NJCubScouter

Beavah says: There is also da practical issue of gay male "recruitment" of (typically younger) men, which is a part of the culture. And necessary in light of da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality. Those are stereotypes, and I don't think the BSA should be basing its policy on stereotypes. (And it doesn't; in fact, the BSA does not base its policy on the supposed behavior of gay leaders toward youth members at all. If it did, the policy would cover all gay leaders and would permit investigations into whether someone is gay. It does not; it only applies to people who are "avowedly" gay.) Now, some stereotypes do have some basis in fact, but I have to admit that I am not an expert in the "culture" of gay people nor in the "nature of male homosexuality", so I don't really know for sure whether that is the case here. Are there objective scientific studies, showing the numbers of gay vs. straight men who engage in sexual behavior with under-age people? And even if there really were some difference in the numbers, that wouldn't justify a blanket policy covering everybody. Had to deal with that with an ASM in a troop once and 16-17 year old scouts. Have you ever heard of an adult male, such as a teacher, engaging in sexual conduct with under-age females, such as students? I know I have. But we don't ban heterosexuals from being teachers, or Scout leaders, just because some act improperly. We deal with the improper conduct on a case by case basis, and through the criminal justice system if it goes that far.

When did this become about gay marriage? It isn't, as far as I am concerned. I try to discuss these kinds of issues only as they relate to Scouting. If I want to get into a generalized discussion of politics and religion, there are a lot more suitable forums to do it in. vol_scouter, I do not fault anyone for seeking recognition of rights. That doesn't mean I think any particular person or group is correct that they have rights that are not being recognized. Some are, some aren't. Generally, if a group is seeking recognition of their right to break the law (i.e. "pedophiles", although that term is kind of imprecise), they aren't going to get much sympathy from me. In the case of gay people, the government of my state and some others have recognized that people should not be discriminated against in employment, public accommodations and in other ways, on the basis of sexual orientation. (Which means, adult sexual orientation.) Where this relates to Scouting is that it would be much better if we recognize that different parts of society (different states, different parts of states, etc.) currently have different societal policies when it comes to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore allow different Scouting units to make their own choices when it comes to leadership. Which is exactly what Scouting does now, in almost every case. Scouting even permits units to discriminate on the basis of gender in making leadership decisions... but it ''requires'' units to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It makes no sense.

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was? Yeah, I know. Imagine those uppity gays, demanding rights and stuff. You'd think they were human beings or something. Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal? You do realize that makes no sense at all, right? Well, no, you probably don't.

Ok, Ed, so let's say it's politics. So what? The BSA still shouldn't expect special deals from a governmental entity when it is violating that entity's policies for getting a special deal. If the BSA got a "pass" for 6, 20 or 50 years, it should be happy it got the pass, but now it has to deal with the consequences of its decisions. I don't see why that is such a difficult concept when, presumably, it is similar to ideas that we teach our children. Or do you instruct your Scouts that if they break the rules, but get away with it for a long time, when they finally get caught, they should plead "selective enforcement"? (The fact is, by the way, that if this lease was created in 1928, nobody had any idea what the BSA policy was towards gay leaders. They didn't need a policy, because sexual orientation was something that "just wasn't discussed." And besides, Philadelphia probably had no policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation until the 1980's or 90's. I suspect there were very, very few states or cities that had such policies before that time. New Jersey's anti-discrimination statute, the one that produced the Dale case, was not amended to deal with sexual orientation until around 1990, and Philadelphia was probably on the same general schedule. And it was in the same general time frame that the BSA began discussing internally what their policy was on gay leaders, and the details of the "policy" changed a few times until it was "announced" in the early 1990's. All this has been discussed before, but apparently some have forgotten.)

