The Gay, Communist, Gun Club!

[Scoutfish]

Anybody remember that one? It was a skit from Saturday Night Live back in the late eighties to early nineties. Phil Hartman, Jon Lovitt, and who ever that weeks guest was. John Goodman I think but not gonna swear on it.

 

So anyway, the three of them (Phil, Jon, and John) are doing a call in tv show. They are sitting ona log in front of a campfire in the woods.

Their main line is that you must be gay, communist AND a shoot guns.

 

So person after person calls in. 1st guy is communist and loves to shoot guns. Want's to know if he cam join. OF COURSE NOT! He must be gay too.

 

Second caller is gay,and communist,. but hates guns! Can he join? NO! Must love guns too.

 

3rd caller is gay and loves guns, but not communist. No dice there either.

 

So waht is my point? Well, I just thought about that skit after (how many) weeks of seing gay themes being the top politics and issues catagory.

 

So here's my line of thought:

I am not gay. Never have been, can't imagine I ever will be. I am married, have kids, believe in god although I may not necessarly agree with most/all mainstream organized religions. I am not racist, bigotted or predjudiced. I have great friends of all persuasions. I do not judge them no more than I expect to be judged. It's not my place as the good Lord said so.

 

When it comes to scouting, I do not push heterosexual teachings or leaders over homosexual ones either. Point of the matter, I feel any sexual teaching do not belong in scouting other than identification of male from female wildlife ( think Cardinal here or Mallard).Heterosexual acts while scouting or camping etc.. are no more alowwed than homosexual, so it's a moot point crying about one over the other to me.

 

See, I can not understand why any individual would want to join, much less fight agaisnt a group who values or bans a certain kind of behavior, line of thinking, lifestyle or race.

 

If a club said I had to be gay to join, and I wasn't.. I am not going to demand they change their views or policies in order to join a groups based on what I am not. I mean..for example...I suppose I could try to join a ladies only health club,and cry discrimination when they say no. But why would I want to join in the first place? LOL! Yeah, I know there is that, but what else?

 

Why is it so wrong for woemn to have a club based on being women who also want to work out? Same for gays, straights, nuetrals, blacks, whites, purples?

 

Everybody want to have or belong to a group that stands for some kind of common value, trait, activity or like.

 

Basically, It seems to come doewn to this line of thinking: "I can have my segregated grouop, but yours is wrong!"

 

Anyway, Why join BSA is you don't l;ike the policies? It'sa club! You don't like what the club does or it's policies...don't damn join!

 

Likewise.. IF I did have an issue with gay people.. I wouldn't join a gay club and whine and cry about everybody acting gay. That would be stupid of me!

 

I don't go to XXX theatres and then get upset over the playlist. It is a XXX theatre afterall.

 

I wouldn't go to a FORD dealership and demand they sell an equal amount of Chevy, Dodge, Nissan, Toyotas..etc. and so on.

 

So justb like the gay communist gun club.. if you are not gay, communist or into guns..... why would you want to join?

[Kahuna]

I don't think your arguments add up to exactly what you think they do, Scoutfish.

 

First of all, the BSA is boys organization. Boys who join are not really thinking about being gay or being atheists. They are thinking about joining an organization that is fun. As they grow up and advance in Scouting, they may discover that they are gay or conclude they are atheists. But they still like the organization and they would like to make Eagle, or go to Philmont or a jamboree.

 

Next, as I think was the case with Dale, they may find they want to continue as a leader, again because they like doing Scouting. There are probably a lot of gay leaders or atheistic leaders who are serving in Scouting and just keeping their mouth shut about their sexual or religious orientation.

 

I think the question would be: Why do some, like Dale, feel compelled to "come out" about the issues after being a part of the organization for some time? They undoubtedly realize that what they are doing will hurt the organization. IMHO, that is essentially an ego trip.

[OldGreyEagle]

I can see where this is going, but heck, what a ride

 

I am not so sure Dale "Came out" as much as he was "outed" in a photo in a Newspaper covering a Gay Rights Rally in New Jersey. Had that photo never been run, I wonder where we would be today.

[Oak Tree]

The thing is, the BSA is not called the Straight God-fearing Scouts of America. Now, if someone who hated camping joined Scouts and then complained that they couldn't get Eagle without going camping, well, I'd agree with you - why join a group if you don't agree with the central mission/vision/tenets of the group. Many people just don't see that someone's sexuality or religious beliefs are core parts of the Scouting mission.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It wasn't a rally, it was a story on the college gay student group. Plus, of course, Dale was never told that gays couldn't join (and the BSA still has nothing on their membership form that tells anyone that gays can't join).

