May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[King Ding Dong 540]

@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.

Why doesn't the BSA make its policy a central point in recruitment ? On Scout School Night or the New Parent Information Meeting, why isn't it explicitly explained to the parents that in the future their little 1st grade boy "comes out" as gay that he will be summarily dismissed from the Scouting and any advancement he was working on will be denied ? Not a very positive message for many parents when they are there for a positive message.

[DigitalScout 75]

... 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.

 

[King Ding Dong 540]

... 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.

Agreed. By leaving you just hand the BSA over. Although the BSA listens to more than just its members. They listen to donors.

[packsaddle 753]

@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.

KDD, hatred is rarely so refreshing as to be presented openly and honestly. Mostly, it likes to remain hidden, almost as a way of life itself.

[DigitalScout 75]

@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.

@mozartbrau - The BSA anti-gay policy is well known among scouters. The general public for the most part isn't aware of the policy. I've had parents approach me after a couple of years in scouting and were surprised that such a policy exists. I'm surprised too. It is 2013 afterall.

[fred johnson 936]

I'm just sort of sad about the whole thing. BSA has many charter partners who have contradicting values. BSA needs to NOT pass this. The damage will just continue. People will ignore the rule to do what they want and the public action groups will continue to beat-up BSA for being intolerant.

 

Instead BSA needs to pass something that says .... "BSA provides a program structure and materials and leaves membership management to the charter partners to manage consistent with the beliefs of those partners."

 

If a charter partner has beliefs that contradict too much, then BSA should not have chartered them in the first place. Heck, that's why we are in so much trouble. BSA wants to depend on schools for recruitment but the use private group beliefs.

[skeptic 993]

It has become very tiresome to continue to have certain individuals posting over the top opinions about National's policy. While it is certainly not exactly 21st century, and it can be at times very burdensome and ill advised, I cannot see that it is "hateful", purposely intended to demean Gays, or a witch hunt to find them and remove them. There is a definite disconnect between what I would call the real scouting, that is on the unit level, done by volunteers within the basic standards of their particular charter org. Reality is, that even today, close to 70% of the general population in this country has pretty much unspoken, but traditional values. While there is far more tolerance and less chest beating by the majority, the larger majority of society still chooses to not associate directly with Gays and other related individuals. They accept that they have certain rights and must be tolerated without public turmoil; but they also choose to have as little interconnection with them as they can. That is not hatred; it is not bigotry, it is simply their right to move in the elements of society in which they are comfortable.

 

BSA needs to find a workable solution to this. But that solution should not force the majority to interrelate should they choose not to; nor should those that are more open to acceptance or are part of the minority be disallowed to participate within their own groups or barred from general larger group participation. Those that are so thin skinned that they cannot abide anyone with different beliefs or styles of life anywhere near them need to simply follow their own choice and not intermix if the situation arises. Just like in the general public, most will have little or no actual knowledge of these issues, as they technically are not a direct part of the real program and are delegated to the parents or guardians should it become necessary.

 

Both fringes of this Political Spectacle should simply be ignored and butt out, as they have no interest in BSA and its basic program. Let the wheels of change continue to move, and stop demonizing either side. That is the problem in the country today; our leaders set such a poor example with their polarization in government, that somehow it becomes a similar focus in just about any other politically charged public interaction.

 

Now, I will sit back and await the vitriol; but this is my simple opinion. And I continue to just not get why so many cannot just allow people to be people and to keep their noses out of others' lives as much as possible. Freedom is not license. Rights are not absolute. Find your comfort zone, and play within it; but if it does not mesh with someone else, just accept it and move on.

 

[EmberMike 144]

There are two huge elements missing....

 

BPSA Troops...... While scouting can be completed alone per the lone scout program.......for me it misses the bulk of program benefit...Small group dynamics and leadership.

 

 

Then the Eagle brand.......even though it ain't what it used to be with the watering down of the requirements......to the uneducated it is still an impressive achievement.

There are more groups than Lone Scouts, something like 24 groups around the country at present and far fewer Lone Scouts. I think the emphasis in the BPSA is definitely on groups, as they encourage people to go the Lone Scout route only after encouraging people to reach out to their community and try to find enough people to charter a new group.

 

And they do have something of an Eagle equivalent, although with not quite the same eloquence in the name (The George Washington Award doesn't have the same ring to it as Eagle Scout). However the real value in the Eagle Scout name and rank comes from years of notoriety and recognition. I'm sure that in time, the GW award can also come to represent an equally impressive distinction, if the BPSA grows in popularity.

