MarkNoel

At the risk of derailing the current discussion and steering it back towards the original topic of the thread, I'd like to offer the following news on the situation in Philadelphia:

Here's a local news article on the Cradle of Liberty's loss of its land deal. For those folks who were convinced earlier that CoL never actually intended to buck the National policy, you might be interested in the quote here from the CoL's Scout Exec, Bill Dwyer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6873849.htm

"""

Calling the meeting "constructive," mayoral chief of staff Joyce

Wilkerson conceded she did not know what kind of policy statement could meet

the apparently conflicting goals.

"That's the stuff we're working on. What's clear is that it's not

just passing magic language. It's how it gets implemented," she said.

William T. Dwyer III, executive director of the Cradle of Liberty

Council, said after the meeting: "There's no easy answers here. We're

getting calls from the right not to give in to the radical left. There is

no middle ground. You wouldn't believe the magnitude of homophobic bigotry

out there."

"""

Rooster7 writes:

> CubScouterFather came on to this forum to make a grand statement about his homosexuality and how

> hes been cheated out of an experience with his son. His agenda was obvious.

His "agenda?" You mean, beyond engaging in the sort of discussion that this forum was created for?

Speaking of agendas, Rooster, do you recognize the following from one of your earlier posts?

> Until then, I intend to fight that proposed policy change with

> all my might. Should I see the day when the policy is changed, I intend

> to leave Scouting. BSA would simply become another organization crushed

> by political correctness and moral relativism.

It seems more than a bit disingenuous on your part to try and dismiss the statements of a newcomer because he showed up to the discussion with some sort of "agenda."

> Intermingled within his tale were statements about this forum and how some folks can be judgmental.

> He set himself up to be a victim before I even made my first post.

Are you suggesting that new posters never lurk or read the earlier threads?

I don't think it would be very difficult to find earlier posts of yours that could easily be construed as "judgmental." Something like the following, perhaps?

> It doesn't take a degree to understand that homosexuality is wrong.

> With or without religion, the coupling of two men or two women does not

> make biological sense. Nature did not design men to share sexual

> intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual

> intimacy with one another. God create a man to be with a woman and a

> woman to be with a man. The idea of men pressing their flesh against

> one another is repulsive and obscene. If you consider these statements

> to be an attack, I'm sorry. I believe they represent common sense and

> the truth. I will not apologize for either.

And now back to your most recent post...

> All of my statements have been viewed with his version of reality tainting my words and casting a false

> image of me and everyone else that views homosexuality as a perversion. He, like many homosexual

> activists, is smart. He knows that if hes ever going to gain acceptance by society, he not only has to

> convince people that he is acting morally, but also cast those that view him as immoral as being bigoted,

> hateful, or just plain ignorant.

Rooster, you're not setting YOURSELF up as a victim here, are you? ;-)

> I have never made pointed statements concerning CubScouterFathers sexual behavior or his personal

> life. As youve noted, I dont know him. I have made pointed statements about homosexuality. I dont

> need to know CubScouterFather personally to judge homosexuality.

But that's the whole point. You don't know the man -- you just know one attribute (like religion or skin color) and then feel justified in making sweeping generalizations based on that. That's not a fair way to treat someone, and doesn't show much respect.

> I am

> passionately opposed to the idea of calling immoral behavior a preference, or an alternate lifestyle, or an > orientation. Actually, maybe I shouldnt voice my objection to the orientation label because we all

> have had or still have - an orientation to sin.

Interesting that we should be in pretty good agreement on this last point... I'm also passionately opposed to the "preference" or "alternate lifestyle" labels, but almost certainly not for the same reasons as you. "Preference" implies a choice, which is not consistent with the experience of any gay person I've ever met (myself included, of course). And "alternate lifestyle" not only implies a choice, but offers a sweeping generalization that trivializes sexual orientation and reinforces stereotypes that all gay people share some significant set of other attributes -- a stereotype that is neither supported by the research, or by my own personal experience (for whatever that's worth).

I think "orientation" is the proper way to describe someone's sexuality. I think we just differ strongly on what moral and ethical obligations an individual has when dealing with and living with his/her (non-heterosexual) sexual orientation.

YiS,

-Mark

I thought about posting this in the previous thread, but since that discussion has... ahem... devolved a bit, I'm starting a new one:

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports this morning that the city of Philadelphia has notified the Cradle of Liberty Council that it will be ending that council's free use of city property.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6836417.htm

"""

David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of Cradle of Liberty, said that

if the local council lost its city offices, it would work from its other

office, the Roger S. Firestone Scout Resource Center in Wayne.