[NJCubScouter]

As I recall the facts as stated in the Supreme Court case, James Dale was in the Boy Scouts in his hometown, made Eagle, turned 18, became an ASM, then went to college, in a different county in the same state. If he ever told anyone in his troop that he was gay, that is not reported in the facts. Sometime while he was at college, he joined the gay student organization, and became its president. The group participated in a conference, which if I recall correctly dealt with the problems faced by teenagers who are in the process of discovering they are gay. The largest newspaper in the state covered the conference, quoted Dale, and identified him as president of the gay student organization. (Meaning, it didn't say anything about his conduct, it just said he was president of a group, but people did make the reasonable inference that the president of a gay student group is gay.) Some people somewhere in his council saw the article, and Dale got a letter from the council terminating his membership in the BSA.

 

So there it is. He wasn't "in the closet", he didn't "come out" (because he was already out), but he also didn't make any sort of big deal about his status "back at home." I don't see how it could be said that he did anything wrong, or anything that justified a nationwide ban from membership in the BSA. He was just being who he was, and at the time he became statewide news, he was just trying to help other people. (Hmmm... to help other people at all times...)

[Scoutfish]

I'll be the first to say that I never heard of Dale until you guys posted it here.

 

Now as far as the "club" goes, BSA may not have the title of "STraight outdoor camping club" , but it is a part of it's being. JUst like it was pointed out, when you sign as a leader, you swear to promote the values tha6t BSA pushes.

 

The name may not be in the group, but likewise, my local VFW isn't called the "Veterans of Foreign Wars who swear they believe in God" either!

 

Okay, there is a word that describes this, but i can't seem to grab it. That word describing how God or well, just recognition of a higher power and the policies that exclude atheism and homosexuality.

 

Anyway, if you go to join a club, and see on the membership form that the club is against or for certain activities or beliefs... and you cannot abide by or agree to those beliefes..... why would you join?

 

I used to smoke. I quit last Sept. But when I used to smoke, I would not have joined a club that participated in ( uhmmm whatever) and cry about the non smoking policy if it was listed as a term of membership.

 

That make more sense?

 

 

If I joined that club anyway, would it be obvious that I had an agenda other than the spirit of that club?

 

I mean even within religion, smaller , more minuscule details seperate one religion from another. Case in point, Anglican/ Episcopal church pretty much came was created by King Henry the (7 or 8th) over allowing divorce.

 

Divorce! One minor detail. Between the Anglican church and what it was before that.

 

So anyway, my point is: Why join a club that you know that you can not meet or see eye to eye over it's requirements.

 

Why not either join a similar club or start your own?

 

And specifically in the case of sexual orientation or atheism.. both of tose two groups should have plenty of folks that would sign up.

 

Again, I am not predjudiced, or racist,. I'm not saying we shouyld be segregated. I just saying I wouldn't join a club just to spend all my time fighting the rules of that club.

 

At some point, why would I even want to join? Nobody at that club would like me would they? If I did get the rules changed.. all the people who made up that club wopuld probably quit, so i'd be prety much back where I started!

 

That make sense to anybody?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The name may not be in the group, but likewise, my local VFW isn't called the "Veterans of Foreign Wars who swear they believe in God" either!

 

The VFW dropped their "belief in god" requirement for membership a few years ago.

 

Anyway, if you go to join a club, and see on the membership form that the club is against or for certain activities or beliefs... and you cannot abide by or agree to those beliefes..... why would you join?

 

If you go to join a club, and see that your public school is running the club, and you saw that the club had unlawful religious requirements to join, why would you let your school violate your rights?

[Lisabob]

"So anyway, my point is: Why join a club that you know that you can not meet or see eye to eye over it's requirements. "

 

Here is part of the problem. When people get involved in scouting, whether because they're signing up their bright-eyed 7 year old as a Tiger cub, or because they are excited about becoming adult leaders, there is relatively little awareness of exactly what the professed values of the BSA might actually be. Everybody knows the scouts help little old ladies across the street and do good deeds and stuff. Most people are aware that there is a citizenship focus. I think (hope?) people associate scouting with strong outdoor program and skills.

 

How many average people actually know that the BSA systematically excludes "avowed homosexuals" and atheists and agnostics? Where, exactly, is that clearly stated on the form Joe and Jane Smith sign, when they register their eager Tiger cub and sign up as "Tiger Partners?"

 

Yes the BSA has an actual policy document that states this stuff (the DRP - Declaration of Religious Principles, I think). But no, it isn't widely available for reading with a critical eye.

