Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders NBC

[Basementdweller]

I can see it now AHB to go with the AHG.....White, Wealth, Ultra Conservative and from the burbs.

 

I can see there motto..... I know what you will be doing during the Rapture.

[CA_Scouter]

In my experience, I'd also say that its a non-issue with the Scouts themselves. They have little, if any, knowledge of the membership requirements of the BSA. I'm not sure they would care much about this change in policy anyway.. its not like they have no exposure to alternative lifestyles in their daily life....

 

 

[Oldscout448]

So do the eagles who sent their medals back, get them returned?

[Oldscout448]

So do the eagles who sent their medals back, get them returned?

[moosetracker]

I don't think so.. But, I am sure they can get some certificate of their Eagle award, and BSA will happily allow them to buy a new one. You don't think they would turn down a chance to make a buck do you?

[sheldonsmom]

Basementdweller,

I am so happy to learn I am white, rich, and live in the burbs. I am conservative but I live in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in this community of 80,000. I am so not rich or even middle class. But I do believe in teaching my children and my foster children traditional values. Those who do not stand for something will fall for anything.

[Nike]

Sheldonsmom, don't let Basement get you down.

[Basementdweller]

So exactly what lesson are you teaching your children?

 

That gay or lesbian folks are not to be associated with. They are morally soiled? They are just people trying to make a living and raise kids just like you or I.

 

 

I got news for you, if they go to college or move from your small town they are going to have to deal with THEM.

 

 

 

[cchoat]

I have always said that what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your own buisness. Your right to believe in what you want is your right, my right to believe what I want is mine, and we should not try and impose each others views on another. Live and let live. If this projected new course of action would satisfy the vocal critics against Scoutings ban on homosexuals, then I'm all for it. I agree that we should let each unit decide on it's membership, and the gay community should respect that decision. If no troop exists, they now can now start one. If it is so core to their agenda that they should be able to participate, then let them, so long as they don't change the program they so dealy fought to join. In the major cities, this may be a boon time.

 

These are my personal beliefs. But as a Scoutmaster in a rural troop deep in the south, who's CO has stated that we will continue banning those with a gay orientation from serving in leadership roles, I am consulting with a lawyer to check my legal exposure. How many adult leaders will now have to decide if they want to risk being named in lawsuits for following the CO's policy?

 

The media will focus on those troops that continue the ban if it's pushed to the local CO's. You are only fooling yourselves if you think otherwise. There are going to be lawsuits against individual troops and the leaders, because they are the public face of the troop\pack\crew. The main issue that CO's will face is not "Does this conflict with our moral teachings" but "What is our legal and financial exposure if we continue to sponcer a Scout troop?"

 

Yes, it all comes down to money. The minority is using it's high profile (Hollywood) money to push down the throats of the Scouts it's agenda, it's lifestyle. Believe what we tell you or else. The threat has worked at National. CO's will see the writting on the wall and bail. Who will want to take on unnecessary legal risks?

 

And for those who may say that I should leave this troop and start another, why should I abandon the boys I promised to serve when I took on this responcibility? In the long run, the fallout of this will effect the boys.

[ghjim]

cchoat:

 

I would be interested to know what your lawyer tells you about your legal risks.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the discriminating COs will face many lawsuits. There is always

somebody suing somebody over nothing, but the issue of whether the BSA can be exclusive or not

has long been settled in the courts. I never agreed or liked that situation but it was resolved a long

time ago now.

[OldGreyEagle]

For people who want their scouts judged on their behavior rather than skin tones and where they live, there is certainly a lot of conclusions and judgemente being made which if done to them would elicit howls to the the heavens

[scoutingagain]

"How many adult leaders will now have to decide if they want to risk being named in lawsuits for following the CO's policy? "

 

0, Nada, Zip. Especially since unit leaders do not decide the CO's policy. They simply comply with it.

 

The same number that currently have to decide if they want to risk being named in a lawsuit for following a CO's policy of religious or gender discrimination.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BadenP]

The reality here is very simple, BSA has now passed the buck, responsibilities, and the reprocussions squarely on the shoulders of the CO's. This is not a moral issue for National their SOLE motivation for this decision is MONEY. With allowing gays into the BSA they are desperately hoping to get back into the good graces of the United Way and the evergrowing number of corporate sponsors who have left the BSA in the dust. In reality this is really a hypocritical decision on their part, they can now tell everyone (money people) they have done everything they can do to open up the BSA to all, and at the same time have the CO's as the scapegoats when admission to a particular unit is denied to a gay person because of the CO's own policies.

 

In this and another thread a poster mentioned a CO and its scouting leaders potentially being sued for denying a gay youth or adult the opportunity to join their scout unit. I wonder how many of you have really thought about this particular minefield being set for the CO and unit leaders with Nationals new policy. IMO this has the potential for a mass exodus from the BSA by the more conservative CO's and leaders who will feel that a potential lawsuit is not worth the trouble or headaches of sponsoring any scouting unit.

 

Yes those wunderkins at National have really done it again and put ALL the burden squarely on the shoulders of the CO and volunteers, simply because they lack the guts to take the responsibility themselves and making the decision a National Policy. From Wayne Brock on down is there anyone left at National who has a backbone and can make the hard decisions?(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[fred8033]

Actually, moving the decision to the COR is the right decision. Each COR (mostly churches) have their own twist on morality / sin / etc. That is their specialty and what they bring to the table. BSA brings the program and program materials and resources to the table. Each should do what they do well and not step on the other.

 

BSA national was wrong to push their morality onto the CORs when the CORs don't have a consistent consensus on the topic. If BSA wants to push morality, they need to drop CORs that are not in the same camp. If they don't want to drop CORs, then they should adopt local COR choice.

[Brewmeister]

How is that any different from the BSA still "discriminating" against current groups, such as girls and athiests? Or from LDS units having only LDS members, or other religious groups creating effectively closed membership units, etc etc etc.?