"I think we would consolidate to one location," Lipson said, adding

that the council would not be able to afford to pay for space in the city.

. . . .

Lipson said that council executives were going to ask the city

representatives for time to work out the problems.

"Give us some time and some good planning. I think we can bring

about change, and everyone will be happy. We say give us time. We want to

end discrimination in Philadelphia. It's painful because you wish it would

happen for a lot of reasons. Discrimination is wrong," Lipson said.

"""

YiS,

-Mark

Interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6788642.htm

Apparently the City Solicitor has handed down a decision that Philadelphia's grant of free land use to the Cradle of Liberty Council violates the city's fair practices ordinance.

The article also quotes members of the COL board clarifying their intent to break from the national discriminatory policy with their move earlier this year (which may be of interest to some of the posters here who still buy National's statement that their policy always and only applied to Learning for Life):

" David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the local council, said, "My

hope is they want to work with us. Our council has said we want to end

discrimination of all types. It's been a difficult road. But we're

committed to change. To punish us makes absolutely no sense," he said."

YiS,

-Mark

Rooster7 writes:

> There is a huge difference between those hateful bigots of yesteryear who yearned for the day

> when a black man was just a piece of property, and the God fearing people of today who oppose

> the "normalization" of homosexuality. If it pleases you, make the comparison. But the truth is -

> you are insulting millions of morally grounded folks (by looks of the Fox News poll, at least half of

> this country). Of course, it is plain to see, from your prospective and that of others on this board,

> homosexuals are the ones who are being insulted.

and also writes:

> I take comfort in the knowledge that there many good men in this country that know the difference

> gender, race, and sexual perversity.

Umm... the prosecution rests, your honor.

Do you really think that referring to gay people with words like "sexual perversity" doesn't really count as an insult?

If that's your belief, fine. But not everyone shares your theology on the issue, and your strident denunciations implying that "morally grounded folks" have to agree with you on this point certainly cross the line into "insulting" by any objective criteria. You've just branded quite a few denominations (Episcopal, UU, UCC, Reform Judaism, etc.) as being morally ungrounded, and have turned this from a civil and philosophical debate into a theological one.

And were you one of the ones wondering why the court in San Diego decided that the BSA was, in fact, a religious organization?

YiS,

-Mark

FOG writes:

> I had been under the impression that the "ban" was not on homosexual Scouts, only on

> homosexual Scouters. NRP kept saying that the ban is on homosexual Scouts. Score one for NPR > for spinning the story.

The BSA itself stated that the policy applied to Scouts as well as Scouters, or in their words "homsexual members and leaders." Check out the statements the BSA submitted in the recent court case involving the state of Connecticut for some good examples of this. This wasn't "spun" by NPR -- rather, they got it right and refused to be taken in by the popular spin that this whole thing is about gay adult outsiders trying to get in.

> The comments from the Council "board" member were interesting but said nothing about COL's

> original change, if indeed one occurred. Who knows what he said first. Score another for NPR.

What they said first was very clearly documented in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and was consistent with everything said in this most recent story. Think for a minute -- why would National threaten to revoke the entire charter of one of its largest councils if no real change was on the table to begin with?

YiS,

-Mark

Laurie:

I am not accusing you of lying... I am simply stating that your characterization of the events in the COL was incorrect -- and most probably because you were given incorrect or "spun" information from Bill Dwyer or whatever DE you spoke with.

The original policy adopted there was, in fact, designed to buck the National one, and it wasn't until National jumped down their throats a few days later that they reversed course.

You don't have to believe me over your SE (even though I haven't nearly the same vested interest in this issue that he does) -- You can listen to your own board members from the COL describing in detail exactly the same thing I've already laid out. Check out that news piece on NPR I posted earlier...

YiS,

-Mark

It seems the URL to the NPR story didn't display in my last post... it's:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=22-Aug-2003&prgId=2

(about halfway down the page)

NPR ran a story on Friday about the Cradle of Liberty Council and its current funding problems. It quotes both BSA national spokesmen and board members from the COL stating that the COL's policy _was_ intended to be inclusive, but within days of its adoption National threatened to decharter the council if it didn't publicly rescind its policy:

(about halfway down the page)

Evmori:

In response to your question:

> Couldn't help but notice you seem to be part of inclusivescouting.net which is a group that feels

> the BSA should not exclude anyone. Interesting! I must ask since I noticed something else, are

> you a homosexual? Somthing I have read seems to indicate that.

Yes. I revealed my sexual orientation in a newspaper article and was kicked out in July 2000 against the wishes of my local troop, parents, and the church that had hosted our troop for over 60 years. There should be plenty of background on it if you do a Google search on my name...

