If BSA v. Dale were reversed...

[frank10]

Scoutfish,

your right, some units/scouts/scouters will leave and new ones will take their places. Same camps, same name but a new group using them. By the numbers that works.

If your family was driven out of you home but a new family moved in then it would all be the same in the end. same number of people just different ones.

 

Tell the truth, I don't have a problem with gays in Scouting as long as they keep their sexuality as distant from the program as I do my own. (note that I did not say I would mind them bringing a spouse/partner to event just like me.)

 

BUT: Dale V. BSA is much more important than gays in scouting. It is critical that any group be able to select it's own membership and leaders. Should the VFW have to allow me in even if I never served?

Must a motorcycle club accept members who do not ride?

With each new member the nature of any group changes. Add enough new members and the old members no longer have a group.

[BrentAllen]

"your right, some units/scouts/scouters will leave and new ones will take their places"

 

That's certainly NOT what happened in Canada.

 

My guess - 8 years from now, some of you will still be advocating...because the BSA won't change.

[BadenP]

Brent

You might just be surprised what Mazzuca may do, especially if he thinks it will bring in more boys, and he can convince the LDS that the local option is the way to go.

 

[Eagle92]

From the incidents I cited above, as well as the fact that homosexual marriage hasn't been voted on by the voters directly, but either legislated or enforced through the judiciary, I think we will lose members, not gain. Will that change someday, maybe. But not in the near future.

[VigilEagle04]

Eagle92,

 

You're right, we will drop in numbers initially. Some will be picked back up, especially if the local option, or outright allowance, goes for co-ed units as well. There are three Spiral Scouts units in this area (if you don't know what it is, don't worry, most people don't) who all know me. As a Celtic spiritualist, these are people I tend to connect to a lot (most are Earth-based religion types). Anyway, I've acted as a reference for the leaders that started these units, and many of them were former Scouters and/or Scouts. The youth and the adults have all said they would really like the structure that the BSA provides, and they have COs that would support them, but they won't do it because each of them has homosexuals and/or women in the mix (this of course being after I explained to them that the BSA is in no way hostile to our spirituality, that's it's primary some of the older, local leaders causing that).

 

While I don't think the numbers we would bring in would come close to making up for the numbers we would lose, I think it would even out eventually. It might take a while, but it would.

[sherminator505]

"My guess - 8 years from now, some of you will still be advocating...because the BSA won't change."

 

You may be right about the 8 years, Brent. But the BSA will eventually change, because the present policy is un-American and nigh indefensible. The only question in my mind is whether the BSA will change on its own or if they will be forced to do so by some judge. I'd really hate to see the latter.

[scoutingagain]

I agree local option would kick in as it did for women. It would have no effect on those units that did not want to have "avowed" homosexuals as a part of their adult leadership, just as those units that do not want women as adults leaders are free to do so. For those units that really wanted to stay with the BSA and not have gay leaders there would be no changes to their program, if that's what they wanted.

 

However, there would be some COs and units that would be sufficiently upset that they would drop their charters. And I suspect that there would also be an effort to start a new, private scoutlike organization, that had no connection to the government, that would bar "avowed" homosexuals from serving as leaders.

 

I agree with NJ. There is a possibility that a court could rule in a way that sexual orientation by itself cannot be used as a reason to reject an applicant. So the BSA, if it thought such a ruling could happen, would probably preemptively open things up via the local option.

 

And yes, you might get a handful of openly gay men to sign up as adult leaders and the only time you might run into one if your unit didn't accept them would be a large camporee and you would have no idea who they were. Just as Pack points out, that's the way it is now.

 

SA

 

SA

[Mr. Boyce]

An immediate and large drop in membership would occur, due to concerned parents, etc.

[rdclements]

When I consider whether my children should go on an outing with a group, the sexual orientation of the attending adults is not on my checklist.

[Horizon]

Again, assuming the local option allows a Troop's Charter partner to choose their leaders, I don't think that we will lose as many as we think. It will have to be emphasized that there is NO forced change being made to the Troops, only that Troops will now have the OPTION of choosing their leaders from a minimally larger pool.

