NJCubScouter

And it is perhaps symbolic that the site of the former national headquarters (North Brunswick, New Jersey; BSA used a New Brunswick mailing address but they were really in North Brunswick) is in what used to be the Central New Jersey Council, which shut down about a year ago due to financial reasons. I do not know their financial situation in detail, but I am sure a loss in corporate donations and United Way funds (resulting in part from the membership issue) had a lot to do with it.

I think Mr. Gates addressed that in his speech in May 2015. He mentioned what he had said a year earlier but said the situation had changed. Of course, it would have been better if he had not made a definitive statement in 2014 that he then had to retract. It is typical of the whole clumsy way the BSA has handled this issue, especially since 2012. First they said they weren't going to revisit the issue, then a few months later a proposal for local option was made behind closed doors and "leaked", then they did that whole survey thing, then they withdrew the proposal for local option and replaced it with the proposal regarding youth members and there was the whole thing about that, and their resolution said they weren't going to revisit the adult leader issue, then in 2014 Gates says what this thread is about, then a year later he changed his mind and the BSA said the change will be voted on in October, but then it's July and they're voting. The whole process reminds me of a chicken running around with its head cut off. None of which changes the fact that I agree with the ultimate conclusion and think it would be best if people stop making doomsday predictions and try to make it work for the benefit of the Scouts.

The BSA has not changed its character. Excluding gay people from all units, regardless of what those units wanted, and imposing one religious belief on everybody, was contrary to the fundamental values and character of Scouting. That is what this has been all about. (But if you want to discuss that, please do it in a different thread, so this thread stays on track.)

But with a pretty specific focus. In reading that document I counted seven different reminders that someone like me would not be welcome in their group. Not that I would want to join even if I were allowed to, so I'm not offended by it, mostly just amused.

Aw, too bad you didn't smack him. Even worse, I wasn't there to see you smack him.

Fearmongerer, as in "I am sure the new membership will not look kindly to that song"?[/size] Or perhaps, fearmongerer, as in... Wait a second. I'm pretty sure it's just "fearmonger." Let's start over. (I'm pretty sure I'm stealing this idea from a Monty Python sketch.) Or perhaps, fearmonger, as in all of the dire predictions about what is going to happen to the BSA as a result of this decision that I have been reading for the past couple of weeks. So, BadWolf, ask not for whom the fearmongerering tolls, it tolls for thee.

As usual, not giving legal advice here. But here is my opinion: The protection recognized in Dale remains in place, but the BSA is no longer making use of it. The Supreme Court decided that due to the BSA's (alleged) "teaching" that homosexuality is "wrong", the BSA is not required to "associate" with gay people, since the First Amendment "freedom of expressive association" trumps (oh, that name) New Jersey's public accommodations law. But now the BSA has decided to "associate" with gay people, even though it still has (at least for the moment) the constitutional right not to do so. So where does that leave religious organizations that are CO's? They could try to use the protection of "freedom of expressive association", but they don't need to. They already have the right to exclude people under their First Amendment "freedom of religion" - something the BSA itself could not use. I am pretty sure that the BSA legal memo that was posted on their web site on the day of the first vote (mid-July) basically says (or is at least consistent with) what I have just said, but I read it only very quickly, on the day it appeared, so I could be mistaken.

Yes, somewhere in Texas RichardB breaks into a cold sweat and doesn't know why.

Five below zero. We were in a "cabin" but it didn't didn't really help. As I recall, three of the Scouts decided to go outside and sleep in tents. The most snow I ever saw on a camping trip (as an adult) was 3 or 4 inches but I know there was one last winter with more snow, don't know how much.

T2Eagle: I agree. I was mainly focusing on SpEdScouter's question about seeing "all black" troops but few "diverse" troops (meaning "mixed" though some might frown on that term.) I believe we have a couple of "all black" troops in our district, from a city that is mostly of that ethnicity. So that's what I was talking about. The overall lack of diversity is a problem. We have areas around where I live that have large concentrations of Asian, Hispanic, African-American and other "minorities", but very few of them are involved in Scouting.