YiS,

-Mark

Laurie writes:

> That was eluded to in other earlier articles, but when I contacted council, I was told that there was

> no new policy for the BSA--only a clearly spelled out non-discrimination policy for LFL.

This is incorrect.

The policy adopted by COL read in part:

"United Way has brought to out attention the fact that the Agency Membership agreement contains a promise to "operate, by policy and practice, on a non-discriminatory basis" including "sexual orientation" as well as race, color, religion, ancestry, age, non-job related handicap, and citizenship."

"It is our duty to live up to that promise fully in our policy and practice, including all programs, employment and adult leadership. This practice reflects the spirit under which the Cradle of Liberty Council has been operating."

This was presented to the United Way and other local funders as covering "all programs" of the council, just as stated above. There would have been nothing newsworthy about a policy only covering LFL, since LFL is already run in a non-discriminatory manner anyway.

This policy was re-spun after National came down on COL and threated to revoke their charter and replace the board.

> My DE also called me and spoke to me directly on this issue, assuring me that though there are

> varied thoughts in council (when aren't there in any group?), the council had no desire to go against > national and had remained consistent with national and would continue to do so.

This isn't accurate, either. The Council President (David Lipson) and United Way leaders spoke at length to Linda Harris at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and they made it pretty clear that everyone had agreed that the new policy applied to "traditional scouting programs" in the COL as well as LFL. Remember that this is also one of the council that sponsored the resolution from the 2001 National Meeting to change the membership policies from a national standard to a local option.

I think it's abundantly clear that many in the COL wanted to take a step away from National's policy here, but were crushed. Even the later statement from the COL exec, Bill Dwyer, was issued and distributed from Texas.

> It's sad, isn't it, when the media is portraying the BSA as local council against national.

But that's precisely what happened. COL only fell back into step after National put the screws to them back in May.

YiS,

-Mark

Eisely writes:

> This still leaves the youth out of the decision making process. One does wonder if at least some of

> the youth members aren't looking for a different home in scouting as we speak.

The youth in this unit were not in the decision-making process -- the parents and unit committee were. And as I understand it from the people involved there, the youth members generally share their parent's views on the issue, which is that they vary between frustrated with the BSA and outright disgusted. Rather than look for a new Scouting home, the crew members are sticking together but are looking to re-form under another organization, such as Campfire or 4H.

Furthermore, it is a mischaracterization to assume -- as several have on this forum -- that this was the action of one adult using the youth "to achieve their own ends." Simply re-reading the article from the Press-Democrat should show you that there was a pretty good consensus among the members of this unit.

You could make a better argument that it was actually the BSA in this case that is using the youth to achieve their own ends. When the youth and parents of a given unit are in agreement, and there is no immediate test case, what interest is served by the local BSA council kicking all these kids out of Scouting?

YiS,

-Mark

Eamonn writes:

> As to if I think that the BSA,is anti gay?

> I have no idea what "Anti" means.

> While we do not allow avowed homosexuals as members. To the best of my

> knowledge, we respect that this is a life style that they have opted to follow. We

> do not make any judgement on it, other then we do not think that this is a good

> role model for our members.

You just answered your own question. First you have judged gays as having "chosen" a "life style" to follow -- an assertion that most gays and professional medical associations would take issue with. Then you have categorically stated that these people are not good role models.

Just because you repeatedly say that you "respect" them doesn't mean that your words or actions actually SHOW any respect. Take a look at some of these quotes from other BSA officials:

"Boy Scouts of America regards homosexual conduct as inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath to be morally straight and in the Scout Law to be clean in one's speech and action"

"We don't feel an avowed homosexual is a role model for those values, and we don't extend roles for leadership to those people."

" In the Oath and Law, the Boy Scout promises to do his duty to God and to be morally straight, as well as to be clean in his thoughts, words and deeds.... an individual who declares himself to be a homosexual would not be permitted to join Scouting. All members in Scouting must affirm the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and all leaders must be able to model those values for youth."

If you really can't see where others would be able to reasonably perceive some anti-gay sentiments in the previous statements, then perhaps you could go through and replace "homosexual" with "Catholic" or "Negro" to see how well it would fly.

True respect is more than lip service -- it involves an honest attempt at understanding someone different from you. You might start by asking a few gay folks about what motivated them to "choose" such a "life style." You might be surprised by the answers you get...

YiS,

-Mark

Bob White writes:

(and by the way your other links do not work.)

First, my apologies for the links not working. This forum seems to have munged the URL somewhat, and I can't edit it. (Moderators, can you help out here?)

