DigitalScout

In the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling, the majority stated that prohibiting gay adults from marrying created a stigma for the children of gay parents. You can draw a parallel in the BSA gay adult leader ban creates a similar stigma. Children of heterosexual parents are allowed to be leaders where children of gay parents are NOT allowed.

Not only does the BSA policy create two classes of adult leaders, it also creates a two classes of Scouts. Johnny's parents are allowed to be leaders but Jimmy's parents are NOT.

The laws and their application evidently are changing rather quickly. I'm not so sure about people's attitudes. I think part of what we're seeing is a generational effect of young people who see things differently from their elders. But the elders are dying out and the young people are just beginning to flex their 'muscles'.

 

This is one of the wonderful aspects of being a teacher: I get to have a far greater influence on society than merely my meager contribution to the gene pool.

Today' date=' video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids.[/quote']

 

Many parents are happy to let their kids stay inside and play video games then they don't have to worry about them getting kidnapped while walking to the corner store or hit by a car while riding their bikes or molested while on an outing with a youth group, etc.

I strongly believe we need to teach kids how to take risk and take the proper measures to avoid getting hurt or injured. For example, teach kids how to cross the street but look both ways before doing so. Or how to walk to the store on their own then what to do if they are approached by a stranger.

 

But the current trend for parents is to avoid any and all risk. I agree that you can't learn to take real-life risks by playing video games.

Today' date=' video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids.[/quote']

 

Many parents are happy to let their kids stay inside and play video games then they don't have to worry about them getting kidnapped while walking to the corner store or hit by a car while riding their bikes or molested while on an outing with a youth group, etc.

The site was down over the weekend and realized how much I use it.

The California legislature occasionally passes these meaningless bills just to make a political statement. I'm no lawyer but I think if the IRS says you are a non-profit, then you are a non-profit. Just because our legislature votes to pull the non-profit status of the BSA doesn't mean it will be upheld in court.

We could try switching from a necker to a silk ascot.

That seems like a silly statement probably inserted to appease some highly conservative religious group. Of course sexual activity at scouting events is verboten. But if we overhear talk about some 16-17 yo scout making out with his girlfriend, our we expected to toss him? I think the BSA should stop being trying to be the sex police.

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

The more kids we get into Scouting, the stronger America will be. So that means removing all barriers so we can get more kids and teach them the importance of values, leadership, being prepared, service to others, self-reliance and perseverance.

And you should persevere, too, to help make sure that the BSA policies are fair for ALL, not just a few. Think about what you want to teach your kids. Do you want to teach them to give up and give in when things get tough? Or do you want to teach them to fight on in the face of adversity?

The big vote is right around the corner. Any thoughts on how it might turn out?

 

Personally, I suspect it will go in favor of allowing gay scouts. I just don't think there is enough support for the exclusion of kids. If this were a combined vote, asking people to allow or disallow gay scouts and adults at the same time, I think there would be far stronger support for maintaining the current ban.

 

If, somehow, it goes badly (in my opinion) then there's no future in Scouting for my family. We'll be looking at alternative organizations like the BPSA. I would continue to push the BSA to change the policy and hope that they did eventually change it, and I would continue to hold my Eagle medal and retain my rank (I'm not in favor of giving up the rank in opposition to a policy, I think Eagles should hold their rank and push the organization to right a wrong). But I couldn't in good conscience enroll my kids in the program knowing that after repeated defeats to efforts to make the change happen, it was highly unlikely that any significant change would occur any time soon.

 

 

I don't see the big deal. Gays are about 2-3% of the population. The chances of a gay scout are small.

Personally we should open the doors and focus on more important matters.

Our fearless leader is engaging in some pre-vote vote writing. Amazing that we pay this person to write opinion pieces in USA today espousing

views that are in stark contrast to the poll he just commissioned. I wonder what his response will be if his side loses tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-president-let-in-gay-boys/2351907/

If anyone was unclear about natural law yesterday, I hope they're perfectly clear about it now, lol.

Since I am Thomas Jefferson, I guess it is appropriate that I should answer this one.

 

I never intended there to be a tax code or a national treasury. My frenemies Washington and Hamilton were in favor of it. This was one of the issues upon which Federalist and Democratic Republicans enjoyed spirited conversations. As President, despite my principles and feelings on the matter, I did see to it that our great nation acquired the French and Indian territory to the West known as Louisiana by establishing and then raiding national coffers of some substance.

