May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[oldisnewagain1]

No matter how the vote goes, nothing will change for our troop.

(Unless my CO gets upset and then we will just find another CO.)

[AZOwl]

No matter how the vote goes, nothing will change for our troop.

(Unless my CO gets upset and then we will just find another CO.)

Relapse...

 

Its an incremental step...Not a perfect solution, and in my opinion just extends the surgery and healing process, but in time I see it passing for the adults as well.

[AZOwl]

Does anyone have plans, if the resolution passes, to form a national organization for boys? Perhaps one that parallels the American Heritage Girls. I am saddened that this resolution is even being considered and view it as an unacceptable compromise of BSA policy with that of world's view.

Nick...

 

How is it a compromise with the world's view...Most WOSM organizations do not discriminate against LGBT members.

[King Ding Dong]

No matter how the vote goes, nothing will change for our troop.

(Unless my CO gets upset and then we will just find another CO.)

Absolutely. If it passes those most opposed will part ways further weakening their influence. It is a question of when not if.

 

However I am not optimistic at this point. The old scouters are casting the votes not the youth.

 

We are having a year end COH, picnic and adults vs scouts softball game right about the time the announcement is due. Very inconsiderate of National to schedule this for today. Will be very interesting to see if the topic comes up and what the reactions are.

 

If it fails, I wonder how quickly they will scramble to make an executive decision ? The current policy has to change to something else.

[King Ding Dong]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

EmberMike I will certainly feel your frustration, but to give up is really not an option. Certainly not the message I want to send to the youth.

[BS-87]

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

[eaglewolfdad]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

EmberMike

I believe in one of your earliest posts here you mentioned that you were not yet a registered scouter but contemplating becoming active once your children

came of age. While we all salute your achievement in earning your eagle earlier in life, I believe that you would far more effective in helping to change the system if you were registered.

In effect what you are saying is I am ending my fight however you don't have a dog in this fight at the moment. I believe you have a lot to offer BSA and it would be sad to see you move on.

[EmberMike]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

You'r right, eaglewolfdad, my son isn't yet of scouting age, so technically I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do have a history with scouting, spending 12 years of my youth in the organization, and I have a sincere hope that my son (and any future kids of mine) will have an interest in pursuing scouting themselves. Shouldn't that allow me some say in what happens to the organization that I was once a part of and fully expected to be in the near future?

 

I agree it would be sad to turn my back on the BSA and move on to other things. But I truly believe that there are good alternatives out there, particularly in the BPSA. I've been researching that program and reading some of their handbooks and other literature lately, and it is impressive for such a young group. And as much as I value my experiences in the BSA and what I have carried with me into adulthood and parenting, I know that I can also shift my focus to another scouting organization that better reflects my beliefs and the values I feel it is my job as a parent to instill in my kids. In some non-policy regards I think the BPSA is even superior to the BSA. It's a back-to-basics program, focused on the outdoors, scouting skills, and service. I don't see it as a big loss to not have things like Personal Management, Communication, and Family Life in the program.

 

King Ding Dong I wouldn't view it as giving up, just shifting gears to a different yet similar program. The BSA isn't scouting, scouting is a movement that pre-dates the BSA itself, and we can give our kids scouting experiences without the BSA.

[BadenP]

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

The sad part is that this compromise solution will not be enough to satisfy the demands of corporate sponsors, United Way in order to bring back the big dollars to the BSA. The parents of the scouts will now be forced to decide whether or not the BSA meets their own values or to pull their kids out of the program. The CO's will be upset they do not have any say in this matter. Bottom line this is a no win solution that shows National is trying to appease certain groups without really directly dealing with the issue as a whole. Just another Poorly thought out and hypocritical solution that will wind up hurting the BSA as a whole.

[EmberMike]

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

I agree, BP, this is a no-win any way you look at it. Either way, the argument lingers on. Scouts for Equality has stated that they won't back down no matter which way the vote goes. And they can't really. They set out to end discrimination of gay youth and adults, and neither voting option solves their end goal. Same for the groups opposed to the resolution. Either way, their fight continues on as well. This is a huge black cloud over the BSA that shows no signs of clearing up.

[Krampus]

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

I'm sorry, but anyone currently in the program -- unless they have their head in the sand -- should be fully aware of what the policy of BSA is. If they weren't and elect to leave, I suspect that is a small number. What remains to be seen is how a vote either way will affect new members coming in.

[packsaddle]

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

Krampus, that may be true for most leaders. Perhaps even for parents of older scouts. But until I begin announcing at Cub Scout roundup (and I am going to do this) the official policy (whatever it turns out to be) for boys and for adult leaders, most of those families are clueless about this issue. The hometown newspaper didn't have a single line in it today about this decision. There was more written about pot holes in roads over the last weeks. New prospective parents are part of the Facebook generation and mostly don't know about this controversy, or else think they know something that is incorrect.

 

I'll add my agreement with BadenP. The entire way this matter has been handled smacks of weak leadership at the top. I just hate to think of the inflated salaries that those guys get to bungle things this badly. The best way to compensate for that weak leadership (and I am sanguine about the poor prospects of getting strong leaders) is to move the leadership responsibilities to the unit owners: the charter organizations, a.k.a. local option.

[DigitalScout]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

@EmberMike - All of America has a dog in this fight. The BSA is a national treasure which should be open to all to enjoy. I know many will disagree with that statement and will cite the BSA being a private organization, the Dale decision, etc. But the BSA is a national treasure much like our National Parks which have been set aside for all to enjoy.

 

The more kids we get into Scouting, the stronger America will be. So that means removing all barriers so we can get more kids and teach them the importance of values, leadership, being prepared, service to others, self-reliance and perseverance.

 

And you should persevere, too, to help make sure that the BSA policies are fair for ALL, not just a few. Think about what you want to teach your kids. Do you want to teach them to give up and give in when things get tough? Or do you want to teach them to fight on in the face of adversity?

[EmberMike]

In case you haven't heard yet, the vote is in, and the ban on gay youth is being lifted.

 

61% voted to lift the ban.

 

Edited to add: Oops, just saw the other thread about this.