skeptic

For a while now, it has occurred to me that the context of "avowed" in the National Policy regarding Gay leaders is part of the problem. Not only does it leave a lot of room for interpretation; but, it also opens up the question of whether it would make more sense if it was not just applied to Gays, but also to drug users, alcoholics, "free love" idealist, blatant adulterers, and so on. It has been indirectly touched on by various people over the past year, but not really discussed. Any thoughts on this?

Yes, that was the instructions given in the 80's for us. Sorry I did not add that earlier.

In 1981, we elected them at the end of the course; it was an honor given by the patrol members to indicate who they felt was the best in their group. In our 21st Century course that I staffed as a guide, we did not have them do it. So, perhaps it is more of a local thing. My first course was the old one obviously, but it also was in a neighboring council. Surely there are other opinions and comments.

Yes, I would agree that it is related to the "you can't see me" idea on the web. In yesterday's paper, there is a good example here in S.C.. A young man in South Pasadena started a "no cussing" club, the goal to bring a bit more civility back to the everyday language we all speak and hear. He has a web site. Recently he has been inundated with all kinds of nastiness, not only on the site, but now to his home address which has been published by someone; porn magazines, litanies of four letter words, and now even death threats. The police have begun an investigation, due to the threats. What is wrong with people?

While I would not condone your reaction, the guy was not setting a very good example. What's more, he was wrong, according to the uniform guide. Palms can be worn on the knot, just like they are worn on the ribbon of the Eagle badge. Oh well.

Merlyn:

No one has ever suggested that others have to associate with the BSA. But, for some reason, they want to try to force the BSA to associate with them. Why?

OGE;

No, the documents do not indicate they refused to pay; only that they did not even actually attempt to use it, due to their inability to even think about dealing with the BSA. The comment regarding cost in other parts relates to the huge discrepancy the GS charge to non GS users. By the way, they also give precedence to GS for use, as do the other lease holders from what I understand. Of course, as the lease holder, that makes perfect sense. Whatever; nothing but the complete isolation of BSA will satisfy these people anyway.

Let me see. I will lease this land and pay for all the upkeep, any improvements I need for our intended use as a headquarters, swimming pool area, indoor and outdoor meeting area, and campsite. When it is not in use for our specific purposes, it will be open for use by outside groups as well, as long as they meet certain liability requirements.

So, a facility for youth primarily is booked up by the group who actually runs and maintains it during the time when youth are most likely to use it. But, if it is not, others still can use it. Oh, but I want to use it when it is used by the group that runs and maintains it, but they are a heinous group that disagrees with my personal beliefs and life style, so I cannot be anywhere near them or their facility. So, I am harmed and should be allowed to use the facility under "my" terms. Oh, but I do not intend on maintaining it or allowing anyone connected with this awful group to be near me during my use. Oh, I also do not want to use any other part of this very large public area, as it is not maintained as well, or the persons who hold the leases want too much money.

Makes total sense to me.

Ed; their feelings are hurt.

Well Merlyn, that is an interesting comment. Having read "all" the available documents, and having actually used Balboa and visited the area numerous times, I am fairly cognizant of what they say, how the area is used, and so on. I also have read numerous "legal" statements and opinions by qualified lawyers and judges who disagree with the judicial decisions made by the judges who ruled up to this point. The fact that the initial ruling was made by a single judge who refused to even consider any others' thoughts or submissions reflects the reality; that this is a PC decision that refuses to seriously consider any views from other legal minds that might reflect that there is error in the decision. So, here we are. The judicial machine moves glacially forward, with many cogs unwilling to get involved due to politics (most likely), and the youth and the public as a whole are left to bear the penalty. But, "IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!". You are correct on that.

If you read the legal documents, you will note comments regarding GS, as well as others. My understanding is there are time frames with GS usage having priority over public use. Of course, the GS have bent to the PC harassment and eliminated some of their traditional rules.

Merlyn;

How do you feel about the fact the Girl Scouts having similar special treatment for their members at the neighboring camp? They take precedence over outside users during certain times. Should the lawsuit be expanded to include them as well? Perhaps also the other groups with similar leases who all have priority times for their groups?

