Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

[packsaddle]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

Merlyn, a little more detail please. What difference did it make that she had a daughter, or what the daughter's name was? Why was the daughter fired? I read the obit and can't figure out how anyone was 'outed'? What am I missing here?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

The obit had spouses/partners in parentheses, and her daughter was listed as "Carla (Julie) Hale", indicating a same-sex partner. Someone complained to the school and she was fired.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/04/17/backers-rally-for-fired-gay-teacher.html

[packsaddle]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

Thanks, that sad story is clearer now.

[Peregrinator]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

It is typical for employees of Catholic schools to have morality clauses in their contracts. How exactly would being open about her relationship have helped? She likely never would have been hired in the first place.

[Sentinel947]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

(Disclaimer, I'm Catholic)

I find that story disappointing, because I'd prefer the Church didn't do that to people. BUT, she signed a contract with a morality clause with a CATHOLIC PRIVATE school. There was always going to be that possibility. Honestly, if I was her, I wouldn't even consider returning to that school.

 

The one thing that bothered me was the following: "Hale, a practicing Methodist, said she also hopes the reaction to her dismissal spurs Catholic leaders to reconsider their stance on gay relationships." What kind of reconsidering is she looking for? Does she expect the Church will change it's beliefs on same sex marriage? It's not going to. Even if it allows her to return, that teaching is not going to change.

 

"The Catholic Church considers sex between members of the same gender harmful and wrong but also urges kindness, compassion and sensitivity toward people with same-sex attractions."

 

That's the church's position, and she signed into a morality contract with a religious institution. She is, in effect an employee of which ever Archdiocese this took place in. I think it's a sad story for the teacher, Mrs. Hale. I hope she can find employment elsewhere. I think the move by the Diocese was very harsh, and sudden, and that's not very compassionate.

 

As this pertains to Scouting, Merlyn is absolutely correct, this is exactly why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cannot work. And I think it shows what will happen clearly if the ban is struck down all across the board. Likely the conservative charter organizations will bolt. Which is why, at least in the near future, I support the local option.

 

Yours in Scouting,

Sentinel947

[NJCubScouter]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

I generally agree with Merlyn, Packsaddle and Sentinel on this (and on most other aspects of this subject). I also think this points out the differences between the BSA and a religious institution. An institution that is part of a church or other religious organization is going to be run according to the religious doctrines of that organization. If the church says it's wrong and sinful to have a life partner of the same gender (or whatever this person actually did), one cannot expect to remain employed by that church once the information gets out, however it gets out. But the BSA is not a religious organization. It actually does have one, rather vague, religious doctrine, which is that there is some "higher power." Other than that, it should not be "choosing sides" among religious doctrines. It has been, on the gay issue, and it should stop.

[ghjim]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

Far be it from me to defend the BSA's membership policies. However I will point out that the BSA is indeed a private religious organization. This is a big change from the days I was a Boy Scout in the 1960s. It was my understanding that this declaration was the defensive move the BSA pulled out of it's hip pocket during the Dale vs. the BSA Supreme Court decision. This is what made the court sway in the direction of the BSA, because religious organizations have the right to be selective in their membership.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

I was just showing how "don't ask, don't tell" is unworkable. The BSA, currently, allows only closeted gays, but this example shows how a person can be outed unintentionally by other people. That's always going to be a problem with any kind of DADT policy.

[MattR]

Ok' date=' I'll go for the low-hanging fruit: the very policy we have been debating has been pro-Christian. The exclusion of avowed homosexuals from the program certainly was created (and specifically affirmed just last summer) to align with the teachings of many larger Christian denominations.[/quote']

 

I asked for a BSA policy that was SOLELY Christian. You telling me Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddists all embrace homosexuality and Christians are the only Visigoths? Please.

Only Orthodox Jews prohibit only homosexual acts. No Jews would likely prevent a gay scout or leader from being in a unit (Orthodox and conservative Jews would not be happy with married, gay parents). Reform, reconstructionist, and conservative Jews will ordain gay rabbis.

 

Buddhism is just as all over the map as Judaism. Hinduism is similar. In both cases homosexuality isn't mentioned very much so it seems like it's up to the individual.

[SeattlePioneer]

The poll presents an unrealistic option.

 

The Supreme Court decision made it clear that BSA retained a right to it's policy of rejecting homopsexuals because this was a consistant, national policy.

