Scouts’ future uncertain if ban on gays is dropped

Thousands of Boy Scouts march with flags for the playing of the national anthem during the Boy Scouts of America’s 2010 National Jamboree at Ft. AP Hill, Va. The Boy Scouts of America announced Monday that it was considering replacing its long-standing ban on gays with a policy that would let troop sponsors make their own decisions.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

NEW YORK (AP) — The Boy Scouts of America’s proposed move away from its no-gays membership policy has outraged some longtime admirers, gratified many critics and raised intriguing questions about the iconic organization’s future.

Will the Scouts now be split between troops with gay-friendly policies and those that keep the ban? What will a National Jamboree be like if it brings together these disparate groups with conflicting ideologies? Will the churches long devoted to scouting now be torn by internal debate over the choices that may lie ahead?

A top official of the Southern Baptist Convention, whose conservative churches sponsor hundreds of Scout units that embrace the ban, was among those alarmed the BSA is proposing to allow sponsoring organizations to decide for themselves whether to admit gays as scouts and adult leaders.

“We understand that we are now a minority, that it is not popular to have biblical values, not popular to take stands that seem intolerant,” said Frank Page, president of the SBC’s executive committee. “This is going to lead to a disintegration of faith-based values.”

Page had been scheduled to speak in July at the Scouts’ National Jamboree in West Virginia, and he’s now apprehensive there could be conflict as troops with differing policies converge. Asked if he might decide not to speak, Page said he would pray about it.

Of the more than 110,000 scouting units across the U.S., nearly 70 percent are chartered by religious organizations. Some were pleased by the proposed change, others were troubled.

Triggering the angst was the Boy Scouts’ announcement Monday that it was considering replacing its long-standing ban on gays with a policy that would let troop sponsors make their own decisions. The change is expected to be discussed next week at a meeting of the BSA’s national executive board.

The ban on gays, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional in 2000, has provoked a multitude of protest campaigns over the years. Numerous Scout councils and Scout leaders have expressed disagreement with the policy, and some corporate donors last year said they were suspending gifts to the BSA until the policy changed.

One of these companies, New Jersey-based drug-maker Merck & Co., said Tuesday it was pleased the BSA was reconsidering its position, but declined further comment.

Another form of protest involved Eagle Scouts who returned their medals and badges to Boy Scout headquarters. Among them was Nate May, a 25-year-old musician from Huntington, W.Va., who depicted the Scouts’ new proposal as “a step in the right direction.”

Later this year, more than 40,000 Scouts from across the country are expected to participate in the annual National Jamboree at a 10,600-acre site being built in southern West Virginia.

If the new policy is in place by then, May said, there could be some teasing and hurt feelings as gays make their public debut at the Jamboree. But overall, he predicted a positive experience.

“It would potentially open up some really interesting dialogues,” May said. “I think it will probably show troops that continue to have the ban that a troop can exist in harmony, even with gays in it.”

In Philadelphia, scoutmaster Ann Perrone said she’s spent the past 13 years fighting the ban by writing letters, speaking out and wearing gay-rights rainbow symbols.

“I’ve done everything I can think of to make a local difference,” Perrone said. “I’m really thrilled.”

Perrone, an African-American, said she benefited from white support for the civil rights movement and now, as a straight woman, sees a chance to help expand the rights of gays and lesbians.

She said the proposed change could prompt some churches to cut ties with Scouting, but suggested other congregations will step up to fill the gaps.

“This is something that will probably flare up and, if handled properly, will be allowed to die down,” Perrone said.

The no-gays policy has fueled a protracted legal fight in Philadelphia. The Scouts’ Cradle of Liberty Council has used a city-owned building rent-free for decades, and officials have been trying to evict them because the ban violates a local anti-discrimination law. A federal jury ruled in favor of the Scouts, but the city has appealed.

