Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[tjhammer 10]

Ive viewed the rancor in this forum from time to time, and am now moved to chime in with my opinion on the BSAs policy on homosexuality.

 

At the onset, that policy should be clearly stated: the BSA excludes people who don't find homosexuality immoral.

 

This amounts not to a litmus test on homosexuality itself, but to a "dont ask, dont tell" policy. Youll find confirmation of this in the transcript of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court case, located at http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=963#GD1 (I almost hate to post this source, knowing that conspiracy theorists will think that this transcript must be tainted by the fact that it is posted on a gay legal advocacy web site; it should be noted that I spent half an hour searching for a copy of the oral arguments of the BSA before the Supreme Court, certainly they are not posted by the BSA themselves... I remembered reading these on the Courts web site when they were first released, and now dont want to pay the $175 fee required to purchase a transcript from the Courts reporter.)

 

Note that, according to the BSAs position as it was argued before the Supreme Court (which is really the most relevant statement of the BSAs policy because it is the only aspect to the policy that has withstood judicial review), you need not actually be homosexual to be excluded from membership in the organization. Simply making a statement in front of a boy who is a member (or is of the right age to potentially be a member) like "I see nothing morally wrong with being gay, and I disagree with the BSA" meets the standard set by the BSA in the Supreme Court to revoke your membership in the organization.

 

The "dont ask, dont tell" policy also does not mean that gays cannot be members of the organization. Certainly, it has not had the effect of removing all of the gay members, at least not through official exclusion. More boys and adults who were members and were gay (or simply disagreed with the BSAs position) have left the organization than have been officially excluded. Many more have remained active, contributing members of the BSA and hide their sexual identity by lying or simply not making it an issue in their Scouting life.

 

I have noticed (and not surprisingly) that the majority of posts on this forum seem to be from dedicated extremists. There is mostly impassioned debate from both agitators and defenders of the BSAs position. I suppose by the very nature of the fact that I have been drawn in to posting I qualify as a zealot.

 

However, its been my experience that the majority of the membership does not feel strongly one way or the other on this issue, much the same as the American public. And while advocates of either position might be tempted to call this vast middle ground "fence sitters" or "afraid to take a stand", I suggest to you that it is more appropriate to say that the majority simply dont consider gays in Scouting to be an issue worthy of expending their time. (Usually the people not joining the debate but with an opinion one way or the other either take the "dont throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, or the "this policy wont stand the test of time" approach.)

 

Remember that this "policy" was established by a small group of professionals at the National Council (the BSA has national leadership and 310 independent local area councils), prompted in large part by pressure from the National Relationships Committee and the Mormon Church representatives that sat on that committee. The policy was later ratified by the National Executive Board (volunteers).

 

The policy has never been ratified by the 310 councils (though I suppose it need not be to still be official; in fact several councils have set forth resolutions contrary to the national policy, and many more simply dont actively "enforce" the policy).

 

More importantly, this policy was not established by plurality of the 900,000 adult volunteers nationwide, nor was it established by vote of the parents of 3.2 million boys. One might argue that all of these members consent to the BSAs national policy by virtue of their membership. Making that argument, however, establishes that this one issue (homosexuality in Scouting) is the only real important aspect to Scouting, and taking a stand on this issue is more important than all of the other real and valuable benefits of participating in the program.

 

People who post here have cited lots of quasi facts... arguing statistics, the position of various churches (which differs significantly among major religions), the science behind homosexuality, the plurality of opinion one way or the other. Here are some actual facts:

 

Scouting does not exclude gays, it just excludes people who publicly disagree with the BSAs statement that homosexuals cant be positive role models for kids (if that policy seems confusing, it should).

 

 

There are currently many gay boys and leaders in the membership, and throughout the history of the organization that has been true, and will continue to be true.

 

So, first I would say to those of you who have stated so often that you would leave the organization the moment the BSA changed its "policy" and gays joined Scouting, dont let the door hit you in the... well, you know.