 

If BSA proposes to adopt a local option policy, that exemption would very likely go away, and at a minimum it would open BSA to a whole nother round of legal challenges which would very likely require yet another Supreme Court decision upholding BSA's right to decide it's membership policies. And whether the USSC would bail out BSA yet again when BSA opened another can of worms is open to question at best.

 

The REAL option is maintaining the current policy or being subjected to all the state and local laws that prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals. Do you want EVERY church with a Scout unit to be REQUIRED to accept homosexuals as youth leaders?

 

Put THAT in your poll and let's see what kind of numbers it generates.

[packsaddle]

The poll presents an unrealistic option.

 

The Supreme Court decision made it clear that BSA retained a right to it's policy of rejecting homopsexuals because this was a consistant, national policy.

 

If BSA proposes to adopt a local option policy, that exemption would very likely go away, and at a minimum it would open BSA to a whole nother round of legal challenges which would very likely require yet another Supreme Court decision upholding BSA's right to decide it's membership policies. And whether the USSC would bail out BSA yet again when BSA opened another can of worms is open to question at best.

 

The REAL option is maintaining the current policy or being subjected to all the state and local laws that prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals. Do you want EVERY church with a Scout unit to be REQUIRED to accept homosexuals as youth leaders?

 

Put THAT in your poll and let's see what kind of numbers it generates.

"...being subjected to all the state and local laws that prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals."

Can you give me an example of such a local law that exercises this kind of control over churches?

[TSS_Chris]

The poll presents an unrealistic option.

 

The Supreme Court decision made it clear that BSA retained a right to it's policy of rejecting homopsexuals because this was a consistant, national policy.

 

If BSA proposes to adopt a local option policy, that exemption would very likely go away, and at a minimum it would open BSA to a whole nother round of legal challenges which would very likely require yet another Supreme Court decision upholding BSA's right to decide it's membership policies. And whether the USSC would bail out BSA yet again when BSA opened another can of worms is open to question at best.

 

The REAL option is maintaining the current policy or being subjected to all the state and local laws that prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals. Do you want EVERY church with a Scout unit to be REQUIRED to accept homosexuals as youth leaders?

 

Put THAT in your poll and let's see what kind of numbers it generates.

Here's the problem with your logic SeattlePioneer, the BSA only accepts a leader's application after the CO has signed it.

 

Under this policy change, a CO that doesn't want a homosexual (or any other subset of the population) as a leader can still prevent an individual from joining by instructing their COR not to sign the leader's application and not to submitting the application to the BSA.

 

Meanwhile, if another CO accepts homosexuality, charters a BSA unit, and their COR signs an open homosexual's adult app with the acceptance of the other members of that unit, why shouldn't that person be permitted to join?

 

I can see why this scares some of the big churches so much: They've seen the BSA's legal battles to keep this policy in place, and they're happy to have the BSA use its funds to defend this policy instead of their own. If the new "local option" were to be enacted, the BSA can wash their hands of a discrimination issue, because the person's application was never submitted to the BSA.

 

Now any CO that has a potentially discriminatory policy based on their values will need to expend their own resources to defend the legality of their actions.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The poll presents an unrealistic option.

 

The Supreme Court decision made it clear that BSA retained a right to it's policy of rejecting homopsexuals because this was a consistant, national policy.

 

If BSA proposes to adopt a local option policy, that exemption would very likely go away, and at a minimum it would open BSA to a whole nother round of legal challenges which would very likely require yet another Supreme Court decision upholding BSA's right to decide it's membership policies. And whether the USSC would bail out BSA yet again when BSA opened another can of worms is open to question at best.

 

The REAL option is maintaining the current policy or being subjected to all the state and local laws that prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals. Do you want EVERY church with a Scout unit to be REQUIRED to accept homosexuals as youth leaders?

 

Put THAT in your poll and let's see what kind of numbers it generates.

"The Supreme Court decision made it clear that BSA retained a right to it's policy of rejecting homopsexuals because this was a consistant, national policy.

If BSA proposes to adopt a local option policy, that exemption would very likely go away"

 

As I had pointed out earlier in this thread, right now, every organization that charters a BSA unit must already have the legal right to discriminate in all the ways the BSA does. That's why public schools and government entities can't charter such BSA units. Even if the BSA changes, it doesn't change the legal rights of individual COs.

[Sentinel947]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[url=http://scoutingmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/proposed-membership-standards-resolution.pdf]http://scoutingmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/proposed-membership-standards-resolution.pdf[/url=http://scoutingmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/proposed-membership-standards-resolution.pdf]