The Bigot Scouts

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy."
---

I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.

Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld
"Every four years, the Boy Scouts of America holds a National Scout jamboree ... The US Government spends an average of $2 million a year towards hosting of the jamboree.

"Winkler v. Rumsfeld was a case regarding the United States Armed Forces and their support of the Boy Scouts of America's National Scout jamborees."

Based on all this, Winkler and other plaintiffs (with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union), sued. Their argument was that the Department of Defense's use of taxpayer money for funding jamborees of what they called "a private religious organization", is a violation of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.

The DOD's spending for those jamborees was ruled a violation of the Constitution. Then the decision was reversed after an appeal (the argument being that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place). So the jamboree was allowed to continue.

Then the location for the future national jamborees was moved to W.Virginia, on private land. This was supposed to settle the issue once and for all. BUT...

"However, future involvement of the military in supporting Jamborees at The Summit is likely due to the recruiting and training opportunity it affords them."

In addition, W.Virginia, both the state government and various local government agencies, are providing both direct and indirect support for said "summit", in the form of tax breaks and other bonuses, plus the DOD is providing personnel and equipment to build the trails around the summit location - and all that, for the benefit of the non-gay Boy Scouts...

The most stunning thing here is that this policy is now practically being legitimized by the involvement of DOD, hence the federal government. Now, I may not agree with the views of the Boy Scots, but I can also see where the argument about them being a private company, might be coming from; although not necessarily being particularly happy about it. But don't the Scouts receive government grants in the meantime? Why is that? Does the federal government support a discriminatory policy against homosexuals - or not?

The other weird thing is that in its 2000 ruling, the SCOTUS used the 1st Amendment to exclude gays from being a scout master... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment?

And one last question. The disgrace that this organization has brought upon itself with this policy notwithstanding, why would the Boy Scouts even make homosexuality an issue at all? Was it anywhere near being one of the core principles on which that organization was founded? They're beginning to look more and more like the Bigot Scouts of America at this point.

Thoughts? Rants? Opinions? Macros?

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Saw it on Jon Stewart (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-23-2012/gaywatch---holdouts-edition).

A big WTF might be in order.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

He called the boy scouts the gayest organization. I lack the insight into that; someone hit me with info about that please! :-)

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

http://wiki.scouts.ca/en/Sexuality

Scouts Canada does not discriminate for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity BP&P.
"Scouts Canada is committed to social justice including the promotion of gender and member diversity at all levels of the organization, both in its structures and programs and to the elimination of discrimination on the groups of race, gender, ethnicity, financial ability, sexual orientation, religion, disability or age."
--Scouts Canada ByLaw, Policies and Procedures Section 1003

Way to go.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I have to sadly agree with you that the government should have no part in giving funding to such an organization. This is a, somewhat silly, reason I want to have a kid. So I can be involved in scouts again and maybe move up enough to see if I couldn't help make a change.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Could parents influence the organization's policies?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

All 11 members of the committee were unanimous? How did they form that committee?

Oh I see... "discreetly"...

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

By picking people who would be unanimous of course.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Btw while we're at it, I wonder what sort of youth organization those lads are from.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

If it walks like a cult and quacks like a cult...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's because the US Federal Government has set its priority on enforcing ass-backwards codes against gay people at the expense of solving any real problems. The repeated attempts to revive sodomy laws and the morbid obsession with the question of gay marriage reflect this. The Feds as a whole may not if we count every individual Congresscritter's viewpoint, but collectively what they do amounts to the same thing.

[mausbern.livejournal.com]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment?"

You are wrong. The 1st amendment is commonly known as the Free Speech amendment but it also deals with freedom of religion as well as the establishment of a religion as you mentioned earlier, also it deals with peaceably assembling and petitioning the government.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The Boy Scouts has had a long-standing religious aspect. I know of people who had been excluded for atheism.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

In answer as to why the Boy Scouts cares so much about homosexuality, well...the biggest reason is probably the Church of Later Day Saints, which forms a huge chunk of the Boy Scouts, and has greatly influenced their policy.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Bingo.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Yup. Back when I was a cub, nobody self-identified as either gay or atheist. That started to change in the later '70s, albeit slowly. In about the '80s, just as the Moral Majority and other backlash reactions to "out" atheists and gays began, the LDS started "infiltrating" scouting on a stealth basis by simply joining troups and electing their LDS friends into higher and higher positions. They did the same with several school district boards and PTSAs.

Disclaiming clarification: I don't have anything more against the LDS than I do against any other religious organization.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson are members of the BSA Executive Board. They have both committed to changing the policy, and Stephenson will probably become the "head Scout" on the committee in 2013. If they do change the policy, the Salt Lake cult will probably drop their sponsorship of hundreds of scout troops.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Thank god.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

As a former Scout who got a lot out of scouting, this issue continues to sadden me.

The current national leadership's religiously motivated intransigence (not just on homosexuality, but also on Atheism) doesn't really have a solution other than "take our ball and go home"; i.e. concerned parents and young men of scouting age have to find a secular alternative, which is a huge waste; but there it is. Whether or not such a secular alternative ever manifests, it's a death-knell for Scouting as I knew it. It will just circle deeper and deeper into the orbit of the religious-exclusive parallel culture currently being constructed in the USA, brick by intolerant brick.

