The Bigot Scouts
6/8/12 13:45![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBoy 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?
"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?
(no subject)
Date: 8/8/12 21:28 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 8/8/12 22:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/12 03:41 (UTC)...
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/12 13:13 (UTC)I don't care what Mike Huckabee equates. He's not a Boy Scouts official, and neither does he set their policies.
I've cited the official statements of the Boy Scouts over the years. And all you got is what a governor said on Fox News. I'm beginning to think you're really lazy.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/12 14:53 (UTC)Considering I don't have any real evidence, I'll concede the point.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/12 15:53 (UTC)