 

Second, Id like to raise the real issue that is rooted in this debate: honesty. How honest is the BSAs "dont ask, dont tell" policy? How honest is it for the BSA to "kick out" anyone who disagrees with the organizations positions?

 

How honest is it to teach a boy "...to be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open, you should respect and defend the rights of all people..." (source, page 46, BSA Handbook, under the definition of morally straight) while adding "except with some people".

 

How honest is it to allow Scouting to become stereotyped and defined by the outside world by a single issue, forsaking the real valuable lessons that we teach boys? To those that are so adamantly opposed to gays in Scouting, do you honestly believe that their presence in the program would preclude you and the organization from delivering on "the promise of Scouting"?

 

Perhaps worst of all: how honest is it to profess to be an organization whose goal is positive reinforcement of boys, "unless you happen to be 14 years old, struggling with growing up, exacerbated by the self-awareness that you might be gay", in which case "you are an immoral monster unworthy of my help".

 

[Weekender 10]

How honest is it to join an organization with a set of moral standards that you refuse to comply with and then to lie about your position. And lets not split hairs...remaining silent to remain a member is lying. If homosexuals want to be part of an organization that promotes a perverse lifestyle let them start one. Don't take a moral institution and try turn it into something filthy.

[tjhammer 10]

Weekender, I agree that hiding your sexuality in order to remain a member of the organization is wrong. Of course, moral relativism warrants the larger question of why the BSA should be allowed to force that boy to lie.

 

The premise of the existing policy is based on the principle that being gay is immoral and therefore not consistent with the Scout Oath - to be "morally straight."

 

This requires one to define what is and is not moral. And here is the problem - the gay issue divides us as an organization not because of pressure from outside groups, but because many Scouters inside the organization have different understandings of just what morality means with regard to this issue.

 

I realize the division is not felt equally throughout Scouting - it is felt more in some areas than others. It is obvious to anyone, I believe, that there is no uniform view among religions on the morality of homosexuality.

 

Amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court by Scouting's chartering religious denominations are revealing.

 

The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, the General Commission on United Methodist Men of the United Methodist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Agudath Israel of America, were among those who submitted or joined a brief in favor of the BSA policy.

 

Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.

 

So really a larger issue that we now face is an inconsistency between this policy and our policy to teach a boy Duty to God. If a boy's religion happens to be one that does not believe homosexuality to be immoral, then we are REQUIRING him to choose between allegiance to the BSA policy and his Duty to God.

 

Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about.

 

But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

 

 

[Eman 10]

tjhammer, In your first post you state that the BSA excludes anyone that doesn't find homosexuality immoral. In your second post you list churches that were against the BSA stated policy. If the BSA enforced their policy wouldn't all the charters to those churches be withdrawn?

[tjhammer 10]

Certainly seems like yet another inconsistency with the BSA policy. Yes.

[tjhammer 10]

Excerpt from the oral argument before the Supreme Court (please read the entire transcript at link above):

 

QUESTION = Supreme Court Justice speaking.

MR. DAVIDSON = Representing BSA before the Court

 

QUESTION: But you're defending an expressive policy, and that's one of the things that's confusing. Are you saying the policy is don't ask, don't tell, or is the policy, if you are gay you are not welcome in the Boy Scouts? Which is it?

 

MR. DAVIDSON: The policy is not to inquire. The policy is to exclude those who are open. That's alleged in the complaint. It's not been an issue in the case.

 

QUESTION: Well, where do we look, though, to determine what the policy is, because it is a little confusing, and let me add another question to the mix, and maybe you can clarify for us where we look. What about the heterosexual Scout leader who openly espouses the view that homosexuality is consistent with Scout law and oath, and that it's not immoral?

 

QUESTION: Now, what about that person, and where do we look to see what the Boy Scout position is on these things?

