Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies

Gays & Scouting

LETS STICK TO FACTS - Until someone can give me the name of a Scout in a non-leadership position who was removed from BSA for being openly homosexual, the fact remains that BSA policy as written on it's own page proscribes known and avowed homosexulas from LEADERSHIP positions not general boy membership! I'll probably be waiting for a long time as there never has been any. Atheism is another matter, altogether and is proscribed for general members. GCW

Greg Lattera

(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Greg+Lattera&btnG=Google+Search)

evrik 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 Year Old Life Scout Greg Lattera - Obviously had to be in a leadership position to achieve Life Rank (and the previous Star). Also once he turned 18, he has to be registered as an adult leader. Once again, virtually every Scout who is over 12 will be in a youth leadership position. - GCW

Whether I can name a rejected member is irrelevant, since there are reasons why this may be hard even if the policy exists:

There may be few avowed homosexual 10 year olds because 10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place, let alone to identify with homosexuals as a group.

PRECISELY!

When there are such boys, BSA officials might refuse to believe they are homosexual at all, instead claiming the boys are "confused". Using this excuse on older boys would be harder.

PRECISELY! As you say "10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place" That's been BSA's position all along and why sexuality (homo or hetero) isn't an appropriate topic within Scouting to begin with.

10 year olds who do get thrown out of the BSA may be less likely than older boys to make a national case out of it, so we probably won't hear about it.

As you say "MAYBE" - Seems to be in conflict with your previous argument that "10 year olds are too young to have many sexual feelings in the first place

The way to find out if the BSA has a policy isn't to name rejected members, it's to look at their policy. The policy quoted in BSA vs. Dale clearly says that homosexuals may not be members. You have yet to quote any later policy that changes that. You have quoted later policies that are silent on whether homosexual members are allowed, but that's not the same thing. Ken Arromdee 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current 2004 policy is posted below under Youth Leadership. That's the current one on Youth and homosexuality.

There is no conflict with my previous statements, because those statements use words like "few" and "less likely". That means there won't be as many gay 10 year olds as there are of older boys. It doesn't mean there will be *none*. There will still be some younger members to whom the anti-gay policy applies; it's just that since there are fewer of them, it's harder to name names.

I can see the current policy below, but you seem to be under the impression that it lets gays be members. It does not. It's silent about the issue; it says that gays may not be leaders, but nowhere does it say that they may be members.

Moreover, the policy says that members must be morally straight in thought, and defines that such that members must believe homosexual conduct is wrong. Gay boys don't believe that (even if they don't exercise in that conduct themselves) so they'd be disqualified.

Would you be satisfied with something like this paragraph?:

The decision in BSA vs. Dale quotes a 1993 BSA policy which explicitly excludes homosexuals as members. The more recent 2004 policy mentions only leaders and does not say whether homosexuals may be members. However, it does require that BSA members must be morally straight in thought and be willing to accept BSA beliefs, including a belief in the wrongness of homosexuality; since homosexual boys would normally not accept that, they would be not allowed as members.

Ken Arromdee 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the below is more accurate and would have no problem with it. The "BSA Beliefs" have always been the Scout Oath and Law. You don't have to subscribe to the BSA position statements. Adults do have to also agree to the Declaration of Religious Principles.

The decision in BSA vs. Dale quotes a 1993 BSA policy which explicitly excludes avowed homosexuals as members. The more recent 2004 policy mentions only leaders and does not say whether avowed homosexuals may be members. However, it does require that BSA members must be morally straight in thought and be willing to follow the Scout Oath and Law. GCW

Does being morally straight in thought, and willing to follow the oath and law, have anything to do with homosexuality? Would a boy who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, and who considers himself to be homosexual violate that? Ken Arromdee 15:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is all coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation, so let's please stick to the facts that have occurred as I have written. BSA has problems with folks using the program for political purposes of any type, hence the emphasis on AVOWED homosexual. You can even read that implied in their current policy on youth leadership which says it's unlikely a boy would come out and publicize that he's homosexual until after 18.

Now here's my opinion and observation as a leader for thirty years. (Notice it's labled as that ;-) ) In all practicality, BSA's policy as actually practiced in the field by most councils is very similar to the US government's own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the military. Most of us don't care what you do on your own time as long as you keep it private and out of the newspapers and Scouting. Folks around here aren't actually wasting time "outing" leaders.

As for "Morally Straight", when that was written in 1910 it basically meant being being honest and good, as in a a"straight arrow". It was the Gay community who subsequently took the word "straight" and made it mean heterosexual.

I wasn't referring to the use of the word "straight" as meaning non-homosexual, I was referring to it as including the idea that a boy must agree with the BSA's moral values. It refers to beliefs as well as conduct. A boy who is homosexual, almost by definition, will have values different from the Scouts. This would seem to preclude homosexuals as members without having to say outright "we haven't lifted the ban on homosexual members".

