I don't think that changes the discussion very much; the HRC says that corporations will "lose points in an annual evaluation of how major employers deal with gay-related workplace issues" if they donate to the BSA, which isn't surprising if the BSA still allows units to exclude gays. If a corporation only donated to non-discriminating units, that would presumably be ok with the HRC.

Corporations don't donate to individual units. They donate to National. They donate to the Council. They donate via Community FOS. They do NOT donate to Districts or to Units. Units are not allowed to solicit cash donations.

It completely negates the argument that all will be well in unit-land regardless of the preferences of the unit or CO. The article clearly states they will not be happy unless it is mandated all the way to the individual unit/CO level.

Someone explain to me, please. If Christians want to be able to operate in an environment consistent with their moral beliefs it is considered bigotry and intolerance - regardless if they join an existing organization or start up a new one, but when another group insists the organization change its moral code to accomodate the outside group - leaving Christians to have to leave the group if they wish to continue to be a part of an organization that is consistent with their moral beliefs that is considered virtuous and tolerant?

Are they not demonstrating intolerance in their demand for inclusion?

"Corporations don't donate to individual units."

Maybe they should start, particularly if they want to donate only to units that don't exclude gays (or units that exclude gays, for that matter).

"It completely negates the argument that all will be well in unit-land regardless of the preferences of the unit or CO."

I don't think many have been arguing that all will be well; most are predicting at least a sizable readjustment, if not a large exodus.

"Are they not demonstrating intolerance in their demand for inclusion?"

You can still find Christian sects that don't allow their members to, say, enter a mixed-race marriage; they get flak for it, but that's what happens. You just need to learn how to deal with public disapproval.

Does what theFamily Research Council say about it change the discussion? Both groups have opinions consistent with their previous stances. We shouldn't act surprised. We all should have known there would be people on both sides of the issue unhappy with the likely decision. I doubt anyone that was for the likely policy change is going to change their mind because of what the Human Rights Campaign has to say about it and start to oppose the policy, just as I doubt anyone opposed to the policy change would change their mind because of what the Family Research Counsil says and start to support the policy - so no, I don't think this changes the discussion.

Perhaps some education is in order. Grant it, for the time being homosexuals will be more denied then others in many chartered orgs.. But to do anything other then Local option would treat homosexuals differently then every other member and give them a higher status.. I would be curious to know if those of the HRC who are making the comment know that all all Co's can deny membership for anything they wish, or only allow membership to a select group.. You may need to be a member of their church, or a member of the private school, or encarcerated in juvinile detention, or a latino immigrant, or a special needs scout, or an American Indian, or allow only christians (but maybe open to those not of their church).. Women can not be adult leaders, but not in all units, due to CO's choosing to have on male adult leaders. A homosexual group of people can now choose to have a scout troop exclusively open to only a family connect by homosexuality in some way (Parents or youth)

So to say that a homosexual can sign up in any unit regardless of if they fit any of their other requirements, simply because they are homosexual is not treating them equally, to how the rest of us are treated. Sometime people rush to judgement without knowing all the facts.

I can foresee CO's that are not under a church feeling pressure to welcome these children. I cannot see churches, just like in states where homosexuals may marry, we don't force all churches to marry them regardless of their beliefs.

I am good with local option for membership.

It give the CO the right to limit membership to just their members children.

It give the folks who don't like those of color to limit their membership to whites only..

Don't want gay members.....Ok

But you can still join a the BSA....Just find a troop that will accept them.


Who was this organization again??? If they knock off a few points from BSA's listing in their charitable book.....I am ok with it.

It needs to be local option

"Corporations don't donate to individual units."

Actually, they do, sometimes. Some corporations will donate matching money to places where their employees direct their money and/or time. Our unit has received corporate donations.

"limit their membership to whites only"

Can't do that. You actually promise not to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin. You can discriminate on the basis of anything else, but not those.

Someday, after all this shakes out and we either get back to normal or the BSA splinters irreversibly, I'd be interested in hearing the inside story of how this all happened so quickly. Was this new policy shared with NBC to try to get ahead of the story? Did a disgruntled staff member leak it to the NBC to try to force BSA's hand? Regardless, no one will be happy. The gay pressure groups, like GLAD and the ACLU, will never be happy with less than a scorched earth total victory, so the BSA's offer of an olive branch was ultimately useless. Many long-term scouters feel betrayed. Some will leave. Many will stop donations. There will be bad feelings all around. The scouts will feel totally confused by all this. The enormous amount of good works done by scout troops across the country will still be dismissed by the major media because somewhere, in some town, a person who defines their personal identity around their sexual partners might have their feelings hurt by a group that fewer and fewer boys want to join, and the possibility that 3% of the population could feel bad has to outweigh EVERYTHING ELSE a community service and youth leadership group does. Plus, the atheists are still peevish. The 21st century is shaping up just fine.

Me: "Corporations don't donate to individual units."


Oak Tree: "Actually, they do, sometimes. Some corporations will donate matching money to places where their employees direct their money and/or time. Our unit has received corporate donations."

Matching grant money has never gone directly to the unit. It has, in the past, been credited to the unit's FOS campaign and benefitted them in the form of free advancement patches, discounts at camp, etc. But the money itself has always gone to the Council. And now the money given via matching grants doesn't even benefit the unit. It ALL goes to the Council. I don't believe this is Council specific, but maybe it is. We also learned this year that money donated via United Way is/was subject to an administrative fee - a fairly sizeable one, though the exact % escapes me right now, so all of that money doesn't even make it to the BSA at *any* level.

If your unit has directly received money I'd like to figure out how. Are you telling me you have parents or individuals who direct money to your general Troop account (not a specific boy's Scout Account) and you are receiving matching funds from their employer?