Ed, if you want to call a city enforcing its policies "politics", you can. I am not sure what it adds to the discussion, though. What exactly do you mean by politics, anyway?

chikara, I find your post to be kind of rude. Nobody said anything about being "all bent outta shape", being "all worked up", or making anything a "major issue." There is nothing to "move on" from. All I said was that the color was ugly. I also have no need to buy any uniform, new or old, as the shirt I have is just fine and will last as long as I will probably need it to. The boys never looked like Communist military with a tiny little bit of red on the shirt. I never heard any complaints about it -- nor has any boy in our troop ever complained about the red neckerchiefs (the standard BSA red neckerchief) they all wear. In fact, with their neckerchiefs, even when boys start coming in with the new uniforms, they will still be wearing almost as much red as with the old uniform. Or are they discontinuing the red neckerchiefs, too?

I just saw the new Boy Scout shoulder loops "in person" for the first time at a district event yesterday. That has to be the ugliest color I have ever seen. Is that supposed to be olive green? It looks like it has some grey in it. Oh well, since I have no foreseeable need to get another shirt, I will probably never wear them. Yesterday was also my first time seeing widespread use of the green unit numbers, on some Webelos dens. (This was a first aid event with a Boy Scout patrol competition upstairs and Webelos Readyman instruction downstairs.) Not necessarily ugly, but if anyone thought boys would be more interested in wearing the new color than the old white-on-red numbers, I don't see why they would. Then again, maybe my "fashion sense" is not up to date: When I was a teenager I saw no problem with wearing the long Boy Scout socks with the garters when I was wearing the shorts. I have shown these to my son, much to his horror. Of course, the BSA will never get all the red off the uniform shirt, unless they are planning to adopt a new version of the American flag.

Ed, Merlyn is correct about the time frame. I have been on this forum for more than six years (with a two-year break) and I am sure I have been reading about this Philadelphia thing for almost that whole period.

Eamonn says: I have never felt very comfortable being where I'm not welcome. If the laws are saying that the BSA is not welcome. That is that! That may be that for you, but not for the BSA. Their attitude seems to be that they are going to litigate this until the end of time, if not longer. And, as I have said, the BSA has crossed the line from imposing their membership policies internally to try to force their acceptance by others.

I agree with those who say to stay out of this. It also sounds like a hypothetical question; i.e. people sitting around asking "what if" this situation exists. My suggestion is, don't worry about it, and don't go looking for issues that aren't your problem. As others have said, if you have a permission slip signed by a parent, it is not your responsibility to inquire further. You do not need to know about the internal family politics of the boys in your troop. Even if you know there is a divorce situation, as far as you are concerned the parent who is with the boy at any given time is the parent who has the right to be with the boy at that time and to give permission for the boy to participate in activities. Where the issue might actually come up is if you are actually told by one parent that the other does not have the right to do something they are doing, or have done. You should still try to stay out of it. But if I were an SM and someone showed me a court order that said little Billy is not to leave the state without the permission of both parents, and one of the parents was telling me that little Billy does not have permission to go on an out of state trip, I would be concerned. I am not sure exactly what I would do, but I don't think I would just ignore it. However, it does not sound like this has happened. Of course, this is all subject to what I said in the thread that Eamonn started about legal advice in an Internet forum: None of the above is legal advice, I am not your lawyer, etc.

Eamonn is correct. Legal advice that you get on the Internet may be interesting and it may even be correct, but you should never rely on it. You really don't know who you are dealing with. I can say I am a lawyer -- and I have, and I am -- but none of you actually knows whether I really am or not. Any responsible lawyer who does give advice over the Internet also says that you can't rely on it, it is not really legal advice, consult with your own attorney, etc. The other important thing is that most of legal issues that people ask about involve state law, and every state has its own laws. Most lawyers are admitted to practice in 1 or 2 states. The thread that I think this comes from involves matrimonial law, which is probably one of the least "uniform" areas of the law among the different states. So even a real lawyer, and even the best real lawyer, isn't necessarily going to be able to give you an answer that applies in your state and to your situation. Besides which, most people who ask legal questions in a forum like this do not provide enough facts to give a valid answer anyway (as with the thread in question.)

hops, if you don't want to read it, don't read it. As for what the city of Philadelphia wants, it is the same thing many United Ways have wanted, and what a number of other governmental and non-governmental organizations have wanted: To enforce their own non-discrimination policies. The BSA is free to enforce their membership policies within the BSA, but they cannot impose their membership policies on other organizations or the government.

