I suspect the BSA is studying this very closely and putting the onus on the charter organization is a nod to the more social conservative churches to say to them if you don’t want gays in your troop that is fine with us. I’m sure they have been talking a lot with the LDS leadership as they are the largest sponsoring organization in the BSA. And the BSA certainly doesn’t want to alienate them because it would be a major hit to the membership if they folded their tents and went elsewhere.

Sparky on January 30, 2013 at 3:13 PM

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the “sponsoring organization can decide” or “the troop can decide” is not a viable policy. Troops are never totally self-contained – they regularly interact with District and Council staffs, as well as camp staffs and other troops.

If the national board of the BSA were to mandate the inclusion of open homosexuals, the LDS-sponsored troops would bolt in a heartbeat. Troops sponsored by evangelical churches would not be far behind. Even in the troops that did not bolt, they would lose most of their leadership and kids.

The left has been attacking the BSA for years. This has, ironically, forced the BSA to become a more socially conservative organization (much as the Establishment Media attacks forced the Tea Party into the Republican Party, and made it more conservative). Since the controversey over gays in scouts began, churches (especially the socially conservative ones) have been making up a larger and larger share of the sponsoring organizations. Some top-down directives from a far-away national board will not change the reality on the ground.

The big-money CEOs who are pushing this policy change think that a top-down directive such as this will be greeted by instant obedience at the troop level. Obviously, they are totally clueless about how volunteer-run organizations operate. If they push through this change, they will find themselves as members of a board whose organization has left them.

All BSA leaders are not men. Women can serve in any position in the Troop including Scoutmaster. The BSA also has a co-ed program for HS to College aged kids called Venturing. The smaller Explorer program is also co-ed. Venture Crews can be co-ed, all male or all female. It is up to the sponsoring organization on how they are setting up the Crew. Our Crew is co-ed but we don’t allow any dating while out on outings. Some of our kids have dated, not while on outings, and some have gone on to marry as adults. We just want to keep the relationships off of the weekend outings. Day or night Venturers are not allowed into an opposite sex tent for any reason. If this rule is broken both youth are dismissed from the Crew. Adults can not tent with any unrelated youth member for any reason.

Following the Youth Protection policies of the BSA helps protect the youth from adults that would do harm. No system is perfect as we’ve found in other organizations that deal with youth in addition to the BSA. The key difference between now and the 1970′s is they don’t just dismiss the offender and let them pop up elsewhere. The BSA involves law enforcement right away and the person would be barred from participating in the BSA program nationwide.

I suspect the BSA is studying this very closely and putting the onus on the charter organization is a nod to the more social conservative churches to say to them if you don’t want gays in your troop that is fine with us. I’m sure they have been talking a lot with the LDS leadership as they are the largest sponsoring organization in the BSA. And the BSA certainly doesn’t want to alienate them because it would be a major hit to the membership if they folded their tents and went elsewhere.

Therefore, organizations and groups that possess the targeted populations, like schools and scout packs and troops should expect that the pecentage of potential molesters in their leadership and support staff shall be higher than in the general population.

Put another way, after this rule passes, there shall be a higher percentage of gay predators in the leadership of BSA units than in the general population of the country.

And the tools we have to protect our boys from them will have been stripped away.

while you don’t have to belong to the particular church who charters the troop, it still centers around the religious believes of the sponsor organization.

Rusty Allen on January 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Not in our case. We’re chartered by a Presbyterian church. And we have only one family in the entire pack that are members of that church.

We have parents who are Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans and Jews. We even have an Atheist, whose reason for participation is that scouting builds character and he’s cool with his son forming religious beliefs, should he so choose.

Therefore, we’re nondenominational with our prayers. Our scouts have even made presentations on their own faiths.

Our charter organization is pretty mellow about all this. We’re a JTE Gold Unit, so they’re just pleased we provide a top notch program.

You guys act like there is going to be a huge increase of molestations if gays are knowingly allowed to be a part of the organization.

Was the ban holding back men from preying on children? I doubt it!

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 5:50 AM

Then you are dumb as a bag of hammers. If the ban were ended, a pedophile would easily be able to infiltrate the Scout unit, and would be able to “groom” his marks without fear of retaliation. He could easily claim protected status while doing this by claiming he is “gay”. He could not be kicked out until he is caught in the act of buggering one of the scouts – which would be (for the scout) too late.

