If BSA v. Dale were reversed...

[nugent725]

Here's a question to generate some debate and discussion...

 

What do you think would be the impact if the Supreme Court were to overturn Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

 

Case briefing and opinion of the court, as delivered by Justice Rehnquist: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html

 

Note: This is NOT a thread on your opinion of whether or not homosexuality is immoral or not...simply what would happen if homosexuals were permitted to participate in the BSA.

 

[GernBlansten]

The local option would kick in. Some COs would accept gays, some would reject gays.

[Horizon]

Local option would become the new system (as Gern put it).

Some Troops would do nothing, some would openly accept gays and lesbians, others would specifically forbid them

I could see some Charter Orgs suddenly being asked to make the decision. Our relationship to our Charter Org is minimal, without a single member of the congregation a Scout and one Scouter being a member and our COR.

There might be some conflict at Camporee type events when the "gay troop" shows up (and you know that certain troops would get that name attached to them).

A few Troops might break-up when the decision is forced on them. I could see a few years of Troop switching going on until the dust settles.

"Do you allow gays?" might become one of the questions that Webelos dens ask.

[nugent725]

I was holding off on posting my reply, because I didn't want the original post and my reply to look like one garbled mess.

 

Gern,

 

That's actually not a bad idea...this way its kind of a "to each his own" style policy, as far as the CO goes. This would generally be in the same boat as a CO having the right to choose (or not choose) an individual to be a leader based upon their religion. However, I am curious as to what happens when you have a council that wants to enforce a non-discrimination policy, and a CO that insists on discriminating due to its belief system.

 

I think that amending the BSA "by-laws" to be inclusive of everyone will only help us. Aside from the fact that we would now have more youth involved (thus giving us the chance to impact more young people's lives, and set them on the right path), we would also see the return of more funding, support, etc. from public and private sources...plus the ability to charter in public facilities once again (public schools, military bases, etc.). Just as a reminder, here is a short list of companies that have stopped donating to the BSA due to their current policy (some have stated that they would fund again, if the policy were rescinded): Levi Strauss and Company; Medtronic, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN; Well's Fargo Bank; Portland General Gas and Electric of Portland Oregon; The Providence Journal; Textron; Fleet Bank; IBM Corporation; United Way.

 

 

Personally, I feel that Scouting should be a safe haven...for one and all. How often do we say on these boards, when discussing a troubled youth, "He needs Scouting now more than ever" or something to that effect. Plus, I find it rather hypocritical to tell a Scout they must adhere to the code of being Friendly, Courteous, and Kind...but then tell them that they must look down on and treat someone like they are less of a person because they are different. Would this debate have gotten this far if it had been based on race, not orientation? Additionally, I don't see how orientation should matter because it is a youth organization that has no relation to sexuality (of either orientation).

 

I apologize for the long post, and ranting...just some things I had to say.

 

Yours in equal Scouting,

 

Ryan

[perdidochas]

Unless local option was allowed, this would be disastrous. Not many parents will allow their adolescent boys to go spend a weekend in the woods with an openly gay scoutmaster. Heck, it's already hard for some parents to trust sending their adolescent boys to spend a weekend in the woods with men who've had criminal background checks. Call it homophobic, or whatever else you want, but that's the reality of it. IMHO, if Dale were repealed, local option wouldn't be an option anymore. After all, that would allow local CO's to discriminate. If the overall organization can't discriminate, it doesn't make sense to allow the local groups to do it.

[sherminator505]

If BSA v. Dale were reversed, I feel that it would free up the BSA's leadership to redirect its resources from stuff like this and... oh, I don't know... concentrate on things like program and training support?!

[nugent725]

Perdidochas,

 

COs will always have the option to discriminate. While they may not be able to say "We don't want homosexuals", they can say "Since the BSA's belief system is no longer in alignment with ours, we choose not to renew your charter".

[perdidochas]

And if COs were forced to choose between allowing gay scouters or not chartering troops, many troops would lose their charters. The ideal thing would be to allow local option before Dale is reversed. If not, IMHO, BSA will die or be crippled even more if Dale is reversed.

[nugent725]

Sherminator,

 

I didn't see your post when I replied to perdidochas' post...otherwise I would have said "Here, Here". I completely agree with that notion. Also, think of the resources that will be saved from not constantly being in a courtroom over the same issue over and over again...not to mention the whole fact that from a PR standpoint, this has been not but a "crapstorm" (to put it politely).

[NJCubScouter]

I don't have time for all the legal why's and wherefore's right now, so I will just say two things:

 

1) I have been advocating the local option in this forum for eight years, and it becomes clearer every day that this is the way to go. But...

 

2) It would be much better if local option were elected by the BSA without court intervention. To make it very short, I think perdidochas is probably right, local option would be difficult or impossible to achieve by court order. If Dale had won, there probably would NOT have been local option, the ruling would have covered all units. Or would it have? Maybe just units in New Jersey. (I'm serious.) It would have been a mess. The BSA should just do the right thing.

[packsaddle]

I'll just quickly note that:

1) boys already go camping with gay leaders and,

2) local option already exists - it's the ability of the CO to reject anyone they choose from leadership. The difference is that the CO can't ALLOW anyone they choose to be part of the leadership. That's the part of local option that is needed. Moreover, if the BSA allowed the full local option it would obviously continue to allow the CO to reject whoever they choose from leadership.

The homophobes can remain homophobes. No problem.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagle92]

This is from my expereince, so it's not opinion.

 

1) We will have COs who will refuse to recharter their units. As a DE I lost a pack when the Dale v BSA lawsuit was announced and a CO thought the BSA would lose the decision. No matter what I said about how they choose the leaders of their pack, they did not want to risk anything and decided to drop the pack.

 

2) You will have parents who are so concerned about abuse that they will not allow their sons to join Scouting. In the mid to late 1970s their was a child abuse/BSA scandal in New Orleans where a troop was formed by a group of homosexuals with the intent to abuse the scouts. One reason why my mother didn't push my brothers to find another troop after they moved (that and they were bored as it was "urban scouting"). My mom was constantly asking me things after meetings and trips. I didn't realize why until I was in college and did research on this issue.

 

2a) When Scouting for All protested the Southeast LA Council, which has its offices visible from I-10, the council actually had folks calling to sign up their sons b/c the Boy Scouts did not allow homosexuals as leaders. Yes some folks didn't pay attention to Dale v BSA.

[GernBlansten]

When the BSA decided to allow women to serve as leaders, the local option kicked in. Some units allow women, some do not. Why would the gays be any different?

[Scoutfish]

Oh, there will be some moaning and complaining....Some units will fold, but new ones open up. Some people will quit, but many will join up.

 

It would be a news story sensation for a month or two, but within a year, other than missing a few recognizable faces at Jambo or camp...it would be about the same.

[NJCubScouter]

I agree with Scoutfish. Local option would result in a period of much wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, but in the end it would still be the same old BSA -- with probably about 12 or 13 openly gay Scoutmasters.