The Scout: Again with the labels? Anyway, I seem to remember from my constitutional law class that the Federalist Party was the first to expand the power of the courts. Hardly liberals, they. vol_scouter: You left the "ic" off "Democratic". A lot of people seem to make that mistake these days.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Vol-Scouter, I didn't want to get into the argument over the 2000 election, but as long as you brought it up... The votes were recounted more once including the New York Times. None of the recounts resulted with a Gore victory. Actually as far as I know there was one effort to (unofficially) recount the votes statewide, by an organization that was hired by a consortium of news organizations, including the New York Times. You can read all about it here: http://tinyurl.com/5tz3gk (It is a Wikipedia article and therefore subject to the warning that any Wikipedia article may or may not be correct, but in this case the article seems to be well-researched, unvandalized and objective, plus I followed the link to the source material and it appears to say the same thing.) The people doing the study used a variety of alternative methods, some of which indicated a victory for Gore, some a victory for Bush. Interestingly, the result of a statewide recount of all votes in this study is a Gore victory of between 60 and 171 votes. What the news articles pointed out at the time was that Gore did not request a statewide recount, so by the recount method he chose, even if the Supreme Court had not stopped it, Bush would have won. But if the question is, who did more people in Florida vote for, based on the information available to the study, it was Gore. It is of course impossible to know for sure, either way, because of all the problems with the punch cards, including the cards being damaged after the election, etc. I was always amazed that this is the system to which we entrusted the election of any public official, much less a president. Until the Florida thing happened, I had no idea that any place in the United States still used a voting system like that, it was so much different from anything I had ever encountered in New Jersey. Even the 1950's-era (or maybe older), purely mechanical voting machines on which I voted until about 10-15 years ago seemed better. Before you bring it up the SCOTUS merely instructed the Florida Supreme court to follow Florida state law and not to make up laws as they go. Some people interpreted the case that way. I thought it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was making things up as it went along. It was one of the most blatant examples of "judicial activism" I have ever seen.

401 keg, good one Hal. The best retirement planning advice I can give is to either (1) win the lottery or (2) inherit a lot of money (which basically amounts to the same thing.) Of course, in my case I don't even play (1) and know of no prospects for (2)... but it's still the best advice.

Packsaddle says: ...G.W. Bush. I guess, to be fair, I can't blame him alone either. We elected him. We elected him? Well... did we? We did the second time, although some people even doubt that. But the first time, we'll never really know. The Electoral College did elect him the first time, but that may have included electors from Florida who weren't actually elected by the people from Florida. I'm not trying to stir up a big discussion about this, but every time I see it stated that Bush was elected, I still feel a need to put the "asterisk" on there. But, Packsaddle, your point is otherwise a good one. I never expected Bush to be a good President, so I never voted for him, and I got what I expected. Now, would Gore and/or Kerry have been any better in handling an economic crisis, or in not allow it to get as serious as it has before doing something? I know what I think the answer is, but if I say it, I would expect people to say, "prove it." And I can't prove it. But I know what I think. As for OGE's idea... great concept, and if the numbers worked out, it would be difficult to argue against it. Oh well. (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Gwd, you mention that Hillary Clinton "won't go away either." I think that's a little different. She did help Obama win the election and her reward is apparently going to be the Secretary of State position. Regardless of whether you personally like her or not (and I personally don't, very much), she has "earned" the right to still be around, at least in a political sense. And I think she has the ability to be a good Secretary of State, if her (and her husband's) egos don't get in the way. As for Sarah Palin, I agree with packsaddle. Youbetcha!

From listening to and reading the political rhetoric over the past few months (including in this forum), it seems that "Socialism" is when the government helps someone else. When the government helps "you", it's "economic stimulus."

What I think is that GW and GaHillBilly need to hang out with a better -- or at least a more representative -- class of gay people. And by the way, there are monogamous and non-monogamous "straight" people as well. Maybe the percentage breakdown isn't the same, but there are no "zeros" in any category.

