I find this interesting.

[fboisseau]

A double standard anyone.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cskl19jun19.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

[NJCubScouter]

First of all, fboisseau, I'm assuming by your "double standard" remark that Broward County is one of the Florida school systems that attempted to ban BSA units or charge higher fees for use of schools because the BSA excludes openly gay leaders. I do not know that for sure; when that story was going on, I just knew it was some school district(s) in Florida.

 

Assuming that is the case, I do not see any double standard here. The story says the board wants to fire the teacher for appearing in a pornographic gay video, but the key word appears to be pornographic, not gay. They are not firing him because he is gay. They are firing him because he was in a pornographic video. Presumably they would take the same action if he was in a "straight" pornographic video.

[fboisseau]

Yes, Broward County was one of the counties that tried to ban the Boy Scouts for excluding homosexuals. Second the reason this teacher was fired was not because he did anything illegal, but that the county had a problem with his morals. So my question is what makes Broward Counties morals more valid then the Boy Scouts morals?

[NJCubScouter]

This seems to be a 2-person conversation, come on everybody, I'd especially like to see if Rooster is going to criticize the school district for firing a teacher for appearing in a gay video.

 

Anyhoo, fboisseau says:

 

So my question is what makes Broward Counties morals more valid then the Boy Scouts morals?

 

First of all, this discussion is a bit difficult because the newspaper story (which is 100 percent of what I know about this case) contains very little in the way of explanation for the board's rationale and motivation. Three-quarters of the story is the guy's own lawyer giving his own position, and doing a good job of representing his client, in the court of public opinion at least. From what I can see, not a single voting board member is quoted. There is one "student adviser" who says something about character, and a political candidate who says something about morality and ethics. Elsewhere there is a mention of school policies, but no specifics about what those policies are.

 

But let's assume that morality is the issue here, and that the board wants to fire the guy because he violated moral principles by intentionally appearing in public, having sex with another person. And he's a teacher, setting the example for his kids that you should put sex acts on public display. How in the world can you equate this with the BSA policy that says that every single person in the world who says he is gay, regardless of his actual behavior, is immoral and unfit for leadership? They are not even close to being the same.

 

I think the problem here is that when some people say "immoral," they seem to treat it as one big immoral thing, with no levels. There are degrees of wrong-doing. Murder is a greater transgression against morality than petty larceny is, and the punishments embodied in our laws reflect this. Then there is sexual morality. Something that almost everybody would see as a problem (porno-teacher) obviously creates more difficulty than something that only a portion of people regard as being immoral at all (like the mere fact of being gay.)

 

Let's put it another way. Say there are 2 guys. One appears in pornographic videos (with men or women or both, I don't care.) The other is an Eagle Scout who is now an adult, has discovered he is gay, and lives openly in a monogamous relationship with another man. The first guy has sex in public. The second guy doesn't even talk about sex in public. Whatever he does with his partner, he does it out of view of the public, like any married person, except that the state won't let him actually get married. He lives like any suburban home-dwelling, lawn-mowing, work-going, taxpaying guy, with the exception of who his companion is. (This is not just a hypothetical, I have personally known gay couples who are exactly like this, except I don't know if any of them had been Eagle Scouts.)

 

So how does the Broward County School board, the BSA and me react to these two guys? Porno-teacher: The school board, quite legitimately, does not want him to be a teacher. The BSA would not, and should not, allow him to be a leader. I personally don't want to know him. We're all in agreement, porno-teacher is not a good role model for kids. Now for the quiet suburban gay-guy: Broward County will gladly accept him as a teacher. I would gladly have him as a friend (and in fact have), and would not fear that he would teach my children to "turn gay" or anything. But, oops, the BSA is not following along with the rest of us on this one. The BSA (or more accurately, the current national leaders of the BSA) say that this fine person cannot be a leader merely because he makes no attempt to hide his sexual orientation -- a trait he shares with the vast majority of heterosexuals.

 

So that's the difference. One is not a good role model, and one is -- despite what it may say in one religious book that only a portion of people in Scouting, probably not even half, interpret to literally mean that gays cannot be good role models for children.