 

MR. DAVIDSON: If that person were to advocate that position through Scouting channels in an effort to change policy, that would be permissible. As the record indicates in Mr. Bishop's affidavit and Mr. Kaye's testimony, if such a person were to advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program, that person would be excluded and, indeed, one of Mr. Dale's affiants was excluded on that ground.

 

Eman, I would wonder the same as you... why does the BSA continue to offer charters to those Churches that stood before the Supreme Court and opposed the BSA policy?

 

(The answer is simple really: 30% of the paying membership of the BSA is from the Mormon Church... I suggest fear of losing that membership is the ONLY reason the BSA policy exists, so it seems completely consistent that they would not pull the charters from Churches that opposed the policy... it's all a numbers game.)

 

I suppose I should state for the record, I do not disagree with the actual decision of the Supreme Court case referenced above... that decision was about freedom of association. The BSA was right to win that case, and should have the freedom to set it's own membership criteria. But the BSA is morally wrong to maintain it's policy on homosexuality.

[Weekender 10]

The BSA is morally correct to maintain their stance on homosexuals. Homosexuals are not people who should be held up as examples for children of how to live a moral life . Whether they think they are a good person or not they are living a lifestyle that is an abomination to their creator and they have no right to pervert a child.

[tjhammer 10]

Is "Oh, yeah, well, nuh uh!" really the best response we can come up with? Is that what you propose to say to boys whose religion tells them homosexuality is not immoral? Is this really as simple as "my religion is right and yours is wrong and that's that?"

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Perhaps worst of all: how honest is it to profess to be an organization whose goal is positive reinforcement of boys, "unless you happen to be 14 years old, struggling with growing up, exacerbated by the self-awareness that you might be gay", in which case "you are an immoral monster unworthy of my help". "

 

TJ, You said you have viewed the rancor in this forum from time to time. I can only imagine that means you dont read all the threads posted here. If you did read all the threads, I think you would find ALL the scouters on this forum much more compassionate than you think. And I mean adults scouters who are actively participating in the Scouting Program. They would never tell a confused 14 year old who confessed he might have homosexual tendencies that he was an "immoral monster unworthy of my help".

 

Indeed, many active scouter postings have detailed what they would do in such an incident. Work with the parents, the boys clergy, school counselor, or somebody to help the boy out. I can not think of a single poster that I know on this forum that would summarily dismiss the boy without some attempt at helping him. And this includes all of the posters with whom I am at odds with on many issues. The other posters and I may dissagree vehemently on many items, but I know they would do all they could to help your 14 year old confused boy, and I would help them.

 

You may say, fine, but what if the boy's clergy is gay? And in a few churches, that could be true, and the clergy could be openly gay as well. Well, I would think straight or gay, a clergy member would know that 14 is WAY to early for sexual experimenting of any type and would communicate that to the boy. I would tell that same thing to a boy who confided in me he was having sex with his girlfriend as well. And that goes for 15, 16, and 17 years old scouts as well. Actually, I wouldnt tell him that, I would try to get his parents, clergy, school councilor to tell him that. As mentioned on a previous post sexuality is not handled in Boy Scouts, it is a matter for the boy and his parents and whomever his parents wish. But it wont be connected to scouts.

 

In Boy Scouts, there is Duty to God, meaning while scouts dont dictate a certain religion to believe in, you just need to follow one. And we have have a policy (whether written, or oral, secret or not) that you cant be homosexual.

 

You can be a member of a religion that doesnt condemn homosexuality and still be a Boy Scout. The requirement of Duty to God does not say you cant be a member of a religion that condemns homosexuality, only that you have to be a member of a religion and follow it.

 

I may be redundant, but I want to be sure I am clearly stating my position.

 

Boy Scouts has never said in any of its press releases that homosexuals are dirty filthy monsters, (at least not that I know of). Boy Scouts does not say that Atheists are bad people. They do say that if you are one or the other, you cant join us. But, then, again, we are a private organization.