AZMike, IMO you are spot.on. Even, at this point, if the Board says no way this will not end. From what I understand there are two board members, one of whom is slated to be the board president in 2014, who are determined this is going to change and, even though they were included in the unnimous vote seven months ago, are committed to changing the policy from the inside out. This is never going to go away.

I keep hearing about how wrong it is to offend the one side of this disucssion while it is totally acceptable - even commendable - to offend the other. I agree we will be splintered at best, if not completely split. Of course, there are already groups that have split off because of this and started their own, more inclusive scouting organizations. That apparently hasn't worked too well because there is still this demand that the existing organization change to suit one faction. Maybe it isn't about being able to do Scouting ... maybe it has to do with conquering.

This simply isn't about Scouting. In fact, it isn't even about sexual orientation. It is about bullying. I've read it repeatedly as I've scoured the internet for news. When the court system turned out not the be the ally that one group presumed it would be they changed tactics to money. And that is apparently working. Why aren't more of us up in arms about the way this is coming about? Will you really be happy with or have respect for an organization that didn't change on principle, but cowered to pressure? What will be the next thing that they will cave on? I am willing to bet everything I have that there WILL be a next thing. Reminds me of the old "joke" where the guy asks the woman if she will sleep with him one night for a million dollars. Once she says yes he starts to bargin, telling her now that they have established she can be bought, let's see just how cheap he can buy her. (No, it isn't funny, but it drives home the point.)

I don't cower to bullies. Ever. If I walk away from Scouting you may count it as a victory. The truth is, if I walk away it will be because your tactics disgust me and I wash my hands of the tactics and in the process you. Forcing your will on others does not gain you respect or acceptance. Nor does it gain you a sympathetic ear or a heart willing to hear yours. What it is you really want from me? You want me to affirm your choices? You want me to participate in your lifestyle? You want to insist that YOU know what is better for my son than I do (in the way of what he is immersed in, sleeps with, focuses on, how he is educated) ? Really, what do you want? I doubt you care much about me, because it isn't the common good you are after in the first place. I find it very difficult to believe you care much about the Boy Scouts or the millions of young men in the Scouts. If you did you would not have turned this part of their lives on its head. You would not have turned this into a war. "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight." How does bullying fit in to any of that?

(Stepping off my soap box now - and no, I don't feel better. I am very saddened by all of this.)

Poor MomToEli, I am sorry your little speech did not make you feel better. But you are probably right, they really are not there for you or your son.. If just joining, they will be there for their sons, hoping to instill in their sons the positive influence from scouting. I suppose there may be a few who will try to join a group that resents their presence, but I am willing to bet the majority will either join a group who will welcome them (after all, they will want a good experience for their sons, that would be finding a group that welcomes them).. Others will just continue in the units they have been in for years, with some peace of mind that they do not have to look over their shoulders for someone from council coming to the unit in order to kick them to the curb, because someone said something.

I think most of us joined scouting for our sons, and later grew to care about our units, districts etc from association with other great people we came to regard as friends with a common interest. Same will be true of the people who join scouts looking for a unit that agrees with the values they want their children to learn about tolerance for everyone.. First it will be, finding out if the unit works for them and their sons, then it will be helping their units with their mission by using their talents to help..

Most of the homosexuals I have met are very nice, generous people, that will do alot for a group they feel a connection to. Those who get a member or two, will be very lucky units.

If it's a big deal to corporations who want to support scouting, they'll find a way around National and Councils to support the COs with membership policies they agree with.

As far as the rest of the argument, it's the Boy Scouts of America, not the Boy Scouts of Christianity. Not even all Christian organizations agree on homosexuality. While some COs may drop scouting, others may start supporting it.

As far as the effect of changing policy has on corporate donations and CO support, we shall see.

Yet another gay activist has stated that the new policy, if put in effect, would change nothing for the activist groups. The haters still gonna hate.

"The palpable unpopularity of the Boy Scouts' policy provided leverage for opponents. Much of the activism has been driven by Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, 21, who founded Scouts for Equality. Wahls, who is no longer active in scouting, partnered with the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD and conducted a petition drive on Change.org urging companies to withdraw their support from the Boy Scouts. The first leg of the campaign, targeting Intel, collected more than 30,000 signatures..."There's a subtle difference between requiring groups to discriminate and allowing groups to discriminate," Wahls says. "Discrimination either way sends the wrong message to youth. So our work won't be done if this ban is lifted."

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170773760/for-some-donors-boy-scouts-ban-on-gays-doesnt-add-up

It will be interesting to see if the corporate sponsors who caved in to the Facebook petition campaigns started by Wahls will decide to restore funding if the local option is begun, if Wahls, the ACLU, MOVE ON, change.org, GLAAD, the LGBT Defense Fund, et al, crack the whip and tell them they can't. I would guess not. And conservative corporate sponsors may be less likely to donate in the face what many will see as the capitulation of moral values to a new secular obsession.

Basement: "It needs to be local option"

I totally agree. As a former scout and BSA critic ever since I heard of the membership policies, I think the is the best possible move for the BSA now. Ever since the BSA started this exclusionary policy they have opened themselves up to critics. There is no direction they can go now to escape that. There is now no way now to please everybody.

The local option lets everybody find a place. Even me, as a non-religious person. A previous post mentioned Buddhism which the BSA recognizes and which does not believe in any single God. The Unitarian church, which the BSA recognizes does not require it.
All a person like me has to do is bend just a little to sign the religious affirmation, while the BSA is bending a lot.

I hope someday these right-wing COs will give up on this silly idea of classifiying entire groups of Americans as unfit for membership. But until they do, or if they never do, the local option is the best course.