Can Someone explain

[Eamonn]

I was reading :Needed officers lost under military gay policy.

A AP news story on MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11017491/

This story states:

244 medical and health professionals discharged from 1994 through 2003 under the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation. Congress approved the policy in 1993.

Here is where I'm a little confused.

How is this policy different than the BSA policy?

I understand that the BSA uses the different language, but it seems to me to amount to the same thing.

I would think if organizations like the ACLU wanted to fight what they see as the good fight, their time would be better spent tackling the Pentagons policy on gays rather then the BSA.

Am I missing something?

If so what?

I'm not looking for any argument about if we should or shouldn't allow gay leaders, but it just seems to me that these organizations are worried about a hang nail when the patient isn't breathing.

Eamonn.

[evmori]

You're not missing a thing, Eamonn. The ACLU is still ticked cause they lost the Dale case!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Eamonn,

Both the military and BSA are supposed to operating under a policy of "don't ask, don't tell". As far as BSA goes, at least that's what I've been told.

 

I don't know who's currently fighting the military case in court, if anyone, but I suspect that they'd probably have an easier time winning the case for gays in the military. As I understand it, the original argument was that gays for some reason weren't considered to be competent fighters, or that straight soldiers would somehow be distracted by the thought of a gay being nearby. I think that's been pretty much disproven over the years. Of course, winning in court is different than overcoming bigotry, and that might take more time.

 

The BSA case against gays is built upon religious belief. The Supreme Court says that as long as BSA defines itself as a private club, they can determine their membership requirements. So, if they want to keep out gays, they can. If they want to keep out Protestants, or Jews, or Hindus, or whatever, that's ok, too. The court didn't say that BSA was correct in its exclusionary policies, only that it could legally do so.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

eamonn writes:

Here is where I'm a little confused.

How is this policy different than the BSA policy?

I understand that the BSA uses the different language, but it seems to me to amount to the same thing.

I would think if organizations like the ACLU wanted to fight what they see as the good fight, their time would be better spent tackling the Pentagons policy on gays rather then the BSA.

Am I missing something?

If so what?

 

 

If you're referring to the ACLU cases against military chartering of BSA units and/or military support of the jamboree, both of those were over religious discrimination, not sexual orientation (though other parts of the Winkler suit also included sexual orientation when dealing with e.g. Chicago public schools).

 

The ACLU does fight the military over gay rights, but these cases were about religious rights.

[acco40]

"do not disclose their sexual orientation"

 

What does that mean? By wearing a wedding ring, am I disclosing my sexual orientation? By sharing a house with my wife am I disclosing my sexual orientation? If asked, should I "abstain?" Lie?

 

I have no problem with the BSA or the military banning certain BEHAVIORS, but "orientations?" Thank goodness the BSA doesn't have a litmus test for "impure thoughts."