And how can it be a don't ask, don't tell, policy if Scouts must take oaths to follow the Scout code and agree with Scout beliefs? That is far from "don't ask" and much closer to "ask". True, they could lie and nobody will check to see if the lie is true, but Scout honesty would seem to rule out lying anyway. (And what about members? Is there a don't ask, don't tell policy about members too, and does that mean avowed homosexual members are rejected?) Ken Arromdee 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of answers to my questions, I've changed the article. Ken Arromdee 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I was checking the current Boy Scout Handbook for it's discussion of Morally straight. Morally straight means doing the right thing and following the guidance of your parents and religion. There is no requirement for a member to follow what you call the "beliefs" of BSA, nor would the typical member or leader even know them.

BSA's prohibition is on outward behavior, not belief. Due to their age, it's an unlikely situation for a youth "member" not in a leadership position to be a known or avowed homosexual. Most youth over 15 and all adults are in leadership positions in BSA.

A Scout must be morally straight *in thought* and be *willing to follow* the Scout law. Both of these are prohibitions on beliefs, not just on outward behavior.

And what about my point about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Requiring that members show allegiance to a Scout oath that bans homosexuality sounds to me like they are being asked and must tell.

Where in the Scout Oath or Law is the word homosexuality mentioned? You won't find it on any application form or in the Boy Scout Handbook, nor in the interpretation of the Oath and Law that Scouts use from thise sources.

Trust me, this is not a bigh topic of concern to most Scouts and Scouters. The national policy statements are just that, policy used when a problem arises. Same with the legal statements, etc, etc.

I'd also like to know on what grounds you claim that "it is unlikely that a youth member not in a leadership position would ever be a known or avowed homosexual and thus subject to removal". It's certainly less likely, but I don't think it can be described as unlikely. Ken Arromdee 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Vitually every Scout over the age of 12 is in some leadership position. As we both agreed before, it's very unlikely that a Scout under that age would come out. GCW[reply]

I've taken the reference out. Aside from the above problem, the statement that "no known case of this has ever occurred" is not true; someone has given the Matt Hill case below as an example. Ken Arromdee 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- Why has this article been spunoff from the Boy Scouts of America article? I think this might be construed as a POV fork, and, IIRC, there is a guideline/policy against such things. crazyeddie 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omission

It's ridiculous that this (since long before it was a separate article) doesn't mention anywhere that the Boy Scouts bars gay members, only leaders. I've changed this. -

Well I've changed it back to show the actual current written policy. Let's stick to current facts, not opinions if this is going to be an encyclopedia and not an editorial page.

First of all, BSA is only concerned about AVOWED homosexuals who publicly declare that they are homosexual and are using their Scout position to advocate it or any other political cause. I know a few of my fellow Scout Leaders who are homosexual. Nobody cares as long they keep it out of Scouting and the newspapers.

Not true - James Dale did NOT "use his Scout position to advocate" any cause, he was identified as a member of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance at Rutgers in a Newark Star-Ledger story. He was not identified as a Scout in the story, nor did Dale try to "use" his Scout position in any way. He was kicked out ONLY because he was gay, period. Dennis St. Jean, the longtime director of the BSA's Florida seabase, was fired because, on vacation, he went to a "predominantly gay" resort and the BSA found out. St. Jean never attempted to use his Scouting position to advocate anything; it was weeks before this news was even made public. There ARE many BSA units that refuse to enforce the BSA's policy, but national BSA policy is to kick out gay members - there is no allowance for being gay and staying in Scouting by "not using your position to advocate homosexuality" or somesuch. What you're seeing locally are people deliberately ignoring the official BSA policy.

The Scoutmaster's Handbook instructs adult leaders to instruct boys whao have sexual questions to discuss them with their parents or religious leaders. The general principle is that adolescent youth members (who are under 18) are not yet old enough to know if they are really homosexual.

(And if anyone needs a source for "Critics contend that some leaders within BSA have investigated and expelled non-avowed homosexual leaders and members from the organization." (with respect to members), there's several such contentions by a critic in the Pool/Geller brief in BSA vs. Dale.) Ken Arromdee 07:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC) That's right it's from a critic not BSA policy. Here's the policy:[reply]

Only Leaders, Not general members. Here's the BSA position on Youth members:

● Youth Leadership Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position

So adult and youth leadership positions are proscribed, not general youth membership. GCW

There is more than one part of BSA vs. Dale that's relevant. One of them is from critics, and is relevant to the "critics contend that" statement. The other is *not* from critics; it's a direct quote from a BSA policy that states that the BSA does not allow homosexuals as members.

As you'll notice, the newer quote you gave doesn't say that homosexual members are allowed. It says that leaders aren't allowed, but it never says that members are. And considering that it says that membership is contingent on accepting Scouting's values, and Scouting's values are that homosexuality is wrong even in thought, it seems to implicitly say that members may not be homosexual even though it doesn't say so explicitly.