In North Carolina, news of the possible policy change was welcomed — cautiously — by Matt Comer of Charlotte, who said he was forced out of his Boy Scout troop at the age of 14 after troop leaders confronted him over being gay.

“It was very intimidating,” said Comer, now 26. “The scoutmaster said, ‘If you choose to live that lifestyle, you choose not to be a Boy Scout.’”

“I lost a lot of good friends when I had to leave,” Comer said. “I really did enjoy Scouts. I wanted to get my Eagle Scout and go on to be a Scout leader.”

Now, he has mixed views about the proposed change, and anticipates there could be problems when troops with different stances mingle at jamborees and summer camps.

He also questioned whether adult leaders would have the necessary training and insight to deal well with gay scouts who come out if the ban is eased.

In Durham, N.C., the proposed change prompted some careful moral calculations by the Rev. Allen Jones, associate minister of Antioch Baptist Church and scoutmaster of the church-sponsored Troop 481.

“Personally, I believe homosexuality is a sin and you can go to hell for it,” Jones said. “But the Gospel also speaks to the inclusion and acceptance of people with a cross to bear. If someone openly gay comes in and wants to participate, then that’s between them and God. We’re not going to discriminate.”

Two of the biggest sponsors are the Mormons’ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose units serve roughly 420,000 scouts, and the Roman Catholic Church, which serves about 280,000 Scouts. Mormon and Catholic leaders, who have signaled support for the no-gays policy in the past, declined any official response to Monday’s announcement of the possible change.

“We’ve had 100 years of a very conservative approach to scouting,” said Kay Godfrey, a spokesman for Boy Scouts in the Great Salt Lake Council. “A major shift along these lines could change the face of scouting, but we’ll have to just wait and see.”

Scott Barr, a scoutmaster in McKinney, Texas, said his Mormon-chartered troop would likely wait for guidance from the national Mormon church.

“I don’t know what the position would be,” said Barr, who’s been involved in scouting for 25 years. “I wouldn’t even dare to speculate.”

The United Methodist Church, the second largest sponsor of Scout units after the Mormons, expressed support for the change — saying it was in line with church policy opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

News of the proposed change came just ahead of “Scout Sunday” next weekend — an annual event in which churches across the nation have special worship services and luncheons to honor scouts.

Some conservative activists sought to organize e-mail and phone call campaigns aimed at pressuring the Boy Scouts to maintain the mandatory no-gays policies.

Weblink:

Boy Scouts at www.scouting.org

More like this story

wow 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The Boy Scouts miught as well allow this to happen in the open....cause quite frankly "THEY ALREADY HAVE GAY'S IN THEIR RANKS!

JCLifer 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok, I get that these church people believe homosexuality is sinful. What I don't get is why do these church people focus only on homosexuality. Why don't they ban all sinners from the Boy Scouts? Seriously, what is so different about homosexuality in their eyes? Their logic doesn't jibe with the Bible's teaching that all sin is abhorrent to God, and Jesus's teachings to love all, especially the least members of society.

asb 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Well said Lifer, thank you.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Let's see the scouts don't allow murderers or rapist or thieves in either. What principal sins is it you are talking about that the scouts welcome so whole heartedly into their fold?

Do they allow criminals and sinners in once they have paid their debt to society? I really don't know actually but I know they have expelled scout leaders for adultery and other sins you seem to think they allow. Even theft.

They have not singled out homosexuals.

Paroquet 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm not aware of the "adultery and other sins" part. Pretty much everyone except gangs excludes on the basis of criminal history, even misdemeanors FOREVER; society won't let you pay your debt. Do the crime, do the time (or make restitution/pay your fine) and you're only just getting started on your road to paying your debt to society.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

My information and direct contact with the scouts upper echelon leaders is about 10 years old so things could have changed. I knew a gentleman who was employed by the scouts national organization and worked over the Southern Illinois district and I can tell you that the moral code for their officers or whatever they call them was extremely high and that just like politicians a career or two was ended due to adultery.