 

As a private organiation we get to make our own rules over who gets to join. Whether you agree or not with the rules is up to you. You can call us vile and discriminating. But actually, the word discriminating gets a bad rap. All discriminating means is "make a distinction". A person may be praised for having "discriminating" taste in art or fashion or cuisine. That doesnt make that person bad, just discriminating, making a distinction. I dont take being called discriminating as always an insult.

 

I dont always agree with every stand BSA takes, but I always agree they have the right to every stand they take.

 

And TJ, before you reply to this post, I invite you to read a post on the Program section of this fourm. Check out the thread labled "Scouting has given my son / family......" then come back tell me what a vile disgusting person I am for supporting such a morally bankrupt organization.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[tjhammer 10]

OGE, thank you for your response. (And actually, I had just responded to that very post in the program area before you suggested that I read it!)

 

First, I think I should establish that I am VERY familiar with the positive aspects of Scouting, and the fact that the VAST majority of leaders are among the most well-intentioned, decent people in America. I am a Scout leader, and have been for nearly two decades. I have participated in Scouting from the earliest Cub Scout B&Gs to national and world jamborees.

 

My point is that within this illustrious group of which I am a proud member, there is genuine disagreement on the issue of homosexuality. Obviously, as my previous posts indicate, this disagreement is not limited to Scouting... even the Southern Baptist Convention (no bastion of liberalism) has internal disagreement over the issue.

 

And I trust that you are right that no adult leader on this board or in the organization would say to a boy that he is a monster unworthy of help. At least not to his face. But I submit to you that is PRECISELY the message we're sending that boy, whether we say the words or not.

 

This boy who might be struggling with thoughts about his sexuality isn't very likely to walk up to his SM and say, "hey, what do you think about this!" In fact, he's not likely to talk to anyone about how he feels until he can process the feelings himself.

 

And we're sending this boy a very loud and clear message, even if the actual subject of homosexuality never comes up in a troop meeting or SM conference. We're saying to him that Scouting accepts all boys that Scouting is a glorious game played in the outdoors that teaches citizenship and self worth. And that while we believe a pillar of Scouting is Duty to God, we don't care if the boy is Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Islamic. We don't define his religion for him (unless his religion disagrees with our own regarding homosexuality... that's the one issue that we just can't accept).

 

We accept all boys. Handicapped, ill or healthy. Dumb kids and smart kids. Cool kids and geeks. Kids who are troublemakers. Kids with no parents, one parent or two. We accept all kids, except, that is, kids who are gay.

 

If you are gay, we don't want you. You are a bad influence.

 

OGE, I respect your point of view. I've read some of your posts. Everyone comes to this debate with their own perspective. Some other people on this board seem to believe that their perspective is the only real way to view things. I suggest that everyone try to consider the perspective of the 14-year-old boy that weve been talking about. Id like to say he is "hypothetical"... but the truth is this boy is everywhere. If you dont have him in your troop right now, I promise that you will some day. Or perhaps he already was in your troop, and we let hate quietly force him away.

 

[cjmiam 10]

Dear tjhammer:

 

No, you are wrong. We dont accept all kids. We dont accept kids that dont agree to abide by the Scout Oath & Law. In other words, if a Scout refuses to be trustworthy, kind, obedient etc., I as a Scoutmaster have every right to send him hiking. And while I can try to change them, there is a point when I have to look out for the wellbeing of my other Scouts. A self-professing shoplifter has no place in my troop. Im sorry, but we do have higher standards. In fact we have many standards for membership. I cant wait `til the Shoplifters Association of America takes us to court for discrimination I guess everyone has his or her opinion on whats morally correct. However, we that chose to be members of the Boy Scouts of America must also subscribe to its principles. If thats not something that a leader can agree to, then they are very much welcome to start his or her own organization. After all, this IS America! However, ignoring all or part of the Scout Oath or Law is NOT an option.