It probably depends a lot on where people live. The ethnic makeup of a troop is probably going to reflect the ethnic makeup of the area that the troop is from. So if you see an "all black" troop at summer camp, it may well be that the population of the city, town or neighborhood that the troop is from is primarily of that group as well.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - thare's gambling going on in here.

I think Trail Life's statements (and media reporting and mis-reporting thereof) about gay members have created a lot of confusion, but their position is pretty clear to me. If you read that NBC link and then read what robert12 linked-to above from their own web site, and assume they mean all of what they say, this is what I get: Trail life will not kick anyone out for being gay unless they "flaunt it." I believe (based on their own web site) that they would define "flaunting" as making a self-identification as being gay. In other words, while saying "I am gay" by itself will no longer result in expulsion from the BSA (but may result in expulsion of adults from religious-organization/CO's that choose to do), I believe that statement would result in expulsion from Trail Life. So it's ok to be gay in Trail Life as long as nobody knows about it. That is not the same as the BSA's current policy regarding youth (since 1/1/14) or adults (since yesterday.)

These kids today, huh? No previous generation has ever had THAT said about them before, right? (That was sarcasm.)

I agree with Packsaddle. I believe the moderators have acted fairly. I also believe that Terry is trying to set a new tone for the forum. That doesn't mean the new BSA policy (if there is one) cannot be discussed. But it does mean that posts and pictures that attempt to paint an entire group of people as being terrible and dangerous people are no longer going to be permitted. I think that as rational people, we don't need to go to that extent to discuss the subject.

In all likelihood, if the reporter had reached a BSA spokesperson, the only comment would have been along the lines of, "we cannot comment on pending litigation." So there would not have been much more to the story anyway.

Maybe the BSA did think of it. I certainly have. Does this group own (or is otherwise able to provide) a suitable meeting and storage space? Do they have an EIN number (or whatever religious organizations have) so they can open a bank account? What shall we call it, Congregation of the Local Boy Scout Troop? Hurry, the DE's already in his car on his way over to get the charter paperwork signed. Sounds like win-win-win to me...

I hope they find what they need. I do not want anyone to feel they have to leave Scouting over this, though some will leave. As I've said before, if people want to make this work, it can work, and if they want to make it not work, well...

As I have probably said before, I was not impressed with the Tiger program when my son was going through it, and I thought the 4.5 year Cub program was too long. It soured a lot of the parents and some of the kids on continuing into Boy Scouts. What I really don't understand is why National is still experimenting with the Lion (kindergarten) program. It will just make matters worse. Five and a half years? And most of the kids are just too young at that point. Some kids when they first start kindergarten are still 4 years old. They're basically still toddlers. It's too soon. What's next, pre-K Scouts for 3 year olds?

I was planning to stop posting in this thread, but I think this is a unique question that doesn't really relate to everything that has been hashed and rehashed over 14 pages (so far). Presumably, at least in theory, the OA already is "inclusive" as far as youth members are concerned. Openly gay youth have been allowed to be members of the BSA since the beginning of 2014. If they are elected to the OA and complete the requirements, I don't see any basis for excluding them.

Stosh, I don't see what your last two comments have to do with other.

What "offensive behavior" are you talking about, Stosh?

I'll start off the commentary. I understand your reasons for making this suggestion but I have mixed feelings about it. For one thing, it could seem like we are dividing up the forum on the basis of religion. I also think it is good to have a sharing of information among the different ways of providing the program. I am not necessarily opposing your idea but would like to see the thoughts of others, including our other forum members who are in LDS units.

There are some areas in some of the "blue states" that are not as "liberal" as you might think. In any event, I don't know how it is going to break down. I know that there are a number of units in my area chartered to Catholic churches, and I'm assuming they are not going to be approving any openly gay leaders. Of course that is just an assumption. I know some of the other churches will be "inclusive", not sure about the rest. Your assumption about what I would prefer is incorrect. I want people to have a choice. If those are the only two choices, I would prefer they stay in Scouting through Lone Scouts. But I do not think those are the only two choices. New units can be formed and new CO's can be found, to provide a choice.

Done.