There IS no legal action. Names hurt? When hasn't there been namecalling for the last three decades in this BSA nonsense, hypocrite? (cf. your reference to "the permissive")
There is nothing hypocritical about finding non-incendiary terms for broad movements. The organization in question identifies itself as restrictive in terms of sexual ethics. The prevailing mood nationally is toward a permissive ethic. As far as I can tell, this is precisely what people are arguing about. If you have more neutral terms for these opposing sides, suggestions are welcome.
Now the published desire of certain activists is to ensure insure that BSA goes further in mandating a permissive ethic, regardless of the wishes of the chartered sponsor.
So, my repeating to a board -- one that recently came off of litigation to preserve it's right to uphold restrictive sexual ethics -- that "there IS no legal action" rings sufficiently hollow as to give half of them pause. Add the one guy who thinks two dozen 10-year-olds will wreak havoc on a building, and the scouting proponents can't overcome a motion to table.
@NJScouter, obviously, I think none of this is rational. I am just describing a situation where perhaps other programs are fast-tracked, but rolling out a BSA unit is shelved. If the opposite is occurring elsewhere, it would be encouraging to hear that story.