[Scouter99 265]

It has become very tiresome to continue to have certain individuals posting over the top opinions about National's policy. While it is certainly not exactly 21st century, and it can be at times very burdensome and ill advised, I cannot see that it is "hateful", purposely intended to demean Gays, or a witch hunt to find them and remove them. There is a definite disconnect between what I would call the real scouting, that is on the unit level, done by volunteers within the basic standards of their particular charter org. Reality is, that even today, close to 70% of the general population in this country has pretty much unspoken, but traditional values. While there is far more tolerance and less chest beating by the majority, the larger majority of society still chooses to not associate directly with Gays and other related individuals. They accept that they have certain rights and must be tolerated without public turmoil; but they also choose to have as little interconnection with them as they can. That is not hatred; it is not bigotry, it is simply their right to move in the elements of society in which they are comfortable.

 

BSA needs to find a workable solution to this. But that solution should not force the majority to interrelate should they choose not to; nor should those that are more open to acceptance or are part of the minority be disallowed to participate within their own groups or barred from general larger group participation. Those that are so thin skinned that they cannot abide anyone with different beliefs or styles of life anywhere near them need to simply follow their own choice and not intermix if the situation arises. Just like in the general public, most will have little or no actual knowledge of these issues, as they technically are not a direct part of the real program and are delegated to the parents or guardians should it become necessary.

 

Both fringes of this Political Spectacle should simply be ignored and butt out, as they have no interest in BSA and its basic program. Let the wheels of change continue to move, and stop demonizing either side. That is the problem in the country today; our leaders set such a poor example with their polarization in government, that somehow it becomes a similar focus in just about any other politically charged public interaction.

 

Now, I will sit back and await the vitriol; but this is my simple opinion. And I continue to just not get why so many cannot just allow people to be people and to keep their noses out of others' lives as much as possible. Freedom is not license. Rights are not absolute. Find your comfort zone, and play within it; but if it does not mesh with someone else, just accept it and move on.

Well said.

[Krampus 696]

@mozartbrau - The BSA anti-gay policy is well known among scouters. The general public for the most part isn't aware of the policy. I've had parents approach me after a couple of years in scouting and were surprised that such a policy exists. I'm surprised too. It is 2013 afterall.

 

Yeah, but this is the same general public that does not read anything anyway. Most people are sheep and cannot be bothered to do their homework. They would read the TV Guide with more vigor than the major membership policies of an organization that will take care of their son hundreds of miles from home. Go figure. [i am rolling my eyes hard on that one]

[AZMike 173]

I don't believe the policy was well know till the Dale decision....

 

as a youth in the 70's I don't believe the policy was well known at all. We had a gay ASM back then, single lived with his mother, No big deal, parents kinda raised their eyebrows when he was around never knew why to much later.... BTW, that was pre-youth protection.

Sodomy was illegal in most states in the Union back in the 1970s, BD, and a homosexual act, even with a consenting adult partner, was punishable by imprisonment. Vice squads regularly trolled gay pickup sites (bars, bookstores, parks, public restrooms) and arrested anyone who made a pass at an undercover officer. A morals violation or allegation could seriously harm your reputation, which is why (until recently) one could sue for defamation if someone claimed you were gay. This was the state of affairs in this country until the 2003 SCOTUS decision that voided state laws against sodomy. The popular consensus back then was unlikely to recognize that you could be "gay" or have a "gay identity" yet not be committing sodomy (as defined by the law) with another man.

 

Although there was at least one written BSA policy statement in the 1970s that was admitted as evidence in court and has been referenced repeatedly, why would the BSA need to have a policy against admitting people who were regularly committing felonies, in the eyes of the law at that period in time? The policies against admitting people involved in criminal acts would have been sufficient.

 

This is something I've never heard any LGBT advocate in the BSA explain adequately.

 

There seems to be this historical myth that there was a Golden Age of Homosexual Acceptance in the BSA until the bad ol' 1990s, when the Religious Right, yadda yadda, George Bush, yadda yadda., etc. No. Just no. It may have been winked at in some councils, but it was seen by the vast majority of Americans in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s as a) immoral b) weird c) disgusting, and d) certainly illegal, and the BSA, which has always been a very traditional group, held the same views at the rest of American society, both individually and as a culture. Homosexual acts were a felony, and would have barred you from membership if known or admitted. Period.

 

You can argue that popular culture has changed from those view, but to hold that it is some whole new thing is historically naive.

[King Ding Dong 540]

I don't believe the policy was well know till the Dale decision....

 

as a youth in the 70's I don't believe the policy was well known at all. We had a gay ASM back then, single lived with his mother, No big deal, parents kinda raised their eyebrows when he was around never knew why to much later.... BTW, that was pre-youth protection.