 

A few people have brought up the issue of gay marriage, and used that to discuss the level of support for gay rights. I think it is important to realize that in California, the votes against Proposition 8 have been analyzed. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of voters 65 or older supported Proposition 8, while majorities under 65 opposed it.

[Engineer61]

I think it depends a great deal on "how" Dale is reversed.

 

I think if BSA decided to drop the restriction voluntarily without impetous by a Court, or threat of legal action, that any membership immediately lost would be made up and surpassed within a year or two at best.

 

Why? Because if BSA changed on their own, and it were announced as such, the public at large would take a new view of BSA that it is not (or at least less) narrow minded than they perceived.

 

If, on the other if BSA only changed the policy as a result of a legal battle, then the public would still (correctly) believe that there is no difference in BSA policy from the "experience" than the boys would receive.

 

The "local option" really isn't an option, because from a legal standpoint, it would seem to me to place everyone as risk from the local Troop, the District, the CO and to the top of BSA.

 

Unfortunately, I don't believe a voluntary change will happen, the ultra-conservative CO's would be furious. I think there would be far more flak from the CO's than from the Scout parent's themselves.

 

[Engineer61]

Oddly, and maybe this should be another thread... why is homosexuality an issue in BSA anymore anyway?

 

1) We know from the Oregon case that BSA has pedophiles in the adult ranks. As far as I know, none of the

perps were homosexual, making them bisexual.

 

2) BSA has instituted YPT to circumvent the issues 1.

 

3) Therefore a homosexual participant should not be an issue.

 

Is there an assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles? (I guess that's part of the homophobia...) I doubt there is a significantly higher percentage of homosexual pedophiles that non-homosexual ones.

 

Now, perhaps if the issue is a homosexual Scout is the underlying fear, perhaps there is a different set of things to consider.

 

How does BSA deal with bisexual Scouts?

[Beavah]

It would be a devastating loss of freedom for the nation. If a group cannot select its own leadership, that's a real assault on liberty.

 

Precedents go far beyond what da individual issue is. Yeh have to be careful in advocating for a particular outcome (allowing local option for BSA leaders) not to do far worse damage to the nation.

 

You would see evangelical Christian groups in organized ways try to take over da leadership of gay groups who could no longer exclude them based on sexual orientation. Yeh would see local governments try to use non-discrimination ordinances to disable minority groups with which they disagreed.

 

The proper way to advocate for the BSA to change its policy is to lobby the BSA to change its policy. What's truly unAmerican is to try to use the government and the courts to force fellow citizens and citizen organizations to change their mind. It is a form of violence. And violence to liberty in that way only begets more of the same.

 

What's more, there's nothing to insure that a ruling won't be overbroad or muddled enough to effectively limit or prevent "local option," at least not without many years of expensive litigation. There's no reason at all to believe things will simply and smoothly revert to local option.

 

So da result will be the same as what's happening in the Episcopal Church, eh? You'll get a fracture, real or practical, and the BSA will be split in two or more parts. No CO is goin' to bother with expensive litigation to ensure it's local option, they'll just drop units. Even if it's local option and a full organizational rupture doesn't occur, you'll see things like rival camporees in many areas.

 

What's left of the current organization will be much smaller and geographically based.

 

On da bright side, you'll probably see a repeal of da BSA's U.S. monopoly rights on "Scouting"

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

"It would be a devastating loss of freedom for the nation. If a group cannot select its own leadership, that's a real assault on liberty."

 

Isn't the local option the epitome of freedom and liberty?

[Beavah]

Local option was what Dale upheld, Gern.

 

Da BSA has the option to set its criteria for leadership positions within its own organization. Other organizations may set different criteria.

 

Reversing Dale in da courts means no local option for any private organization.

 

Don't mix up advocating for the BSA to voluntarily switch to local option and advocating for reversal of Dale. They are two very different things with very different consequences, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)