Maybe I should call him and get the inside scoop on this? Bah. Why bother the Leftist bigots already have their minds made up.

earlsmusic 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Many people have twisted everything around backward. They think that Jesus can't do anything without their help, instead of the other way around. Funny, isn't it?

GrumpyGus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

If you don't like the club rules, start your own club. Perhaps a club that only allows homosexuals as club leaders to the exclusion of heterosexuals. Who cares? For people who claim to value diverstiy, leftist sure seem heck bent on coalescing us into one big non-descript melange of utterly boring likeness.

Sequoia 3 months, 2 weeks ago

But it isn't "leftists" who are doing this. The Boy Scouts are changing themselves, because, as the article says: "Numerous Scout councils and Scout leaders have expressed disagreement with the policy, and some corporate donors last year said they were suspending gifts to the BSA until the policy changed."

It's about money and perception, and keeping members. They are responding to their own members who don't want to be a part of a discriminatory organization. No one is making them change except their own members.

JCLifer 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Money, and pompous arrogant religios leaders.

WTF 3 months, 2 weeks ago

It's called diversity Gus. Everyone is equal. The far right wing gun packing religious right zealots like to remind everyone that is there god given right to pack a gun(which is incorrect) That right is given by the Constitution but when it comes to equality for all they are the first ones to jump up and say That's not going to happen even though Equal rights for all comes before the Right to Bear Arms in the Constitution. That's what it's all about. It's a matter of the rest of the country should obey the rules but us far right wing gun packing religious right zealots only abide by the rules we make up. Doesn't make sense to me because by law I'm afforded the same rights under the Constitution as any other person is but does it happen. NO!

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Have you even read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

WTF 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Have you?

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes and what part of "Shall not be infringed" is it that you don't understand?

Speaking of which what comes before the 2nd amendment? Speech and assembly, religious establishment and petition. You have your order a bit mixed up as to what comes first.

Also what laws is it the right has supposedly made up?

TickledPink 3 months, 2 weeks ago

What part of "Well regulated" is it that YOU don't understand?

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Well regulated means just that. Making sure each member of the militia, long established as being every citizen, is armed and that the laws are in place to for when they are called into Federal service.

Placing the Militia (again every citizen) under the military leadership requires an act of Congress under it's right to declare war and set the size and scope of the military. Until then the militia is an asset of the people and maybe used or called up according to local and state need by elected officials with that power according to each individual state Constitution.

In Missouri that also includes the full right to open carry and own firearms.

Are you still confused?

WTF 3 months, 2 weeks ago

but my point is it's not a God given right.

My point is that we are all guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution. We are guaranteed liberty. Which is freedom to make our own choices. We are all guaranteed a right to pursue that type of life with liberty. The 24th Amendment was passed to make sure that women were provided Equal rights. See Civil Rights Act of 1964. It seems that the men who run the country( who happen to be rich right wing religious zealots) tend to have the need to be reminded that equal rights are for all not just for a select few. The founding fathers left the word Liberty open for too much interpretation in my opinion.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

So Obama is a rich, right wing religious zealot now? Hillary? Valerie Jarret?

These rights are granted to us by our creator it is up to us to keep them.

You have taken your civil rights to justified oppression and now seek to remove rights from others. Good job.

WTF 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You really believe the President really runs this country?

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

So enlighten me then who really runs the country? I want names so I can send them a letter or two.

TickledPink 3 months, 2 weeks ago

REGULATE 1a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

No one is disputing that every single man and woman who is a citizen of the US can own a firearm. (I'm disregarding felons and others who are legally barred from ownership.) I'm not sure how that boils down to gun "enthusiasts" thinking they can have just whatever type weapon they desire. THIS is where the dispute lies. No one is trying to take away your guns. Even if they wanted to, logistically it is impossible for the gov't to confiscate all guns in this country. I call straw man on that one. If you want to wallpaper your living room with pistols and your bedroom with shotguns, go for it. Strap it to your forehead and take a stroll down the street. I don't care.