The second link URL is the same as the first, except that it reads "BSA_Memo_Mar_1978.pdf" at the end. The final one should have started with http:// rather than https://

Try this one, instead -- it links directly to all the documents in question:

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/

> Mark the link you gave http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

> Says POSITION not policy it is an interpretation of the membership policy as it applies to a situation.

Right. But the NEXT memo in that case is three times as long, comes directly from the president and chief scout executive, and outlines the "POLICY" on gay membership (their words, their caps). Please take a look at that one as well.

> The policy is not that the BSA excludes gays.

That policy, as well as the most recent statements from Roy Williams, all make it clear that gays are ineligible for membership just as soon as any member of their community becomes apprised of their sexual orientation. (This is, incidentally, pretty consistent across the past decade or so). Arguing as you do, unfortunately, is a bit disingenuous, because it's like saying:

"It's not that the BSA excludes Jews, they just have to keep their Judaism to themselves and are only kicked out if they make an issue of it (i.e. if someone else in the unit or community discovers that they are Jewish)."

You can quibble over the details as much as you like if it makes you feel better, but the ultimate truth is that the BSA's policy (yes, "policy" -- look it up) is to marginalize, silence, and keep out as many gay people as they possibly can while not overly antagonizing moderate parents and donors.

Whether this current course of action is moral, ethical, sustainable, or even good for the Scouting movement in the long run is, of course, the heart of the issue here.

YiS,

-Mark

Here's a article from Philadelphia today that brings up several recent topics:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6200252.htm

Here are some excerpts:

For more than three-quarters of a century, a local Boy Scout council has enjoyed the free use of city land for its headquarters at 22d and Winter Streets in Philadelphia.

Now city politicians and gay civil rights activists - in light of the Scouts' rigid anti-gay stance - are raising questions about that arrangement.

. . . .

In 1928, the Philadelphia City Council voted in favor of letting the Philadelphia Boy Scouts use rent-free nearly half an acre of land "in perpetuity."

. . . .

The questions arise because of the city's prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The prohibition is part of the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which was passed in 1982 by City Council. In 2002, in a bill introduced by DiCicco, council added sexual identity, which affects transsexuals, to the list.

A spokeswoman for the mayor said Friday that the administration was studying the issue of what to do with the property.

"The mayor has asked us to look at the 1928 agreement and see how it squares up with or is in opposition to the Fair Practices Ordinance," said Barbara Grant, the mayor's spokeswoman. "We're not sure how the law applies here, and we want to take a look at that before we take a position here."

. . . .

Stacey L. Sobel, executive director of Philadelphia's Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, said the center is in the process of reviewing the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which, as she pointed out, forbids a group from invoking "its private character for the purpose of excluding or discriminating."

Bob White writes:

> If there is now a written policy then you should be able to share with us what it says precisely, when it was

> written, and where it can be found.

>

> I would interested in such information.

The first written records of an actual "Policy" with respect to homosexual members are from early 1978:

A BSA memorandum to all Scout Executives (Feb. 1978) on the expulsion of two homosexual youth members of an explorer post in Minnesota:

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf'>http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

A follow-up memo from Scout Executive Harvey L. Price (March 1978) detailing the BSA's "Policy" on homosexual members and leader. (Yes, it uses the word "POLICY" in all capital letters and underlined)

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf

But the most recent affirmation of that is the following memo to all Scout Executives from Roy Williams, sent Monday June 9th, 2003:

https://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/memo-9-june-2003.html

SM406 writes:

> Just a side thought. I find it interesting that if you disagree with the homosexual movement you are intolerant.

I guess that depends on what you understand the "homosexual movement" to be about. If you see it as an attempt to change everyone's closely held beliefs about such issues, then I can see where you're coming from.

But you don't have to change your own personal beliefs in order to allow someone else to hold beliefs that differ from yours... that's the cornerstone of our democracy and our freedoms.

To the extent that you disagree with the premise that our democracy should be tolerant of and make a place for people who are different from you in some way (religious belief, etc.), then it shouldn't really come as any surprise that some people choose to use the adjective "intolerant."

YiS,

-Mark

Bob White writes:

> Because, you said that "The opinion seems to be that all the gays in scouting should stay in the closet and it is not

> an opinion. It is the POLICY of the BSA.

Just as a minor point, I did not say that. The quote above came from a previous posting by Questioning.

But given the shaky nature of the BSA's "policy" -- which they have been loath to put into writing or to promulgate in any way, it seems that the word "opinion" is still the right word to use.

After all, if the "policy" were so clear, then why would there be so much misunderstandings in, say, Philadelphia?