 

We did not institute national taxes at the time because taxation was a state and local matter. We did not want a national government with great power to create a tyranny of conformity among the disparate peoples of North America. What appeals to a resident of Philadelphia and a gentleman of Charles Town are often at odds and wholly incompatible. We sought to create a multiplicity of states which shared military responsibility and a common brotherhood of Constitutional Law and Natural Rights.

 

It is with regret that I inform you that your nation is not the nation I founded. You found yourselves facing situations I did not foresee. Who could have imagined that one day the Bear of Russia would be only a few minutes away by rocket, or that the savage people of the East would one day emerge as a world power greater than any Europe had produced?

 

Taxes must be collected to fund great enterprises, whether obtained by separated states or a federal oversight agency, the pain of payment is not reduced. The establishment of such an agency to collect revenues of such unusual size (RUS's) is also a predictable outcome.

 

Is this government agency used as a political tool? It is possible that any agency of any government can be manipulated for evil or good by those in charge of it. Some may create evil by attempting to create good. Outcomes do not always come from intentions.

 

It is also possible that a political tool may simply happen, without guidance from above or foreknowledge of intent to wield it as a weapon.

 

It is my experience that collectors of taxers and dodgers as well should be investigated thoroughly so to ensure the people's money is accounted for dutifully and with all diligence.

What I found interesting after watching the video conference on National's website is that allowing gay scouts will be all inclusive and not be at the discretion of any CO. That means that if if gay boy wants to join an LDS troop, a Catholic troop or any other conservative groups troop the CO will be unable to deny him membership with the current wording of the proposal. IMHO I do not see the LDS and many other CO's with an anti gay position remaining in scouting. I think the BSA shot themselves in the foot once again by not giving the CO the option based on their religious principles. If this passes on May 23rd we all may be witnessing the beginning of the demise of boy scouting. Yet another case of National trying to mandate to the CO's an unenforceable policy. Maybe it is time to bring back Woodcraft Rangers, Sons of Daniel Boone, etc.

That means that if if gay boy wants to join an LDS troop' date=' a Catholic troop or any other conservative groups troop the CO will be unable to deny him membership with the current wording of the proposal. IMHO I do not see the LDS and many other CO's with an anti gay position remaining in scouting. I think the BSA shot themselves in the foot once again by not giving the CO the option based on their religious principles. [/quote']

 

Both churches accept (celibate) gay members do why would they reject gay scouts? So I don't understand why there is this assumption that the Catholic Church and LDS will fold their units if they are required to accept gay scouts. The Southern Baptist Conference is the only large BSA member who is so anti-gay that they may not allow any gay members in their church and may leave the BSA.

I think you missed the point of the OP. 63% of Americans think the BSA policy is unfair and gay people are being treated with inequality. We, Americans, strongly believe that everyone should get a fair chance. I don't understand what that has to do with installing answering machines at National.

I've been hearing complaints from several scouts that they don't want to be in Cub Scouts any more. The kids love the activities but they hate the uniform (class-A). They say that the uniforms are too hot and the collar bothers them so don't want to wear it. So it becomes a big ordeal when the parent has to fight the scout to wear his uniform and come to events.

I've been looking for alternatives including removing the collar and minimizing the number of patches. I've picked over the thread "Why No Collarless Shirt?" and the adults even say that collarless shirts are much cooler. The issue about the collarless shirt is that is looks "dorky" as once person said and I wonder if scouts care or not. The kids often remove their necker and run around before and after events. One parent allow his Wolf scout to wear a tan microfiber Webelo shirt to our last event and he seemed happy.

Please share your suggestions and success stories.

@EmberMike...the BSA policy has always been well known. Don't kid yourself. The reason that it is more "open" now is because of activism, social media and the recent swing in this country of the political pendulum. But the policy has always been well known.

... we face the dilemma of having to decide whether to enter back into the organization after a vote that will either reaffirm a discriminatory policy or start the process of ending it.

If you disagree with the policy, it's important that you join and lend your voice to the chorus of equality and fairness. The national BSA only listens to it's members, not outsiders.

The fight for equality and fairness will continue regardless of the policy vote outcome.

