Boy Scouts Proposing to Lift Gay Ban for Youth

18

Under pressure over its longstanding ban on gays, the Boys Scouts of America is proposing to lift the ban for youth members but continue to exclude gays as adult leaders.


The Scouts announced Friday that it would submit this proposal to the roughly 1,400 voting members of its National Council at a meeting in Texas the week of May 20.

Earlier, the BSA had indicated it might give local Scout units the option of admitting gays as both youth members and adult leaders, or continuing to exclude them

Written By: David Crary
continue to source article at abcnews.go.com

18 COMMENTS

  1. This should not be a vote. A group that is founded by the US should not be able to discriminate. The US government should tell them you will change this or you will lose your founding. If they decide to move on with out founding then they can do what they want and I will then support those who want to change their ways though votes. Welcome to getting money for free, the cost, no discrimination. I don’t think it is all that costly.

    • In reply to #3 by nickj:

      This should not be a vote. A group that is founded by the US should not be able to discriminate. The US government should tell them you will change this or you will lose your founding. If they decide to move on with out founding then they can do what they want and I will then support those who want to change their ways though votes. Welcome to getting money for free, the cost, no discrimination. I don’t think it is all that costly

      The Scout movement began in Britain. Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, which is why they can have discriminatory policies, not a unit of state or federal government.

  2. “In California, the state Senate is considering a bill aimed at pressuring the BSA to lift the ban by making the organization ineligible for nonprofit tax breaks.”

    Aha! The Boy Scouts want the MONEY!!! :)

  3. I’m a Scout leader in Canada where Scouts Canada has no restriction on gay Scouts or gay Leaders. Otherwise, out of principle, I would not be affiliated with them. I am, however, an atheist and when I was asked to help out the local troop I contacted Scouts Canada to ask if I could be a leader. They said I only had to “acknowledge a power greater than mankind”. I was tempted to say womenkind but that’s not what they were getting at. To me I resolved it with the universe of which I, and all of us, are a part. We are part of it and it is greater than all of us.

    As to the Scout promise to “do my duty to God and the Queen”. The Queen is easy, she is the embodiment of the state and I will do my civic duty. As for my duty to God, it would be as if I asked an American friend if she was going to do her duty to the Queen. She could rightly say yes, as she has none and neither do I to God. I am not dismissive of the Scouts duties to their Gods and help them carry them out as they see fit, but I can honestly say the Scout promise with honesty.

    • In reply to #5 by RationalistOne:

      I’m a Scout leader in Canada where Scouts Canada has no restriction on gay Scouts or gay Leaders. Otherwise, out of principle, I would not be affiliated with them. I am, however, an atheist and when I was asked to help out the local troop I contacted Scouts Canada to ask if I could be a leader. They said I only had to “acknowledge a power greater than mankind”. I was tempted to say womenkind but that’s not what they were getting at. To me I resolved it with the universe of which I, and all of us, are a part. We are part of it and it is greater than all of us.As to the Scout promise to “do my duty to God and the Queen”. The Queen is easy, she is the embodiment of the state and I will do my civic duty. As for my duty to God, it would be as if I asked an American friend if she was going to do her duty to the Queen. She could rightly say yes, as she has none and neither do I to God. I am not dismissive of the Scouts duties to their Gods and help them carry them out as they see fit, but I can honestly say the Scout promise with honesty.

      Not sure why anyone should have to pledge duty to the Queen either. She stopped being my monarch and about 50% of the populations the day she attended Thatchers funeral and instead made herself the Queen of fat cat bankers and tory lackeys. Neither should be required, pledging duty to society is far more apt I’d have thought.

      • In reply to #6 by atheistengineer:

        In reply to #5 by RationalistOne:

        Neither should be required, pledging duty to society is far more apt I’d have thought.

        Girl Guides Australia pledge adopted last year:

        I promise that I will do my best
        To be true to myself and develop my beliefs
        To serve my community and Australia
        And live by the Guide Law.

        It’s a simple enough problem to solve. Girl Guides seem to find this easier than the Scouts.

        Michael

      • In reply to #6 by atheistengineer:

        In reply to #5 by RationalistOne:

        I’m a Scout leader in Canada where Scouts Canada has no restriction on gay Scouts or gay Leaders. Otherwise, out of principle, I would not be affiliated with them. I am, however, an atheist and when I was asked to help out the local troop I contacted Scouts Canada to ask if I could be a leader. They said I only had to “acknowledge a power greater than mankind”. I was tempted to say womenkind but that’s not what they were getting at. To me I resolved it with the universe of which I, and all of us, are a part. We are part of it and it is greater than all of us.As to the Scout promise to “do my duty to God and the Queen”. The Queen is easy, she is the embodiment of the state and I will do my civic duty. As for my duty to God, it would be as if I asked an American friend if she was going to do her duty to the Queen. She could rightly say yes, as she has none and neither do I to God. I am not dismissive of the Scouts duties to their Gods and help them carry them out as they see fit, but I can honestly say the Scout promise with honesty.

        Not sure why anyone should have to pledge duty to the Queen either. She stopped being my monarch and about 50% of the populations the day she attended Thatchers funeral and instead made herself the Queen of fat cat bankers and tory lackeys. Neither should be required, pledging duty to society is far more apt I’d have thought.

        I have always hated the concept of Royalty. Bloody insult to every living person, as I see it. Off with her head (on my money, that is).

  4. My first concern was for the gay boy scout who, upon becoming an adult, would be FORCED to leave the organization because, whoops! he’d be an adult gay male!

    I would have hoped that, by including gay boys and girls in the scouts, the organization would not automatically exclude potential positive role models and leaders who are themselves gay.

    I do not feel appeased by this decision…

  5. I’ve never understood this “become incrementally less bigoted” approach. They clearly know they’re in the wrong to be anti-gay in any way; either gay people are inferior or they’re not. It’s not like they’ll be inferior in adulthood but not childhood. So what’s the point of this?

  6. I agree that it’s becoming an existential problem for them, especially in view of the direction the marriage issue is going. A cut-off at age 18 is a bullshit compromise they’re making to bring along fence-sitters and people who have been afraid to stick their necks out. There must be a large contingent who are wetting their pants in a homophobic anxiety attack. No one is even talking about pederasty; I suppose that has been entirely conflated with homosexuality.

    They have to go for a majority vote of the whole organization because if they leave it up to the chapters, they risk a schism in the organization. Co-existing factions is a problem and a break up is worse. It’s clear which half would benefit from that, especially over the longer term. If there was an option to choose between the two in the same community, that could only hurt the old guard more.

    Continuing the policy of prohibiting gay adult leaders has an aspect to it that is more evil than barring the kids. Not because of the adult, but because of the child. Typically adults get involved in supporting activities in groups like this because their own kids are involved. Imagine being a kid, a straight kid, belonging to an organization that despises his parent and prohibits the parent from participating in the organization. That would create a split within the child between wanting to participate in an activity with peers and friends and his feelings for his parent. It also creates a similar split within the parent. Last, it can create a conflict between the parent and child. That strikes me as more complex and just as cruel as keeping gay kids out.

  7. It’s amazing what a little financial pressure can do to hard and fast morals. God must be turning in his grave. What is money to the approval of the almighty? Reality I guess. Religion getting with the times is nothing but proof it’s all a bunch of bullshit.

  8. I was studying the history of gay marriage throughout the world. I noticed that nearly everyone did it in stages. Civil unions, allow adoption, marriage equality.

    So it is not the end of the world if the Scouts don’t drop their bigotry in one leap.

Leave a Reply