ScoutMom, you certainly have the right -- even the responsibility -- not to put your children in a situation that makes you uncomfortable. I wonder whether your discomfort results more from the particular individuals whom you have observed. If not, I wonder whether, with additional experience with the Boy Scout program, you might eventually change your mind. The difference between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in this respect may stem partly from the way that units in each program are organized. Years ago, I had some experience with Girl Scout program when my daughters (now adults) were members, and it did seem like more of a parent-run program (as is the Cub Scouts) rather than an adult (parents+others)-supervised program like the Boy Scouts. Regardless of the reasons, that's just the way it is. You allude to the problem of child abuse in Scouting. As you probably know, the BSA has made great strides away from this unfortunate past with its Youth Protection program, which I am proud to serve as a training facilitator. I have to wonder whether the statistics in that area would show any greater incidence of wrongdoing by leaders without sons in the program than by those with sons in the program. I doubt it. As the Youth Protection training teaches us, child abusers fit no pattern, which is why the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of how sure we may be that a particular person is not a problem. Perhaps my thinking on the subject of leaders without sons currently in the program is influenced by the memory of my father. He was an adult Scouter for more than 60 years. Roughly in the middle of that period, he had sons in various levels of the program for 16 years, so you do the math: Most of his service as a unit-level Scouter was during times when he had either no children, sons below Scouting age or sons who had aged out or quit. I can assure you that he was in the program for the right reasons. I think he saw himself as a teacher, but of the Scouting ideals of character, fitness, citizenship, leadership, self-reliance, duty to self and others, etc., rather than any particular academic or career topic. (Although he did the latter as well, as a merit badge counselor in his career field, among others.) Near the end of his Scouting career, he focused on mentoring young men as they went for Eagle, as well as encouraging Scouts to achieve their religious awards, although he himself was not very religious. I'm feeling a need to stop typing now. But isn't this an example of someone with a good reason to continue as a Scouter, as long as circumstances allow?

Well said, Terry. I am watching John McCain's gracious, eloquent concession speech right now. I hope his supporters are listening.

I wish there were a position "between" JASM and ASM for 18-to-20 year olds. Some in that age group would be fine as ASM's, but I think there should be another option.

Good grief. The U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the BSA membership "policy" had nothing to do with who sleeps in what tent. There are other BSA policies, real policies, ones you can find in training materials and officially published rules and guidelines, that cover that. (Who sleeps in what tent, I mean.) As for the future of that particular Supreme Court decision, well... it was a 5-4 decision. Of course it can be overturned in a future case if one vote changes, and it doesn't even have to be a new appointment, there are precedents that have been reversed because a justice changed his or her mind. I tend to doubt that it will be overturned, and if it does, it will take more than just one presidential term to do it. One of the many things that Rev. Dobson does not seem to understand (well, he probably does understand) is that the Supreme Court can't just reverse itself, there would have to be a new case starting at the bottom of the federal or a state court system and start working its way up, with the plaintiff most likely losing every step of the way on his/her way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether anyone would really go through all that, unless and until it were very clear that the Supreme Court would rule differently, seems doubtful to me. But hopefully, if such a thing did become likely, the BSA would go for the compromise that people have been talking about ever since the original decision: Let local units make their own leadership decisions, unless there is specific reason to believe that a person is going to be danger to the youth, in which case there is no problem with National stepping in and barring the person from every unit everywhere. There is no need for a National policy based merely on an avowed adult-based orientation.

GW, I think the issue here is whether the BSA really has a valid trademark on "Scouts" (shared with the Girl Scouts) as opposed to "Boy Scouts", on which it obviously does have a valid trademark. Apparently that is now something the Court of Appeals will have to decide. As for Spiral Scouts, I was wondering the same thing. They have existed for several years now and if the BSA was going to sue them (rather than just issue a cease and desist letter), I would think it would have happened by now. I guess we'll see. But I still have to wonder whether it is really in the BSA's best interest to try to protect a word like "Scout" against these tiny organizations, as long as they are not using terms like "Boy Scout", "Cub Scout", "Eagle Scout", etc.

I don't see the point in the BSA going after this guy. Nobody is going to get confused between Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts and "Youthscouts". They should have just left him and his little organization alone.