IS THE NEW POLICY ENACTED? (YES / NO)

 

YES - THE NEW POLICY IS ENACTED:

 

- See if our C.O. drops us (YES / NO)

 

- If YES:

 

- Work with troop on attempting to find new C.O. Maybe quit. See what my son wants to do.

 

- If NO:

 

- Carry on as usual, unless there is a sudden influx of avowed homosexual scouts.

 

IS THERE A SUDDEN INFLUX OF AVOWED HOMOSEXUAL SCOUTS? (YES / NO)

 

- If NO:

 

- Carry on as usual. Suggest we initiate testing to confirm presence of covert infiltrators (assign point scale for how they cross their legs, how they hold a baseball bat, unusual or excessive knowledge of show tune lyrics, etc.) just in case.

 

- If YES:

 

- Discuss how we handle youth safety procedures in light of the new policy.

 

- Assess how much things change, and how rapidly (becoming co-ed, admitting atheists, admitting adult homosexuals) before making decisions on whether to withdraw.

 

- If problems are insurmountable, withdraw.

 

Old Policy Affirmed:

 

- Carry on as normal. No one has mentioned leaving our troop if the policy is not changed.

 

- Prepare for flag-planting ceremony at Veteran's Cemetery.

 

- Prepare for next camp-out.

 

- Waste countless hours reading and posting about the subject on Scouter.com until the technical bugs get so bad I stop posting.

We have a cub scout mom starting a BPSA unit for her 7yo daughter. We will be running the BPSA program in parallel to our cub scout program and treating the BPSA unit just like a den.

I'll pay the BPSA fee if anything just to support them. I'all take it out of my FOS contribution.

Our CO thinks it's a great idea and is very supportive. They are awesome like that.

I will not leave the scouts if the resolution passes or fails. I will not leave because I will not deny my son the scouting experience. It is a worthwhile and valuable experience, even if the organization includes this horrible flaw. It is not a fatal flaw. If the child abuse scandals did not destroy the BSA, I can't see how the mistreatment of such a small minority is going to destroy it. If I refused to associate with organizations or people who failed to live up to their own ideals, I would find myself very, very isolated.

 

I will continue to lobby for change if the resolution passes or fails. I will start wearing a rainbow neckerchief slide to roundtable just to be provocative. I've decided to become provocative because I've been watching the 1982 Gandhi film. I came to appreciate his method very much. A few quotes: "The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law." / "And when you do that [turn the other cheek], it calls on something in human nature... something that makes his hatred for you decrease and his respect increase." / "I want to change their minds. I don't want to kill them for weaknesses we all posses."

 

I honestly believe that the whole problem is a rather simple matter of us v. them. My attitudes towards homosexuals changed a great deal when I actually had dealings with real live homosexuals in the work place, day after day. We are the same. Homosexuals make up a small minority of Americans. They make up an even smaller minority of scouts. If more scouters had more contact with homosexual scouts and parents, there would be less fear and more acceptance. I don't know how to make that happen.

We have a cub scout mom starting a BPSA unit for her 7yo daughter. We will be running the BPSA program in parallel to our cub scout program and treating the BPSA unit just like a den.

The email sounds dreadful. But it is a perfect example of what to expect when a policy exists that treats a class of people as inferior. Basically it gives the green light to haters to spread their hateful message. Scouting doesn't need those people. If the BSA allows gays, it will flush out this kind of trash.

Just imagine what a gay scout will have to endure by gay-hating scouters if the proposed policy is approved.

Thanks for posting that link to the whole survey results, AZMike. I never knew it existed.

 

I read the whole thing and what a mish mash of numbers. Predicting what will happen based on these numbers is like predicting the Final Four. It's a Rorschach test, you can find anything you want in there. What struck me was that the parents and the scouts are fine with some sort of change and the scouters are not. Something about knowing your customers applies here. Maybe I picked up on that because I'm the one in my troop always defending the notion that the scouts do know the right thing to do and the adults need to back off and let them lead. The other surprise is that it's as close as it is. Before this whole thing came up I figured maybe 20% of members wanted a change.

 

I'm not so sure this thing is going to pass but I also know the genie is out of the bottle. If I predict anything it's that national will lose control of the situation. If it passes, those that don't like gay scouts will drive them out. If it fails, those that don't mind gays will be more vocal about it and turn a blind eye to the rules.