(And before I hear the inevitable chorus of media distortion, it should probably be pointed out that the misunderstanding I'm referring to were those born of face-to-face meetings with local sponsors and funding agencies BEFORE the media ever got wind of it.)

YiS,

-Mark

Bob White writes:

> Simply not true, you can be accepting and still not know. You won't know unless they tell you. Until that time they

> are eligible to be members of the BSA.

and in the same post, also writes in response to another poster:

> > "The opinion seems to be that all the gays in scouting should stay in the closet and continue to teach non-

> > acceptance to the youth of america."

>

> Incorrect. The rule is that as long as you do not publicly avow your homosexuality you may remain a member and

> lead scouting using the methods of the BSA and supporting the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

How do these two statements make sense? In the first, you argue that a gay person would be eligible for membership only as long as he was able to keep people around him in the dark about his sexual orientation, and that as soon as he told someone, he would no longer be eligible for membership.

But in the same post, you described as "Incorrect" the assertion that gays in scouting "should stay in the closet."

Can you please explain your reasoning here?

YiS,

-Mark

Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject of CA judges and the BSA:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scouts19jun19,1,3338863.story

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6144787.htm

And here's an excerpt from the LA Times story that might answer a few questions:

"""

Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics.

The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.

. . . .

The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judges from belonging to groups that discriminate against minorities, women and gays, but exempts nonprofit youth organizations.

"""

Basically, the BSA already had its own exemption carved out in the CA Code of Judical Ethics (it's widely understood that the exemption for nonprofit youth organizations was put in specifically for the BSA.) Several bar associations -- such as San Francisco, no surprise there -- have been pushing to have this exemption removed. So they're really targeting an exemption that targets the BSA rather than targeting the BSA directly.

For whatever difference THAT distinction makes, of course...

YiS,

-Mark

Laurie (CubPack495) writes:

> This was not a reversal, but rather a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Cradle of Liberty

> changed one policy only: the one relating to Learning for Life.

Except that LFL never discriminated to begin with... so why would all the community leaders and funders in Philadelphia consider the policy to be some kind of "breakthrough?"

The real problem here is that the policy was made out to be one thing to the funders, and was then quickly re-interpreted the moment it was put to the test. Now most of the funders and supporters in Philadelphia feel betrayed, and that they can no longer trust the local council.

Here's the latest article on that from today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6162554.htm

> The position statement on leadership in this council is on National's website.

Yes, dated June 12. And Roy William's "clarifying" memo was sent Monday morning, June 9. But all of this was AFTER Greg Lattera was kicked out, and after everyone in Philadelphia had been reporting on the "new" non-discrimination policy for almost two weeks without a correction from CoL.

Here's a good URL if you want to see some more detailed information on the case as it pertains to Greg Lattera (including copies or links to a lot of these documents and news stories):

http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/lattera/

> Though the media is continuing to publish statements that are incurate, the council is not

> addressing this publicly but will answer anyone who asks them about it.

I'm curious... exactly what media statement was inacurrate and why? From everything that I've seen, the vast majority of the local media coverage -- especially from the Philadelphia Inqurer -- has been very accurate. Linda Harris at the Inquirer has been following this for over a month now, and has spoken at great length to everyone involved, including Bill Dwyer and David Lipson at CoL. She's done a lot of homework on this, and based on my own knowledge of what's been going on there, I haven't seen any real howlers.

YiS,

-Mark

nldscout writes:

> well its obvious isn't! The guy is Gay, he has to show it off, like" Look at me, I am a Queer" .

> Thats the problem with the fruitcake community, they can't just live and let live, they have to make

> a big deal out of it

Um... did it ever occur to you that referring to someone as a member of "the fruitcake commmunity" is hardly a good example of "live and let live?" Not to mention discourteous and unkind, of course...

If you'd like to know why many gay people feel the need to come out (or "show it off" as you so indelicately put it), you might want to check out the following:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#tellorientation

YiS,

-Mark

btps writes:

> What was this scout thinking when he decided come out???? Didnt he know that his registration

> was going too denied??? Or asked not to come back??? Was he living in some cave on some

> island?? If he believed that the BSA was an outstanding organization he should have kept his

> mouth shout.

And done what? Lied? Hidden? What if he thought that the best thing for the Scouting movement here in the US would be to confront this issue head-on rather than having everyone pretend that there weren't gay scouts out there?

Even if you disagree with him, you gotta give him credit for following the 10th point of the Scout Law. And the 1st, for that matter...

> By his actions he is tearing the BSA apart.

I think you give entirely too much credit to one 18-year-old Life Scout. If the BSA is coming apart, it's not because one young man decided he could trust his local Scout Executive to do what he said.

YiS,

-Mark