[littlebillie]

if in fact there has been "violation of policy", and that policy was known to and acknowledged by the - ah - budding thespian, then, certainly, the school board has every right to dump the man.

 

I am not clear, tho', as to what specific policy was violated, or how it might be worded; depending on THAT, of course, other issues may be raised. Freedom of speech coupled (if you will) with freedom of association would seem to cover acting, and I doubt that any other teacher has been fired simply for appearing in less controversial films.

 

it'll be interesting to see what happens with this. it seems the school board was aware of the teacher's orientation, so the issue is not that - it's performance in something that the kids shouldn't even know about anyway, so...

 

Do I agree with the school board's actions? Absolutely - based on the nature of the video. nevertheless, do I see at least SOME double standard? yeah, kinda. it's gray - and it's the gray that could make for some fascinating law to come out of this...

 

[fboisseau]

My point is more along these lines. If an organization takes a stand against another organization stronger morals, then the first organization loses all standing when it tries to enforce it's morals. In this case the BSA has stated that, based the morals that the leadership of the BSA wants to promote a gay leader is unacceptable. Now I can accept that Broward counties school board can have a problem with that and that is okay with me. But when Broward county takes punitive action against the BSA because of that rule and only that rule (keep in mind that the BSA does not endorse any type of harassment of gays, just that they do not want them to be a member of their organization and if they ever did endorse harassment I would be strongly against that and leave the organization and take my boy with me) I find that wrong. If Broward County had just left the BSA alone and treated them like another organization, I would have not problem with their ruling in this case. Just so you understand the position that I am taking in this post is not for or against gays in the BSA instead it is that I think Broward County is using a double standard. They are saying to the BSA you must accept members to your organization that you do not approve because of their behavior, but we do have to right to remove members from our organization that we do not approve of because of their behavior.

 

One last thing, in my opinion behavior is the driving factor. For example I would have no problem dealing and socializing with an individual who has the genetic markers for alcoholism, but does not drink. If they get drunk, I will put as much distance between them and me that I can.

 

[slontwovvy]

"He said allowing Vanchieri to continue would undercut the district's character education program."

 

Interesting....

 

One in which the Boy Scouts are apparently not included. A pity really.

 

This man is clearly why we do not allow openly homosexual men in the BSA. Kudos to Broward County for giving this man the boot.

 

Now from the liberal point of view:

 

How can they destroy this man's freedom of expression? He clearly has the right to express himself however he sees fit. If that includes this incident, who are we to judge? Apart from that, he's a fine person. Really.

 

However, our constitutional hawking is not going to extend to the Boy Scouts, against whom we illegally discriminate by charging more for our facilities.

 

I'll step down now.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

slontwovvy says:

 

This man is clearly why we do not allow openly homosexual men in the BSA.

 

This is a truly amazing leap of logic, and would have consequences that I am sure you do not intend. If one gay man appearing in a gay porno film justifies the BSA banning ALL avowed homosexuals from leadership positions, then the many, many heterosexual people who appear in "straight" porno films must mean that the BSA should bar ALL heterosexuals from leadership as well. That means you and me, chief. I am sure your council's Exec would be very interested to read your letter of resignation explaining these grounds. Myself, I plan to stick around, because I know that the appearance in a porno film of someone who is of the same sexual orientation as me, does not make me unsuitable as a leader.

 

Now, let's assume for a second that your statement is based on the fact that this man is not only a gay man, but a gay man who works with children as a profession, and that this somehow justifies the exclusion of all gay man from BSA leadership positions. Once again, you have just excluded yourself and all the rest of us straights as well. Now, I can't actually name for you any straight teachers who have appeared in pornos. But I could, if I checked the newspapers over the past 10 years, probably name you 50 or 100 or more straight male high school and middle-school teachers who have done something much worse, namely have sex with their under-age female students. I can even name you a straight female teacher who had sex with a young male student, and in fact became pregnant by him twice, once after she had already gotten out of jail (May Kay Letorneau, maybe you remember that name, it was all over tv and the papers.)

