If BSA v. Dale were reversed...

[Gary_Miller]

You would see a decrease in membership and unit numbers I think so drastically that BSA would not have the funding needed to operate as it now does, even if those buisness not giving started giving again.

 

If the local option (as some of you call it) was instated gay activist groups would just move to the next level the CO, with the same arguments about discrimination.

 

The gay right issue is not about rights at all, as they have all the individual rights afforded to individuals by the constitution. Its about a group of people trying to justify and convince society that their unnatural sexually practices are natural. And in order to do that they need to be accepted in to all aspects of society including private organizations. However, in order to get into private organizations they have to do it by force, through the courts.

[Eagle92]

Don't remember the detail of Dale, I was at camp working when this was going on, but wasn't their a Juris Amicus Brief from a very unlikely group that supported the BSA's decision b/c as Beavah pointed out, it would affect ALL organizations' right to refuse membership. I think it was PFLAG but am not too sure.

[scoutingagain]

"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. "

 

I agree 100% which is why the BSA should strongly consider voluntarily implementing the local option without being forced by the courts. I believe there would be a sufficient number of COs that would not exclude openly gay leaders that if one wanted to join there would be a unit available to them. Just like there are opportunities for women to lead.

 

Women have not organized against those COs that exclude them as leaders and I see no reason why the handful of openly gay people that want to serve as BSA leaders would do so as long as they had an opportunity at membership somewhere.

 

SA

 

[GernBlansten]

I think I understand your comment Beavah.

I was approaching the discussion as if BSA were to drop their anti-gay ban, you are approaching it from the standpoint of overturning the free association decision, gay issue aside. Yes that would restrict freedom.

 

However if the BSA voluntarily dropped the ban, it would increase freedom, allowing CO's freedom to choose for themselves and face the consequences of their choices.

[Eagle92]

Gern,

Problem with local option is that units do use council facilities with other units, i.e. summer camp, cmaporees, etc, and parents and CO would be concerned.

[nugent725]

First, by stating "reversing Dale" in my original post, I meant the concept of openly allowing homosexuals into the BSA. I probably should've made more of a distinction between the reversal of Dale and the legal implications that would carry.

 

Second, I highly doubt that the issue is that they want to "pierce, change, and destroy American cultural values" and all that nonsense. Homosexuals are not trying to get into the BSA simply to make sure tat they can get into whatever organizations, and sue COs, troops, councils, etc. The concept is that by excluding them, you are effectively saying that they are different and should be treated differently. All they want is equality...I say give it to them.

 

YIS,

 

Ryan

[GernBlansten]

Can't help that Eagle92. Gays already exist in those venues. Parents would be naive if they didn't already know that.

[Oak Tree]

"If the local option (as some of you call it) was instated gay activist groups would just move to the next level the CO, with the same arguments about discrimination."

 

Since most of the COs are churches, good luck with that. Gay activists are free to go pound on the churches right now to get them to open up all of their other leadership position, but not a lot of denominations seem to be appointing gay leaders. Churches have an established right to choose their leadership based on religious beliefs. They can choose only men, for example.

 

Some of the non-religious COs might make for better targets.

[GernBlansten]

Non-religious COs would probably not be targets as they would probably not ban them.

[Beavah]

Yah, Gern, if you're only talkin' about the BSA voluntarily switchin' to local option, that's a horse of a different color.

 

Hard to predict, eh? My guess, though, is that it would be more like da Episcopal Church ordaining gay bishops than anything else. It'd polarize the community and tear it apart, but slowly. You'd get a lot of parents who would pull their kids, a lot of CO's who would drop their charters, and a lot of donors who would pull their support. Just from da confusion as much as anything. Call it about 8-10 times the backlash of the Dale ruling. Maybe more, as the Dale ruling really didn't create much of a stir in most communities. Could be much, much worse, of course, particularly if a few major CO's left wholesale, but presumably somebody would get at least their national organizations on board before such a move. Initially yeh would get a few new kids and CO's from da other side of things, but that would taper off pretty fast. It's not really like yeh see a huge market just waitin' in da wings for a change in organizational policy.

 

Medium term, if local option caught on, you'd see what yeh see in the Episcopal community. Individual churches and units declaring themselves for one side or the other, a major push to find a new alternative to da BSA that would attract the allegiance of the "conservative" charters, maybe pressure to repeal the congressional monopoly the BSA has on Scouting. We'd see separate camporees and proposals for separate weeks at summer camp.

 

Long term, dependin' on how it was handled, da hullaballoo would slowly die down and we'd end up with a smaller and less socially significant BSA and one or more equally small alternative scouting associations. Having hastened their mutual demise, together da various scouting programs will bemoan their loss of members and concoct new and improved "marketing plans" as they fade into da dustbin of history.

 

Eventually a few historians or historical sociologists at 2nd and 3rd tier universities will write dissertations on the whole thing, which will get them their degrees and sit like most dissertations on a dusty library shelf or hard drive.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BrentAllen]

sherminator,

The right to free association is now considered un-American? Wow. I didn't get the memo.

 

Horizon,

If you went back and looked at polls on gay issues from back in the 1980's, you'd see the same thing. Those young liberals are now the old conservatives. As people get older, they tend to get more conservative.

[GernBlansten]

"The right to free association is now considered un-American? Wow. I didn't get the memo. "

 

The right of free association is truly American. How you choose the exercise that right may not be.

 

BTW, I support the Dale verdict. I think private organizations should have the freedom to establish their membership requirements. I also am 100% behind those organizations to reap the seeds they sow. The BSA can become racist, they chose wisely not to. They can become misogynist, they chose wisely not to. They choose to be homophobic. I disagree with that choice and think it un-American.

[Scoutfish]

 

 

I agree with that too. I may not particularly agree with or personally agree with the decision they make or what subject the decision was about, but since they are private, I believe they have that choice.

 

Now as far as the gay issue is concerned...while I do not expect( nor would I stand for) a gay leader to talk about his sexuality, I also do not expect(nor would I satnd for) a heterosexual to discuss his sexuality.

 

Matter of fact, the only time I expect to hear the differences between males and females discussed is when it concerns proper pushups, or the different colors between male and female species of animals - such as the difference between a male and female mallard or cardinal. Maybe how a female black widow is twice as big as a male black widow.

 

But anybody's sexuality? Nah, not in the pack I am CM over!

WE are here to talk about scouting. If it isn't about the flag, or camping , helping little old ladies across the street or how to help all citizens...then it needs to be talked about somewhere else.

 

No politics, not sexuality, no race, or religion discussed in a bad way ( mine being better than yours- etc...).

 

 

Edited to point out, I meant discussing sexuality at a Scout setting, not anybody's right to discuss it in general.(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[GernBlansten]

"If you went back and looked at polls on gay issues from back in the 1980's, you'd see the same thing."

Brent, go back 50 years, do the same polls on race hold true?

[nugent725]

Gern,

 

 

On your last two posts you hit the nail on the head...my sentiments exactly.

 

BTW, for those interested...Scouting For All sells an unofficial knot for $5, so you can show that you support Scouting being all-inclusive. Its www.scoutingforall.com . What I like about this group is that although they disagree with the BSA policy, they still encourage people to stay in/join Scouting, because of the opportunities it offers and lessons it teaches.