 

And then in reality, most units do not waste much time trying to grapple with this stuff, either. As you noted, Scoutfish, this is a "hot topic" on this board, but it isn't the day to day reality of scouting on the ground in most locales. So it is entirely reasonable and possible for someone to be connected to scouting for a pretty darn long time - especially as a youth - without grasping the restrictive nature of the BSA's membership policies, or the implications of those policies.

 

By the way, the Dale case was the Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court said that the BSA has a right to hold exclusionary membership policies because it is a private club. Imagine Dale's surprise to discover that he was no longer welcome in a program that he'd been part of for much of his life. I ask: is that just? He wasn't an outsider looking to join a club with which he didn't agree. He probably viewed himself as an insider - active and loyal to the organization, and wanting to continue his lifelong connection.

 

It really is a lot more complicated than just saying that people shouldn't seek to join a club where they know they don't meet key membership requirements.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Scoutfish, there is nothing about sexuality on the membership or leader application forms. As you have pointed out, there shouldn't be any discussion of sexuality within the BSA. But I don't see how that fits in with your apparent belief (and the belief of those who currently, temporarily run the BSA) that one of the values of the BSA is that you have to be a heterosexual. I don't think that is really one of the core values of the BSA. There is nothing in the Scout Oath or Law, or even anything that can be inferred from them, about not being gay. This "policy" is not part of what it means to be a Scout or Scouter. It has been added on due to politics. It should be removed and each CO allowed to make its own membership policies as they do for almost every other aspect of membership and leadership.

[evmori]

Right on the money NJ. The BSA was totally within their right to do what they did.

[DYB-Mike]

There is nothing in the Scout Oath or Law, or even anything that can be inferred from them, about not being gay.

 

I dont think thats entirely true. Some folks appear to hang their hat on the phrase morally straight because from their perspective, largely because of biblical interpretation, homosexuality is immoral. Until the majority opinion comes to view that idea as false (my view, by the way), this will still be an issue and a very tough nut to crack.

 

YIS

Mike

 

[Eagledad]

Yes, NJ and evmori are right. The ruling wasnt about gays or the BSA, it was about the government forcing itself on a private club to change its rules. If it had gone the other way, the government could force the BSA to accept atheist, take out the reference to God from all its materials and even force it to take trustworthy and clean out of the Scout Law so as to be fair to those who like to be dirty and arent trustworthy. Really its a basic right of United States freedom. That a few judges favored Dale still scares me.

 

Now if the BSA eventually feels it must change, that is a different thing. That is an internal choice not being forced by government or the ruling political party at the time (biggest guy with the stick). That is also a basic right of freedom.

 

As for Dale being force to leave because he was caught, he could have said he changed his lifestyle or just left and we wouldnt be having this discussion. That wasnt the choice he made.

 

I guess it could be said life is not fair because the BSA didnt tell him gays weren't allowed when he joined, but whether he knew or not when he joined, he did make a choice when he did find out, not the BSA. He knew the risk and the consequences when he made the choice.

 

Personally I think its silly to blame the BSA because gays arent specifially stated as not allowed on the application. If the BSA or any other organization was expected to list all the lifestyles and behaviors of folks not allowed in the organization, the list would go on for pages and pages and pages. I would be surprised to learn of just one registered adult who didnt know gays werent allowed to register into the BSA.

 

Barry

 

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, that's irrelevant. Just because you have a legal right to do something doesn't make it "right." It's a bad policy. The fact that it's legal doesn't change that.

 

DYB-Mike, I think we agree on this, but a disputed biblical interpretation cannot be the sole basis for a BSA policy, when the BSA does not take sides in matters of religion. And of course this issue is a tough nut to crack. I didn't say it's easy. It should be easy, but it isn't.

 

Eagledad, the Dale case is relevant today not because of how it could have turned out differently, but because the story of James Dale itself shows how bad and wrong the policy itself is. So the BSA won the case. It also won the case that said it didn't have to allow women to be Scoutmasters -- and shortly after that, allowed women to be Scoutmasters. It should do the same thing in this case. There is no reason why Dale should have had to "change" in order to remain an Assistant Scoutmaster.

 

As for the part about what is or isn't stated on the application, that was a response to something Scoutfish said.

 

I think there are many Scouters who know nothing about the "gay issue." Sometimes we forget that only a tiny fraction of Scouters read forums like this. Most of them just go about their business.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad, the BSA had been acting as a public accommodation for decades, what with 10% of its packs and troops run by public schools and advertising as being open to "all boys." The BSA still doesn't behave like the private club it insists it is.