 

So, if one gay teacher in a gay video justifies banning all gays from BSA leadership, then dozens or hundreds of straight teachers sexually abusing their students of the opposite gender must require that all of us straights be banned too. You can't escape the logic. Could it be that your logic is being blinded by something?

[NJCubScouter]

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[BubbaBear]

Personally, I think that all these openly provocative actions in Broward County are just a smoke screen to cover up the way they voted during the last national election.

I keep reading of that most of us scouters think gays should be let in as leaders, NJ... I am enthrawled. Please tell me where you get that information from. Interestingly enough, that is not the case in SW Florida, at least by the scouters I have been in discussion with over this issue.

[NJCubScouter]

BubbaBear says:

 

I keep reading of that most of us scouters think gays should be let in as leaders, NJ... I am enthrawled. Please tell me where you get that information from.

 

I don't think I got it from anywhere, because I don't think I ever said it. If I did, please link to the post. What I have said is that I think that most Scouters don't care about the issue very strongly, and specifically, I think that if the BSA announced tomorrow that there was going to be local option, the vast majority of Scouters would accept it, or at least live with it. And I didn't get that from anywhere, it's just what I think. I also think that eventually, there will be a compromise, and if it takes removal of the current national leadership to accomplish it, that is what is going to happen.

[OldGreyEagle]

Spent the weekend cooking hotdogs in a coke wagon and had a lot of time to think as I was rolling the weiners over the grill.

 

The basis of American government and our culture is compromise. First, I think the BSA ban on Gay leaders is wrong. Second, I never thought the local option idea was workable, that any change would have to be an all or none proposition on a national level, but I have an idea that I would like to toss out for opinions.

 

The concept actually strengthens the role of the Chartering Organization. BSA would charge the CO with approval of all adults in their scouting units. Actually this is nothing new, they do this now. If the CO wanted to accept a gay leader that would their decision. Now, the BSA would also require a million ( or other figure to be determined) dollar insurance policy from the CO payble to a scout who is proven to have been sexually abused by a leader in that unit. This would be true whether or not the perp was homo or hetero sexual. Maybe the insurance policy isnt a workable idea, but something of that nature.

 

With all the lawyers on this forum, I am sure someone can word this better than I. The overall idea is BSA says to the CO, ok we dont thnk a gay leader is a good idea, but if you vouch for his charactor and will become legally responsible for his actions as a scouter thats ok but if he injures one of our members, we will sue the CO and aid the victim in suing the CO as well. Just a thought, what do you think?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[BubbaBear]

OGE, the only thing I can see is that the program still belongs to the BSA and therefore the BSA would still be liable in a chain of law suits.

[BubbaBear]

Oh, one more thing...under that premise, shouldn't any questionable person be allowed under the same

approval and insurance policy?

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, your idea is an intriguing one, but I don't think it is consistent with the BSA's position that homosexuality is not the cause of abuse, and that the reason for the no-gay policy is not one of youth protection, but rather one of values. I think that part of the reason that the BSA has said this is self-serving: Having no policy to root out closet gays, the BSA does not want to associate homosexuality with abuse because that would open up a new legal can of worms. Requiring an insurance policy ONLY for units who appoint avowed gay men as leaders would undercut that position. In other words, if a closeted gay man abused a Scout, the parents' lawyer would argue, see, you knew gays were more likely to be abusers because otherwise you wouldn't require this extra insurance, and therefore you should have done something to prevent closeted gays from being leaders.

 

I also seriously doubt that an insurance company would write a policy specifically directed at child abuse, and if they did, it would cost so much that no unit could ever appoint an openly gay leader. Insurance is based in large part on the theory of spreading and averaging risks over a range of people, conduct and events. While the current insurance policies cover the BSA and units for child abuse committed by a leader, they also cover a wide range of other conduct, i.e. hiking injuries, rock climbing injuries, swimming mishaps, and everything else resulting from all that Scouts do, ranging from a $500 emergency room bill to repair a lacerated foot, to a multimillion dollar recovery for a greivous injury or death. If a policy was to be based on the single theory that a unit has a gay leader and therefore is at increased risk of child abuse, I think such a policy would either be impossible to get or impossible to pay for.