Is Obama re-election and 4 states passage of equal marriage a membership mandate for BSA?

[DeanRx 69]

Kinda seems the writings on the wall to me on this one. Obama gets a second term and 4 more states added the recognition of same sex marraige on Tuesday. Coupled with the fact that over 53% of Catholic / Christian identified voters backed Obama, does this mean this voting block favors Mr. O's leadership over their religious doctrine?

 

If so, is this a de faco mandate to BSA that they need to take a serious look at national membership policies? Seems the tide has made a permanent shift with regards to acceptance or at least tolerance of gay unions. Does this threaten to cause a greater decline in retention and membership if BSA does not change its stance?

 

What say the forums?

[eisely 13]

BSA should always be re evaluating its policies in light of changing circumstances. However, the recent election is NOT a mandate for BSA to do anything.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

I'm with eisely.

 

 

I live in Wqashington State, which narrowly passed gay marriage. I live in Seattle, which passed gay marriage by a large majority.

 

Makes no difference to Scouting, which has a constitutional right to maintain its values, or change them should it decide that's the right thing to do.

[DeanRx 69]

Seattle-

 

I agree BSA has a constitutional right to their membership policy. What I am asking is if the outcome(s) of the elections show that the tide has turned and BSA's policy is sqaurely in the minority view now as it pertains to secular society?

 

Prior to Tuesday night, one could argue that gay marriage was a pretty even 50/50 split in this country with half for and half against. It had been put to the voters multiple times in multiple states and was rejected. The states that DID recognize the unions did so by judgical mandates, not the vote of the populace. CNN and other news networks are refering to this election cycle as a "watershed moment" in the gay rights area.

 

So, does this mean BSA's membership stance, which once held the idea that it was "right" with the moral majority, is passe? Does the moral majority now favor inclusion, or is the moral majority now the moral minority?

 

Does it have any bearing short term or long term on what BSA should do? I'm all for equal rights under the law, but I personally still have a hard time with a gay Scoutmaster. Not from a pedophile perspective, but that I personally do not feel they represent the core values of what scouting is trying to teach. However, I also wonder if this a shrinking viewpoint in our society. If so, what is the breakpoint when BSA will have to reverse course on its membership or risk being obsolete in American society?

[moosetracker 132]

Although I would love to see BSA change, this wouldn't be a mandate for BSA to change.. It is though just something else that says they are now on the loosing side of history on this position.

 

It will come, but not without BSA getting way out of step with time..

 

I would be interested to see how the Republican party chooses to deal with the reality of a shifting of social issues in America.. I doubt it will be more then a small hesitant baby step out of the 1950's toward the 21st century.. Perhaps they may move to about 1955..

 

Neither will change for a while without kicking and screaming. They will deny reality for a long time to come.

 

[packsaddle 753]

"Neither will change for a while without kicking and screaming."

Yes, but just think about all the fun you're going to have responding to the I&P forum in the meantime. I just hope none of us pop a vein over any of this.

[Stosh 3452]

If political decisions were mandates to non-profit private organizations, then we'd all be in like-minded lock-step and competition and individual values would have to disappear.

 

I'm thinking that "kicking and screaming" is a pretty good response. Like my mother used to say, if everyone else is jumping into the lake, it doesn't mean you have to as well. I like the option of traditional values of B-P being available to the American public. If BSA wishes to become "like everyone else", then what's the reason to stick with scouting?

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I do not think it is a mandate. For example my Wife is pro-life and anti-gay (long sigh)but is supported Obama. I asked her about the abortion issue and she said she didn't like the way the republicans said it. She said it needs a more thoughtful solution.

 

I do think it is a sign that times are changing; especially in urban areas and the younger generation sees it as less of an issue. But I doubt we are going to say it is OK to smoke marijuana just because some referendum passes.

 

I think BSA needs to get ahead of the issue somehow.

 

 

[Basementdweller 608]

I was wondering when this would show up here. So now the people have spoken and soon it will be permitted/legal/legit in all the states.

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

What was the final result of the popular vote? I see it as President Obama got 50% and, Mr Romney got 48%. A 2% margin is not exactly a mandate from the people for anything. What is says is the country is pretty much halved in how they view the issues which not exactly a reason for chaning core beliefs. I am not sure I want to be part of an Organization that says because 2% more of the Country voted for President Obama we will be chaning one of our core beliefs we once went to the Supreme Court to defend.

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

No - it's not a mandate. That implies changes in the short term. Rather, it's a wake up call - a time for the BSA to start looking at the long term and decide what they want to be 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

 

OGE makes a good argument against the short-term mandate rightly pointing out that the popular vote was nearly evenly split. The argument for the long-term reflection is how that split looks demographically. The 50% on Obamas side is, in general, made up of the BSA's target audience - 18 to 45 years olds - the ones who have or will in the future have Scouting age kids. The 48% on Romney's side is, in general, the 45 year olds and up whose kids have aged out of Scouting.

 

Most people's core values don't change as they age, despite the old saw about voting Dem at 20 and GOP at 50. If you were pro-life at 20, you're probably going to be pro-life at 50. I'd say this was very much a "values" election - and though the traditionalists may not like to hear it, the country's values are changing (and have been for quite some time) and that's being driven by the values of the younger generations.

 

As an aside, I'm always curious why some folks think an openly gay Scoutmaster can't model the core values of Scouting, which I see as A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent.

[Brewmeister 132]

Two states legalized pot too if I recall...

 

So the BSA rules if I remember correctly was that it's ok to smoke, just not within sight of the boys. Is it ok to toke up at my next scout outing as long as I'm outta sight?

[BSA24 10]

It is a mandate for nothing.

 

That said, you cannot operate a successful national program based on citizenship that fully half of the citizens of the country feel is a force for evil. It's too much bad publicity.

 

[moosetracker 132]

Don't know about both the states that passed pot smoking.. But, I heard something about a rule you can only smoke in your home, not out in public... If that is in both states, I think BSA shouldn't worry about rules around pot smoking for awhile yet..

[WasE61 23]

"Makes no difference to Scouting, which has a constitutional right to maintain its values, or change them should it decide that's the right thing to do."

 

Maybe...

 

Depends on if the Feds decide you are violating someones civil rights, eh?