Besides the Jambo, nothing I have seen; maybe simply surviving to then. In the red and rumors of issues with SE and camp selling. I try to stay out of the politics, but it is always there in the background. And sometimes it will directly affect us on the troop level.

Merlyn:

I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. If it is the equipment and facilities that are at issue, then, we come back to why you think BSA should pay for these items and their upkeep, supervise safety considerations, and so on, yet not have some type of relatively minor priority of use for their own groups. It has little or nothing to do with blocked off time in the summer keeping these individuals from using the park or beach. Again, if the facility is in use, then arrange another time or another place. It is not that difficult for reasonable people; but, as you note with your Shaw quote, unreasonable people are somehow more important.

And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself. Most of our founders have likely polished their bones to a high luster by now watching some of the things that pass for balanced interpretation. (Of course that means nothing to you, since you do not believe in God).

Very little, if anything, has changed from you over the past year or more that I can see. When someone challenges you with a legitimate question or statement that would require a possible shift in your view, you simply ignore it and throw out the same PC fodder. I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good. It is really rather sad to see this from someone who seems on many levels to be well read and intelligent.

ssscout: The limiting factor for some is the BSA; they are a terrible and malicious organization that should be ostracized and have any privileges offered to others by the government, directly or indirectly, taken from them or not offered to begin. Merlyn has already admitted that the rights of his PC crusade (dare I use that word in relation to him?) take precedence to any logical or balanced decision.

Actually, the plaintiffs have gotten a favorable ruling from one judge whose logic defies the word. And, if somehow, this finally goes in the favor of the plaintiffs when it reaches the high court, then many other similar arrangements will have to go by the wayside at even further detriment to the public good. But, the PC will have won their egocentric "right".

Meanwhile, you still cannot give me an answer to my question as to why all this effort and money cannot be used for the benefit of others, rather than to attack those that actually do.

I really do not expect an answer, as I am sure you have none; only an excuse or egocentric response.

Merlyn;

Why shouldn't they, since the scouts have been there and developed everything. If someone else wants a similar deal, put it on unused land. There is plenty there that could benefit from it. But, then that would require someone to come up with the money to develop it. Based on the development there in Balboa and on the beach, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The scouts put the money into it; why should they not continue to have the use? If others want to do something similar, then let them develop it on separate locations, rather than whine that they were not offered the same site at the same deal. If they want the deal on the same sites, then they should reimburse the scouts for all money spent, adjusted to today's dollar value, since scouts have been in Balboa since the 20's.

The real question is why these litigious individuals don't simply use their resources to develop programs for use that fit their needs, rather than waste them on attacking groups with whom they disagree. Because they really do not care about others, only their own egocentric desires??

Try and give a rational and inclusive answer if you can. (Pulling chain hard!!!)(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Okay, here is a possible resolution to this whole affair. Since in Mission Park on the beach, and in Balboa Park next to the zoo and so on, there are many acres of untended land, the city can give similar leases to a group who wishes to offer a similar program on the beach, and similar facilities in Balboa. They then can set their own requirements which would be inclusive of anyone and everyone (except for BSA groups, since they already have "their" space), no matter what their beliefs. Then they can put their own money into the development of the areas, and the regular upkeep so that they are safe and utile. Certainly in Balboa, this would be a great boon, as their are many areas of the park that are terribly overgrown and unsafe, since the city does not have the funds or ability to take proper care.

Of course, we all know that if the areas in the suits were not already developed and useful, they would have no interest to the litigants, even if they actually applied to use them. And, if they were run down and not useful, the city would not have renewed the leases in the first place.

So, Merlyn, take up the campaign. Maybe the ACLU can put some of their own money into the plan, along with the many wealthy, mistreated members of the Gay, atheist, and agnostic communities.

