex attraction. Any opinions?
Also, I couldn’t help but notice that you mentioned LGBT. So it’s not just homosexuality but also bisexuality and transgenderism I have to be accepting of? That’s the problem with this, it just never ends.
I was considered naive when I was if favor of women becoming leaders 20-odd years ago, so I am used to the implication.
As for your middle position – since sexual orientation is immaterial to being a good Scout or an Eagle Scout I’ll agree.
No one is asking you to accept or tolerate anything, there is nothing in the proposed change that requires you to change at all. Your unit and your sponsor is not being required to do anything, to change anything.
CA, your comment that those who want a non-discriminatory policy “apparently don’t want people like me around, unless we smile, shut up and give our money and time” is apt in one way: That’s basically what those of us who have advocated for change have dealt with for decades. Dedicated Scouters have been drummed out of the BSA not just for being gay, but for advocating for change a little too loudly.
Most of us have continued to smile, shut up and give our money and time because we believe in Scouting and want the best possible experience for our boys. I, too, value being involved with parents who “hold a diversity of views.” if you value diversity, embrace it..
I think BSA should get input from every registered Scouter, and the family of every registered Scout. This decision either way will cost Scouting leaders, members, financial support, and impact the way it is viewed for the next 50 years or so. Regardless of the decision that is ultimately rendered. The only way to mitigate the losses either way is to gather everyone’s input and make the decision that damages the Brand the least, whatever that may be.
As a Scoutmaster, I’ve had to talk already with parents, Scouts, PLC, and chartering organization folks about this. And I’m going to have a lot more talking and discussing to do.
Kudo’s for BSA wanting everyone’s input before they make this decision. They should have done that anyway. I know I’ve given my opinion to Council and National. I’ll deal with the decision which ever way it goes when it’s made. Til then, I’ll keep my Troop moving along.
Thanks for your thoughts John, we all have plenty of work to do don’t we!?!
I’m disappointed by the lack of a decision. I think the policy needs to be changed. Once again BSA has created a PR nightmare by discussing the possibility of a change only to delay. They should have waited until they had decided what to do next. They must have underestimated the opposition.
Who are the 1400 voters who will make the decision? Its time to start lobbying.
I’d rather BSA not issue a global edict one way or the other. I’d prefer they do give the freedom of (1) Charter Organizations individually deciding, (2) allow each Council to decide, or a combination of both. In this way, the wishes and concerns of the various scouting communities can be better represented as opposed to one view fits all.
It saddens me to see how divisive this issue has become. I had hoped that Scouters who are experienced and trained at leading Troops, Packs, Committees, etc could be more openminded and willing to discuss how to make changes that will keep both strong religious families and those with less fervent beliefs working together to keep Scouting relevant in the future. I hope that all the anger and dismay shouted on the blogosphere is like most of the internet in that only the most ardent believers on each side bother to comment. I know I hesitate, because I don’t want to say something I regret later, and I don’t want to subject myself to personal attacks. Moderated sites like this one are so important in keeping a healthy dialogue. Thank you Clark for maintaining it.
Long time Scouter and proud Eagle Dad.
Keith
I’ve resisted talking about this on the blog for the very reason that there’s a lot of circular arguments and shouting when you do. I can’t tell you how amny times I have written a commnet and deleted it because it would have been nothing more than shouting back. Thanks for your kind words, they are much appreciated.
Clarke, I agree with you that the BSA needs to change their policy. And I’m very disappointed by this delay. This is a change that needs to happen, and the fact that they feel they need more time to make a decision doesn’t bode well. Unless they’re also considering completely lifting the ban, there’s really no reason to delay. They’ve raised the stakes by going public like this. If they come out in May with an endorsement of the status quo, they’re going to lose a lot of members who, like me, have hung on hoping for change, and who will see anything short of change as confirmation that the organization is unable to live up to its professed ideals and doesn’t deserve our continued support and participation.
I am frustrated by this as well, let’s hope they get it right!