wmturner

The CO of every unit I've been associated with has been very arms length. There was less a feeling of ownership than one of duty, that is, it was a community service to sponsor a scouting unit, so they did. Outside of monolithic orgs like LDS, I can't see a huge % of CO's making the effort to exclude a gay applicant, and definitely not making the effort to fight a legal battle over it if they get targeted. Maybe I've just been in the company of apathetic CO's... but that's my experience.

I believe that the connection of "protected" units with "unprotected" units via a common organization (BSA) will be the loophole that the activists use to attack the churches. Legalities may not matter, though, because few attacked churches are likely to have the money and will to fight, and so will need to solve the problem by acquiescing or asking the unit to leave, and that's what they'll do. Over time, as openly gay Scouters and staff increase, the culture of BSA will trend leftward toward GSUSA, and the general atmosphere will become untenable for conservative CO's. As they leave, the t

The protection to choose for a CO is very narrowly drawn to unit-serving volunteers. But Scouts interact with many leaders who are either from other units, or who are paid BSA employees (camp staff is the big one). So the protection is cold comfort unless the unit wants to live in isolation from the rest of Scouting. I just returned from camp, where the challenges are very clear to me. Camp staffing, with its zany and dramatic nature, will attract the "out and proud" gang like flies to honey. Yes that's a stereotype, I believe it's true enough to apply here, and I'll continue to hold i