Ken Arromdee 04:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example from www.inclusivescouting.net of gay youth being removed from scouting:

Matt Hill

The reference doesn't describe Matt Hill's rank or leadership position, but does describe his age at the time as 14. Every Scout of First Class rank or higher has to serve in a leadership position to advance to the next level. Most Scouts who stay in the program achieve First Class by age 12. The national standard goal is First Class one year after joining at 10 1/2. So the odds are very great that he was in some leadership position, and not a general member. It's rare Scout over the age 12 who isn't in a leadership position. -GCW

But if a youth member in a leadership position WAS found out to be gay, and the official BSA policy was to not have gays in leadership positions, wouldn't he just be relieved of his leadership position?Brian Westley 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site also names Chris Strobel, Rob Schwitz, and Patrick Renner as being under-18 Scouts who had their memberships revoked for being gay, though there is no information on their cases.

66.77.224.152 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC) - Correct. There is no information. If they were 12 or under when asked to leave, I'd be surprised.[reply]

This is an obvious example of hearsay since I've never looked at a scouting manual myself, but I've heard that the manual prohibits masturbation and can kick members out if they catch them doing it. Can anyone confirm this?207.157.121.50 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey[reply]

YOU FOUND IT IN ANCIENT HISTORY. The 1910 manual also teaches Scouts how to stop runanway horses.

Robert Baden-Powell, who died in 1941, warned budding Scouts in the book first published in 1908: “You all know what it is to have at times a pleasant feeling in your private parts, and there comes an inclination to work it up with your hand or otherwise.

“Well, lots of fellows, from not knowing any better, please themselves in this way until it often becomes a sort of habit with them which they cannot get out of.

“The practice is called self abuse and the result is that the boy after time becomes weak and nervous and shy.

“He gets headaches and probably palpitation of the heart, and if he still carries it on too far he very often goes out of his mind and becomes an idiot.” …

He wrote: “The use of your private parts is not to play with when you are a boy but to enable you to get children when you are grown-up and married.

“But if you misuse them while young, you will not be able to use them when you are a man.

“Remember too that several awful diseases come from indulgence - one especially that rots away the inside of men’s mouths, their noses and eyes.”

"I've never looked at a scouting manual myself, but I've heard that the manual prohibits masturbation and can kick members out if they catch them doing it. Can anyone confirm this?" if you're referring to the Boy Scout Handbook (10th edition and 11th edition), neither edition references masturbation IIRC. ~a 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cites

The current page reads "Similarly, less than twelve other leaders and members have been asked to leave a BSA Council because of engaging in public dissent in the media." As I know of no official BSA announcement as to how many people they have kicked out due to public dissent in the media, where does the very specific "less than twelve" come from? I would not accept the writer's only hearing of 11 or fewer cases as sufficient support to state "less than twelve".

From your own postings of who has been kicked out over this. GCW

Huh? Just because someone has posted fewer than twelve examples doesn't mean that there *are* fewer than twelve, it just means he hasn't *posted* fewer than twelve. Ken Arromdee 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since GCW has no cite, I've removed that sentence. Brian Westley 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

I've just put BACK a sentence changed from:

The BSA's policies have made it the target of costly litigation, notably lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Back to:

There have also been a number of lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over such issues as BSA recruiting in public schools and government involvement with the BSA.

It is NOT accurate to summarize the BSA as the "target" of costly litigation, as MOST current lawsuits involving the Boy Scouts are against OTHER entities, and do NOT have the BSA as a party:

Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al
Scalise v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools
Powell v. Portland Public School District

Notice the above lawsuits lack "Boy Scouts of America" as a party.

There is this one:
U.S. ex rel Glenn Goodwin v. Old Baldy Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...which is against the Old Baldy Council for signing a nondiscrimination agreement to get a HUD grant, which paid for a Scout program (which does not admit atheists, in violation of the HUD nondiscrimination agreement). That one IS against the BSA.

There are also these cases:
Eugene Evans et al v. City of Berkeley
"Evans" was instigated BY members of a BSA Sea Scout group, for losing their free berth; the BSA isn't the "target" in this case, Berkeley is.

Barnes-Wallace, et al. v. City of San Diego and Boy Scouts of America/Desert Pacific Council
This case was against both San Diego and the BSA; the city has decided not fight the case anymore, but the BSA is continuing the case on its own.

So out of these 6 active cases, 2 "targeted" the BSA. And the Goodwin lawsuit isn't about the BSA policies per se, it's about the BSA defrauding HUD by not living up to the required nondiscrimination agreement that they signed to get funding.

Another recently decided case, Boy Scouts of America v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, was also instigated by the BSA; the BSA was not "targeted".
Brian Westley 05:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]