Just the fact of having a flamboyantly gay leader would facilitate the grooming process by making homosexual acts seem “normal”.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 5:50 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:08 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:26 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

It’s nice you found an issue you care deeply about. Besides bashing Palin, and bashing people insufficient worshipful of Mitt.

This is a perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war.

The BSA’s image has been badly tarnished by discriminating against gays and atheists. They, like most of the retrogrades commenting here, don’t understand that gay rights is the civil rights movement of this generation.

You don’t have to agree with it and you don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.

Discriminating against gays today holds the same cachet as discriminating against blacks back in the 60s.

Rightists gonna wail, Bible thumpers gonna thump.

chumpThreads on January 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Typical leftist argument. You have no reason to declare that homosexuality is healthy, or normal, or harmless. So you resort to attacking anyone who will not be “politically correct” as a bigot. But if homosexuality is unhealthy — and it is — then rejecting it is not bigotry, but good clear sense and rationality.

The problem you have is that you can’t just appoint a Supreme Court of Christianity to carefully “re-interpret” Scripture to mean what modern culture wants it to mean. No, it still means what it says.

On the contrary, the Christian believes things like this: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. For all this is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

IOW, if the whole world ever agrees that homosexuality is perfectly normal, it is still an abomination to God.

A whole lot of the push for same-sex marriage is impotent rage on the part of homosexual activists who know they can’t change that.

So — sex between men is no longer a transgression of the law of God? I mean, that whole thing’s settled, and adhering to the bits in scout literature about deference to God is no longer incompatible with acceptance of homosexual behavior?

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Adultery is also a transgression. Should we ban anyone who has ever committed adultery?

I also don’t think the kids are having sex.

darwin on January 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM

That’s a silly argument. Adultery occurs between heterosexual adults by definition. And since the Scouts are all male, as are the scoutmasters, there’s no reason to presume that adulterers would be more likely to prey on boys.

Do I think homosexuals molest anymore then hetero- No, but I won’t take a chance with my children.
melle1228 on January 28, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Since the Scouts are an exclusively male organization, it’s irrelevant whether homosexuals molest more or less than normal men. Any molesters in the Scouts would necessarily be homosexual, so there’s no point in even making a comparison.

I think you’re mistaken in your presumption that homosexuals are no more predatory, but the end result is the same in this instance.

And if you think that wouldn’t happen, you know nothing of sexual predators.

That alone is a significant problem. But then think about the scout camps… where multiple troops are represented. Do you force the camp to allow homosexual scouts if even one scout or one leader in one troop is homosexual? What happens if a scout camp keeps the moral stance that homosexuality is immoral, and refuses to allow gay scouts at the camp? Will the same forces that are pressuring the national organization leave the camp alone? No, they will “divide and conquer”. Individual camps (and eventually individual troops) will be pressured to change their founding principles.

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM

There have always been gay scouts and there always will be. I’m not sure I’m cool with gay leaders but with the Scouts I think we need to give the kids all the support we can.

GardenGnome on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

+1

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

+1

As long as the individual troops and/or councils have veto power, I’m cool with it.

TMOverbeck on January 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

You’re OK with different moral standards in different troops?

That alone is a significant problem. But then think about the scout camps… where multiple troops are represented. Do you force the camp to allow homosexual scouts if even one scout or one leader in one troop is homosexual? What happens if a scout camp keeps the moral stance that homosexuality is immoral, and refuses to allow gay scouts at the camp? Will the same forces that are pressuring the national organization leave the camp alone? No, they will “divide and conquer”. Individual camps (and eventually individual troops) will be pressured to change their founding principles.

1. Don’t leaders have to have a son in the program – NO. All adult leaders have to go through a background check to be a registered leader with a unit (Pack, Troop, Venture Crew, Ship, Post).

2. The BSA has a strong youth protection program to limit the opportunities for abuse. We must have “2 deep leadership” on all outings. That means at least 2 adults with at least 1 being over 21. Though with the co-ed Venture Crews (14-21) if the opposite sex is present you must have a minimum of one male and one female over the age of 21 present on an outing. As a leader you should never have one scout in a room or a car alone. There should always be at least 2 scouts in a car with 1 adult when traveling. Since we typically use personal automobiles for travel to outings we don’t often have enough seats to have two adults in each car. One on one meetings are held in public spaces in full view of other leaders.

3. Females can are are leaders in Cub Packs and Boy Scout Troops. In co-ed Venture Crews it is required to have female leaders.

