Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders NBC

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I'd like to know when this February meeting is?

    I'd like to be concentrating on my pack's Blue & Gold, not THIS. I don't appreciate it being dropped on us like this, even though it's not a done deal yet. The last policy in July seemed to make it clear that this was off the table for several years.

    This will be end up being very divisive for our pack, and we will lose a lot of families, although I think they would move to other CO's who would maintain the status quo.


    • #77
      So IF this happens, we can finally see how many units leave (I doubt many, since they will still control their own membership rules) and how many units are created (a few, probably matching the ones that leave unless a major charter group leaves).

      If I charter a new unit at my church, how would you even know if someone associated is gay if we met up at Camporee or Summer Camp?


      • #78
        Double post(This message has been edited by Horizon)


        • #79
          I can hardly complain if National does with membership decisions exactly what I think they should do with Advancement and Saftey, namely leave it up to the units. They've done a terrible job centralizing everything else, so I say let the COs make the call.


          • #80
            Horizon, IMHO we would not be at this stage if any of the major charter partners said they would remove their units because of the change.


            • #81
              Around here the LDS already barely put in an appearance at Camporees-- coming in late Friday, do a few activities and are gone often before the campfire program on Sat night. They go to their "own week" at summer camp or do their own summer camp separate from the council camps. We may see them at merit badge roundup or an occassional other district event. But they already see things as us vs them and they stay close to their "own kind" for scouting activities. I know that sounds horrible, but it is what it is.

              I do wonder if this will all be announced as if it's a done deal and then the LDS etc leaders on the exec board will veto it. Then BSA can say "we wanted it to happen but they voted it down." as if that will make it better.

              In my pack it won't make a difference, we've had gay leaders, and we probably will again. I've talked with them and approved their applications for membership after that talk.

              In my boy's troop, there will be a couple of blowhard old fogeys who complain but most won't say a thing and nothing will change. We've already had an Eagle scout who may be bi[his words], and a couple that have identified as gay in later years but most of the leaders are probably straight, but I haven't asked. I'd say it's "don't ask, don't tell", but people hate that term. It's not like there is a spot on the leader or scout application or on the Eagle application to fill in your sexual preference. Like a job interview, it shouldn't come up, should it?


              • #82

                IMHO we would not be at this stage if the LDS did not agree to the change or agreed to not disagree with it.

                If the change comes, and we all need to realize it may not. We will probably lose some of the less active Scouters. But I can't believe someone who is really active would leave over this.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)


                • #83
                  Jtex1234... This is preventing you from planning for the Blue & Gold Banquet???

                  Do you have a line of gay parents just waiting for the decision so they can volunteer? (Willing volunteers? Send 'em my way!) Or are you worried that some of your more mature Webelos may have a surprise for you?

                  We'll probably lose a few units over this (American Heritage Boys?) The units whose CO has no problem with gays will be happy, and the units chartered by the more conservative churches can still set their own membership policy. As it should be, IMHO. The only down side I see, is that chartered orgs can't point to the National policy any more and may have to defend their own policies, legally and otherwise.

                  I'm curious to see where our CO is going to come down on this. It's a Christian church, but we have some Islamic and Jewish scouts, so they don't exactly have restrictive membership policies.


                  • #84
                    most likely the LDS church has decided this will be ok cause they can just do their own multi unit events like they tend to do around here anyway. That they don't really spend all that much time co-mingling with the traditional units. And if they see other units with "unacceptable members" they'll just keep even further distance. if that makes sense?


                    • #85
                      i like most others was absolutely stunned today that national was actually considering this. knowing that the lds controls the board and national this is the most positive thing to come out of bsa in years. i can only hope that those who disagree with the bsa policy can finally vote for equality without being ostracized.


                      • #86
                        Yah, hopefully they're handlin' da PR on this well, eh? I'm not holdin' my breath. I'd like to believe as bnelon44 does that they wouldn't leak this unless they had da votes, but yeh never know about the BSA.

                        It will be an interestin' experiment. I predict a net loss of members, continuin' the pattern of steady decline.



                        • #87
                          The executive board meets from Feb 4-6. I'd expect an official announcement on Feb 6. And I don't think they would have floated this publicly if it wasn't already assured that it was going to pass. (Despite understanding Beavah's point, I am confident they have the votes, and that they've discussed it with all of their major national chartering parties.)

                          Seriously - the writing has been on the wall for awhile that this had to happen. With national board members, who are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, openly saying it has to change, you knew that there was some serious internal pressure. With declining membership and the constant controversy, with the military dropping its don't-ask-don't-tell policy, with gay marriage passing in state referenda - it was just a matter of time. The only question was how much time.

                          This is not changing the stance on girls or on atheists, neither of which generates anywhere near the publicity, and both of which are clearly stated parts of the organization's mission.

                          > prepare for a flood of media stories everytime some local CO exercises it's local option to exclude gays

                          I don't see many stories every time an organization chooses to use its local option to exclude women, or to exclude other religions (our troop has a policy that you have to be a member of the church to be Scoutmaster). Churches get to choose the leaders for their youth programs. I doubt this is going to be a big issue for the time being.

                          > By dropping its anti-gay policy, the BSA would be able to once again start phony units in schools.

                          No. The school policy is much more about discrimination on the basis of religion, which the BSA is retaining.

                          It's clear that the I&P forum will become less active. This has been a constant topic for years. After the policy changes, I think the issue will basically disappear.


                          • #88
                            Local option is best option.

                            Nearly a hundred years ago, people didn't want integrated troops. What did West do? Well, he didn't force a specific policy applicable to a diverse nation. He wanted local units to follow their local school system policies.

                            It's clear that if this passes, certain segments of society will not be as willing to accept this as others. So give some leverage and incentive to those who don't want to include gays.


                            • #89
                              I was off by a few years.

                              I TOLD YOU SO!!

                              (ahem. Very sorry. Couldn't help it...)


                              • #90
                                Another unintended consequence will be that poor RichardB won't benefit from having his detractors distracted by this issue. NOW they'll be able to focus their critical view even more intensely.
                                You hearin' this, RichardB?

                                Edit: Trevorum, I'd wait until 6 Feb if I were you. As it is your post is more like a premature congratulation (or something like that)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)