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

At the onset, that policy should be clearly stated: the BSA excludes people who don't find homosexuality moral. Not true, the BSA excludes people who would advocate the practice to the boys. Theres a big difference between saying its immoral and telling the kids, in your opinion, its OK for them to do. The "dont ask, dont tell" policy also does not mean that gays cannot be members of the organization. Not true again. It is presumed that everyone is morally straight and therefor there is no litmus test to prove otherwise. The policy is not to inquire. Gays cannot be members period.

QUESTION: Do you ask, Mr. Davidson, if Scouts or proposed Scout leaders are adulterers? Is that one of the question?

MR. DAVIDSON: No, Justice Scalia.

QUESTION: Do you ask if they're ax murderers?

MR. DAVIDSON: No, Justice Scalia.

QUESTION: There are a lot of things you don't want them to be that you don't ask about, is that it? I have noticed (and not surprisingly) that the majority of posts on this forum seem to be from dedicated extremists. I see, taking a stand on immoral choices of behavior is extreme huh? If so, Im happy to wear that label. However, its been my experience that the majority of the membership does not feel strongly one way or the other on this issue, much the same as the American public. Thats wrong too, America is divided on this issue about 50/50, kinda like the red and blue county map from the presidential election, I think it would be rather presumptuous to assume the Scout leadership would be any different. In fact, I would think the majority of Scouters find the practice immoral. Remember that this "policy" was established by a small group of professionals at the National Council (the BSA has national Nope, this policy was established by Baden Powell or was it James West, the author of that part of the oath, when he wrote the morally straight clause. Question: Do you think BP or JW would find the practice of perversion to be in violation of the oath? Scouting does not exclude gays, it just excludes people who publicly disagree with the BSAs statement that homosexuals cant be positive role models for kids (if that policy seems confusing, it should). Rediculous, specious and patently false. Those who cannot live morally straight are not eligible; a four-year-old can understand this. There are currently many gay boys and leaders in the membership, and throughout the history of the organization that has been true, and will continue to be true. There are currently members who practice incest, bestiality and necrophilia and have for the history of the organization, I guess since theyve been able to hide in the system we should accommodate them too, right? Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. Is this really as simple as "my religion is right and yours is wrong and that's that?"

Not hardly, the BSA has never said morally straight was religiously determined, its a right and wrong issue.

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

The edit function still does not work for me, can I buy a clue? ;)Theres a big difference between saying its immoral and telling the kids, in your opinion, its OK for them to do. This should say; Theres a big difference between saying its not immoral and telling the kids, in your opinion, its OK for them to do.

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

There are so many angles from which to debate this issue. I'd like to draw focus to what I think is the most important, and ask for a specific response to the issue I raise above:

 

Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about.

 

But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

Major religions disagree on the morality of homosexuality.

 

... a larger issue that we now face is an inconsistency between this policy and our policy to teach a boy Duty to God. If a boy's religion happens to be one that does not believe homosexuality to be immoral, then we are REQUIRING him to choose between allegiance to the BSA policy and his Duty to God.

How do we reconcile this?

[Dedicated Dad 10]

There are so many angles from which to debate this issue. Not really, its about the morality straight clause in the oath, Davidson repeats this over and over in the trial. it's not a stealth policy, but the general principle of morally straight. I'd like to draw focus to what I think is the most important, and ask for a specific response to the issue I raise above: Of course you would because then you can work one religious philosophy against another, but its disingenuous to try and frame the debate away from the BSAs position. Duty to God is a completely different clause with a completely different intent and has NO bearing on the issue of homosexuality in the Scouts. Its all about being morally straight, read the transcripts. Major religions disagree on the morality of homosexuality. This is irrelevant, whatever major religions believe has absolutely no influence on the authors intent of the oath. DUTY to God means service to God and has everything to do with worship and nothing to do with doctrine. Youre purposely trying to confuse two completely separate and distinct clauses in the oath. How do we reconcile this? How about letting the original intentions of Baden Powell dictate the basic principles of right and wrong. I ask you again: Do you think the author of the Oath would find the practice of Homosexuality to be Morally Straight? Yes or No?