I don't think a 'take over' by secularists is very likely. Parents' long term commitment is to their Children in scouting. Boys and young men in scouting are committed for the duration. To effect this kind of change you have to be committed to the ideology, and willing to break the thing you are taking over.


As for Scouting's use of various Governmental resources, this is indeed inappropriate wherever such funding is tied by law to non-discriminatory practices (and that's most states, and the Federal Government, I believe).

Some people understandably say "Hey, its the Scouts, let a rule or two slide". Well, I am exactly as willing to overlook individual cases of inappropriate funding, as the national leadership is willing to overlook individual cases of "People being Gay", and in Scouting.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

It's sad for me. I've never been a scout but would not normally oppose my son becoming a Boy Scout...except for this. My wife and I agree, there's no way that he will participate in Scouts even if he asks us too. Excluding his uncles and our next door neighbors and our very good friends categorically? Not in our values.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The government shouldn't be funding the Boy Scouts in any case. The gay issue has nothing to do with it.

If the Boy Scouts want to pretend there aren't gay Boy Scouts, that is their prerogative.

FWIW, I was never a scout. Never held the least interest for me. My dad taught me all I needed to know about tying knots and lighting fires.

[mausbern.livejournal.com]

Yes, the OP seems to be talking about two separate issues. Is it about discriminating against gays or about the federal govt. endorsing a religion? Not very coherent.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

If I had a son, I would let him join the Boy Scouts, but only because I know my hypothetical son would take after his pappy and be a royal pain in the arse about some things and never drop the subject. My boy would pester them about being nice to gay people every single day and twice on Sunday.

BSA has evolved into a wannabe para-military prep club and the military lets the gays in now. So they should form up and follow suit... or I'll have lots of brats giving them grief over it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

That's what is going to happen.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

If I had a child who expressed interest in a para-military organization, I would try to find a more productive and individually expressive organization as an alternative. Even if the para-military organization were not opposed to homosexuality, it would still be too martial for my aesthetic sense of child development.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Homosexuality is WRONG! Unless of course you're a scoutmaster trying to fuck little boys. In that case, exemption granted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/06/boy-scouts-documents-child-abuse?newsfeed=true)

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Aw, you beat me to linking that.

It's interesting that the Boy Scouts and the Catholic church seem so similar in this respect, though. I'm starting to wonder if it's not hypocrisy as much as someone's totally misguided attempt to take care of sexual abuse problems internally without contacting the authorities. You know, kick out all the gays, see if that works.

[404.livejournal.com]

I was a cub scout and a boy scout, never went further than webelo. My father was the den leader for our neighborhood. Other than me being lazy, I thoroughly enjoyed my time in scouting, and would do it again.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Count me as one who would oppose the gov funding of scouts even if they started letting members let their freak flags fly high.

I see this Department of Defense funding as stealth funding for paramilitary organizations with exactly the same long-term ramifications as funding war-based video games available to the general public. It strikes me as money (probably well spent) to inculcate a generation of youth more accepting of uniforms and marching and the causes fought in the name of the Greater Good.

This and other "community support" recruiting tactics should be rooted out of the DoD budgets with bulldog tenacity.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Not allowing gays in the boy scouts represents an attempt to reduce or eliminate cases of molestation. At the very least, it represents an attempt to reduce the number of lawsuits filed against BSA and the government in the instance that cases of molestation are brought to light.

In a way, its sad that some have a tendency to jump to conclusions and assume its some anti-gay or homophobic reaction. Its not. Its a reaction to past incidents of molestation and child abuse.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Why are you being so disingenuous, I wonder? Is it something in the blood, or does it go along with being a conservative? I don't know. And I don't think I'm supposed to care.


Since 1991, openly homosexual individuals have been officially prohibited from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America.[source (http://web.archive.org/web/20060903235529/http://lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/cases/decision.html?record=224)] A 1991 Position Statement states: “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.”[http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2427-95.opn.html] The BSA thus "believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law."[source (http://web.archive.org/web/20100206191637/http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp)]

In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy statement, including the following as a "Youth Leadership" policy:
"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."[source (http://web.archive.org/web/20100206191637/http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp)]

On June 7, 2012, a BSA press release stated:
The BSA policy is: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”


It took me no more than 3 minutes of research. You're either being extremely lazy, or extremely masochistic in your desire to be pwned within 3 minutes by a presumably "non-intelligent, uneducated" woman, or just extremely dishonest here. And since you've so loudly championed "good research" so often, and I doubt you're that masochistic, I'd rather bet on the latter of the three options.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The government supports all manner of private organizations, I don't see any particular distinction in this one. I'd rather remove such government support from all than from targeted ones that certain people don't like.

If you don't like them excluding gays, start a group that does the same thing without the exclusion and see how much support you get. That's the real way to solve the problem.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You're hopelessly late to the party. Again. ;)