You admit it was not illegal in ALL states. That shoots a giant hole in your argument. It was not a federal crime but a state crime in some but not all states.

[AZMike 173]

I don't believe the policy was well know till the Dale decision....

 

as a youth in the 70's I don't believe the policy was well known at all. We had a gay ASM back then, single lived with his mother, No big deal, parents kinda raised their eyebrows when he was around never knew why to much later.... BTW, that was pre-youth protection.

Seriously, KDD - so if it wasn't a felony in ALL states in the U.S., that is supposed to "shoot a giant hole in my argument?" Seriously? Do you think that the BSA would only recognize federal law, but not the laws of the state the council was in?

 

My apologies, then. I misstated. Sodomy was illegal in EVERY state in the Union until 1962. So there would be no need for a policy in the BSA before that date. It was that way since the beginning of the Republic, when good old liberal, separation-of-church-and-state Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill that would require castration upon conviction for sodomy. The Virginia legislature thought Tom was way too liberal, and voted to continue the death sentence for sodomy.

 

Illinois was the first state to decriminalize the act of sodomy (in 1962) , but it was still a criminal offense to solicit another to commit sodomy. Other states gradually repealed the consensual sodomy laws until the 2003 SCOTUS decision (reversing its earlier 1986 decision which said states COULD have anti-sodomy laws).

 

I'm not sure which state Basement Dweller was in during the 1970s, but in the majority of states, homosexual acts were still illegal for most of the 1970s. In Michigan, for instance, a sodomy conviction could get you 15 years, and a second offense could get you a life sentence. In Idaho, a single conviction for committing a homosexual act could get you life at hard labor. As homosexual marriage was just the punch line of a dirty joke back then, you could also be prosecuted under fornication laws, and if one of the partners was a married man or woman, you could also be prosecuted under the adultery laws.

 

Legislative repeal rolled back some of the states' laws in the 1970s until the 2003 decision, but if you were a homosexual scout leader in, say, Wisconsin until 1983, or Texas until 2003, or Tennessee until 1996, or Massachusetts until 1974, or Florida until 2003, or Kansas until 2003...there was no need for a formal policy against homosexuals in the BSA. Gay people should not have been imprisoned for consensual sex acts (at least with adults), but the idea that there were no restrictions against gays in the BSA is ludicrous. There never was a Golden Age for Homosexuality in the BSA in the 1970s, KDD.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

llinois was the first state to decriminalize the act of sodomy (in 1962) ' date=' but it was still a criminal offense to solicit another to commit sodomy. Other states gradually repealed the consensual sodomy laws until the 2003 SCOTUS decision (reversing its earlier 1986 decision which said states COULD have anti-sodomy laws).[/quote']

 

Good point. But a good question is, how many states enforced those laws in the 60s, 70s and 80s? One of the local towns still has a law on the books that says it is illegal to drive a car without having a bell ringer walking in front of the car to announce it's presence*. I don't know of anyone (including me) that has had that law enforced upon. I don't know the answer to my question. Anyone have info on that?

 

* That same town apparently has a law on the books that says it's illegal to allow your donkey to sleep in the bathtub. I would love to know the history on that one!

[Scouter99 265]

Prediction? I won't be surprised either way, really. If you put a gun against my head I'd say they'll allow gay kids.

 

Plans? If no, I plan to get angry at every loudmouth that sounds off for the next 2 weeks until some Senator farts and distracts the 24-hour news cycle.

If yes, meh. I knew of a few gay kids in our troop when I was a scout myself, and I've been aware of a couple as an adult. The difference now is that kids are pushed to come out as soon as, if not before, they've got their first pube, so it's a different dynamic: It's one thing to have a "funny" kid in the troop, it will be another thing to have an honest-to-God gay kid in the troop. Every normal molehill slight will be made a bigotry mountain, every funny look will be sexual harassment. For every kid that doesn't give a rip, there'll be at least one parent with grave concerns. So, it'll just be learning to deal with the new tension.

Media will be a nightmare either way. First 15-yr-old that gets screwed by a 19-yr-old will be called a victim of "pedophilia" which is a joke. Or, worse, the victims will simply be ignored from now on, since they were never more to the media than a tool in the first place. A yes vote won't satisfy any of the weirdos and their "allies" since it won't allow adults, so we'll have another round of Kick the BSA. And in a year all we're going to get is a crusade over atheists with lots of "we won on gays" smearing in our faces.

 

Maybe I'll add "invest in Valium" to my plans.