4. The BSA has studied doing a parallel program for girls (Cubs and Scouts) where the girls would earn the same rank awards as the boys. Not sure where this is going or if national dropped it. There has been talk of co-ed units at that level as well. Most Scouting organizations in the rest of the world are already co-ed including the UK and Canada.

Several major “chartering organizations” are going to have major heartburn with this concept. The largest chartering orgs are: The LDS Church, the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church. The Baptists are somewhere in the top 10 as well. I suspect one or more of them probably won’t allow it in units they charter. If the LDS church pulled out, it would be a major blow for the BSA. Boy Scouts is their youth program for boys. On the other hand, Girl Scouts is NOT the youth program for girls in the LDS Church.

The GSUSA program isn’t very outdoor oriented these days and a lot of girls would like to do the activities that the BSA does as normal business with our Scouts. Canoeing, whitewater rafting, climbing, kayaking, backpacking, skiing, snowboarding etc. GSUSA is a cookie marketing firm that does crafts on the side. I had a daughter who gave up on GS in the 7th grade.

With Boy Scouts the “chartering organization” owns the Troop/Pack/Crew/Ship/Post. Girl Scout Troops are owned by the Council and they only ask churches and schools for space to meet.

I’m an Eagle, father of an Eagle and a former Scoutmaster and current Charter Org Rep for the Troop sponsored by my Lutheran Church. We haven’t had to deal with this issue with a Scout or parent/leader in my tenure with the Troop.

That’s the end of a great American organization.

MCGIRV on January 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

And more quickly than some might anticipate, had this occurred when my sons were in Scouts I would have (reluctantly) pulled them out. I am certain that my church will not go along with this at all and the church supports 3 troops of Boy Scouts alone, not to mention the support of both Girl Scouts and the Cubs.

This is not an insignificant decision. And I can assure you that the only gays who will benefit will be the predators.
Interestingly, we have a female gay couple in our church who are dismayed that this might happen. The deliberately enrolled their adopted son into the cubs/scouts primarily to provide a wholesome masculine example their son lacks in their home life.

During a discussion at church yesterday the first thing they said they were worried about was that their son and his fellow scouts would be targets for the radical gay proponents.

This is not about some nebulous issue about “rights”, it is an abdication that some gays view as a win and a chance to build possible acceptance for their lifestyle by a young group that had been off limits to them in the past. Capitulation like these in the past in our schools have confirmed this fear.

Sad.

Pederasty is encouraged in Gay Culture…They just aren’t honest about it.

Hence….Twinks!

workingclass artist on January 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM

sleeping with multiple partners is also encouraged in the ghey community. not just multiple, but MULTIPLE. but that’s just fine, right? you and your wife or husband has an open relationship right? you emotionally tethered to your spouse, but you sleep with many others on the side, right? or maybe on occasion your spouse joins in on the act. how wonderful! isn’t that just wonderful? how wonderful role models gay men will be for your young boys!

But, we fools still think we can dump God and still miraculously maintain our rights.

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

- President Harry S. Truman

Even if individuals disapprove of homosexuality and the official group position is that it’s morally wrong, singling out sexual orientation and banning scouts just for being of a particular orientation seems unnecessary, unhelpful, mean and, yes, bigoted The organization isn’t going to do itself any favors if it keeps up the ban on gay students. And now some of you are saying that you’re going to boycott the scouts if they allow gay members? Is this issue really that big a deal to you?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

You don’t understand the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. You want Boy Scouts to disavow their founding principles and either disavow the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, or keep them intact and say one thing while doing something completely contradictory. I Scout says that on their honor they will do their best to do their duty to God… and to keep themselves morally straight.

“unhelpful, mean and, yes, bigoted”

Your beef isn’t really with Boy Scouts. Your beef is with God. You don’t like what the bible says about homosexuality. You say homosexuality is normal. God says homosexuality is an abomination.

You are free to have your own beliefs about homosexuality.

You are free to have your own “scouting” organization that includes homosexuals.

But you are not free to impose your beliefs on others.

You want to label as a “bigot” anyone who believes what the Bible says homosexuality. You expect them to renounce their beliefs and accept your belief that homosexuality is normal.

If the sin of homosexuality is confessed and repented, it is forgiven. But unrepented sin, which is proclaimed “loud and proud”, is not forgiven, and fails to live up to the Scout Oath and Scout Law.