So Merlyn, you think everyone should get to choose when they are able to use a facility, even if it is in conflict with some other group or individual. So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements? Or, the Southern California Surfing association arranges for a blocked off beach area for their surfing contest. I want to surf there during that period, even though I am not a member or even able to surf well enough to participate in the contest; but I should be allowed to because I want to? I can sue if they won't let me go to the zoo at their special time, or surf on that specific beach at that specific time? There are benefits for "paying" for things, like the upkeep of the zoo, or the maintenance of facilities. In this case, it is a time blocked off specifically for the organization's members. Who do you think is paying for the equipment used at the beach facility, or the upkeep of the pool, amphitheater, and campsites in Balboa? It is not the city. Who asked the scouts to build and maintain the beach facility? Other youth groups, with the blessing of the city. Now, they should lose the use because somebody is thin skinned or can't make plans based on other peoples' schedules? Such obtuse reasoning is simply too irrational.

With that reasoning, then I should have sued 25 years ago when I tried to reserve a site at the Balboa camp for my troop during our spring break, but couldn't due to its meeting rooms, amphitheater, and the surrounding areas being booked by an outside group that did not want boys possibly interfering with their day program they had going on on the premises. We really only needed it for camping at night; but we had to abide by the rules about bookings. So, we went to the Camp Fire camp area. When it happened the next year as well, we simply went somewhere else. That is what reasonable people do; find alternatives.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Whatever the convoluted decision by these questionable solons finally is, it is still nonsense IMHO. I continue to wonder how anyone with any kind of self esteem would lend themselves to such foolish reasoning as to say they are somehow "injured" by even the thought or presence of the BSA, or any other group with beliefs with which they may not agree. How weak must their ego be if they are threatened or emotionally scarred by an idea held by someone else with whom they have not even made contact? It is much like the stupidity of a complaint by the Somis, Ca. man who threatened a suit against the city of Ventura because they had a lighted cross, related historically by the way to the very founding of the city, on the hill above the town. They had to occasionally see this terrible thing while driving by on the freeway over a mile away, or if they should happen to look in the right direction while visiting the area. Such insecurity does not say much for them; and neither does this San Diego nonsense say much for the people bringing suit.

Another really odd ruling from 9th Circuit. Not only is it strange, but also 4 judges recused themselves. What does that say about this whole thing? Read in the BSA Legal link, or google it.

In ours, new Ordeal members get a service flap as part of completion of the Ordeal; but the primary flap, which is restricted to 4 per life, cannot be purchased until Brotherhood is completed. At that time, they can buy two; one for Ordeal and one for Brotherhood. A third can be bought for Vigil, and one more for completion of a local hike, approved by the lodge, to the peak featured on the flap. Incoming members from another lodge cannot buy flaps to cover past levels, so when I joined as a Brotherhood member, I was restricted to 3 max. But, as noted, most Ordeal members disappear after the initial weekend. Also, it is really sad that few members attend Ordeal weekends unless they are going for Brotherhood. Most who do are adults, rather than youth.

I cannot help but think that many of the changes in election and ceremony have contributed to the once high esteem OA membership had. Now that it is pretty much a "make 1st Class and camp 15 days and nights, including one summer camp" rubber stamp in a majority of units, it has lost a lot of its luster. And I see the same thing happening in some units regarding Eagle, unfortunately.

Not sure why you might feel a Vigil knot was needed. If you are active, then you should be wearing the arrow ribbon with the Vigil device on it. Why would you need a knot?

Would be great if that were the case in Southern California. Even pre-typed in doc format has much chance of showing up in print, especially if it is about something already occurred like Eagle dinners, or annual meetings. At least we can post on-line now to a blog; but it is not the same.

Oh well, what can you do but keep trying.

If the pro's on this subject would simply stop the foolish "in your face" attitude, it would surely be a lot less negative. As Pack has said, Gays have been, and are in the program; but they do not seem to have had the need to make it "an issue", so it wasn't/isn't. But, both sides of the argument tend to wear blinders and are unlikely to change spots based on what is said here. Even though I agree with the current policy over "no policy"; I would prefer that it be made a CO decision on a local level. Eventually it will like work itself out. But it would likely happen more quickly if "radicals" on either position would stop their idiocy.

JMHO