What sensible people are asking is that we limit the distribution of our deadliest weapons, weapons that have absolutely NO use other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Strict background checks for ALL gun sales, mental health screenings and treatment for those diagnoses. What is the reasonable argument against this? You still get your guns and the rest of us get peace of mind.

Back on topic: I hope they go through with dropping the ban. Every little boy, gay, straight or other, deserves the memories and experience that go along with scouting. And congratulations to the gay dads who will be able to lead their sons' dens and enjoy those things with them.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I believe I just laid out the regulations in place. The Militia is well regulated.

As for deadliest weapons, unless you also wish to spend even more money to stockpile arms and keep them under lock and key (and guard) removing the right to own firearms in anyway and any type effectively renders the militia useless in regard to it's original intent. The government has already regulated the arms available to the militia several times and has reduced it down to the minimum requirement as it is.

Background checks for private sales is just as unenforceable as confiscation and overall will cost alot more money before it's said and done. I guess more laws are in order because those criminals always follow the laws don't ya know.

There are already background checks and screenings along with questionnaires involved with any sale of a firearm from a dealer.

The Militia has been called up before and will be needed again. Yes as a country we have been in a boom period for the last 100 years and can afford (arguably) to fund a massive full time military, but if you think that is going to last forever you are a fool. Removing the militia as a viable emergency force in a failed attempt to control criminals is a potentially devastating move.

And it's unConstitutional besides. Only a Constitutional Convention of the States can change that.

JCLifer 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Interesting is that republican George Bush signed the act to prohibit discrimination AGAINST the Boy Scouts!

CIVIL RIGHTS Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act Overview of the Law On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Part of No Child Left Behind is the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by Section 901 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (the Boy Scouts Act), which applies to public elementary and secondary schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and State educational agencies (SEAs) that receive Federal funds made available through the Department of Education. Under the Boy Scouts Act, which became effective on January 8, 2002, no such public school, LEA or SEA that provides an opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet on school premises or in school facilities shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society, that wishes to meet at the school.

Seems if the Boy Scouts are getting the protection from discrimination enforced by the Federal Government, they could at least not discriminate against others. Can't have it both ways-

TickledPink 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Lifer, I wish more Republicans/Conservatives were like you. I definitely don't agree with you often, but your opinions come from your own observations, not just what you're told to think. I respect that.

I think the Scout's future will be just fine. Yes, there will be those who pull their children from scouting and that's sad for the kids but there are many who will come to scouting because of this. More and more parents are teaching their kids tolerance and acceptance and (in my opinion) that's never a bad thing.

spelchek 3 months, 2 weeks ago

What is tolerant about forcing a long standing organization to change its values because it doesn't fit a particular demographic's values? This is just going to set the scouts up for major law suits so the gay community can kill an organization it has always despised. If libs don't like something, it better change or it can't go on existing. Tolerance indeed.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yep the civil rights oppression is well into full swing.

Paroquet 3 months, 2 weeks ago

There are a lot of federal agencies tied-up with chartering scout troops, and providing them surplus equipment, and use public facilities funded by tax revenues. Also, there's something about a Federal charter and how discrimination is handled.

I have no problems with the Scouts being a private club with its own rules and admissions requirements.

The solution is simple. The Boy Scouts should cease to accept tax-funding and cut all official ties to government agencies. The Boy Scouts should live up to its self-declared status as a private organization.

connor 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I would agree with Paroquet's assessment. However private clubs have been sued under equal rights guidelines as well so refusing Federal funds is not a shield in this case.

TickledPink 3 months, 2 weeks ago

No one is forcing. The BSA are voluntarily changing their stance on this. Even with membership dwindling, they could have gone on just as they were and nothing could have been done about it, much like the church. I believe their decision is less about acceptance and more about their bank account, but such is life running a business.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune