BSA membership resolution passes with more than 60 percent of vote

20130523-171320.jpg

After an extensive discussion within the organization, the Boy Scouts of America’s approximately 1,400 volunteer voting members chose to adopt the membership policy resolution and remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone.

The final vote breakdown was 61.44 percent for the proposal, and 38.56 percent against. The change takes effect Jan. 1, 2014.

Voting results were tabulated and certified by TrueBallot, an independent, third-party voting firm.

Read more at this site, or find the full text of the BSA’s official media statement below:

For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, with a focus on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization’s long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting’s mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change.

Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting’s history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.

The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter.

While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens. America’s youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve.

1,432 thoughts on “BSA membership resolution passes with more than 60 percent of vote

  1. Karen Zeller and ScoutMom here is what validates my mystery statement this was the Scouts position before the vote on May23,2013. Please read.
    By John Stemberger , CP Op-Ed Contributor May 13, 2013|5:58 pm
    Later this month, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will decide the most controversial issue in its 103 year history-namely, whether or not every chartered Boy Scout unit will be required to foster open homosexuality in their units by accepting “openly homosexual” boys.
    Then about 30 days after the BSA decision, the nation will receive two key critical decisions from the US Supreme Court on same sex marriage that will have dramatic consequences on the entire country.
    If you think it is just a coincidence that these two matters are being decided so closely to each other, one right after the other, on similar topics — think again. It is strategic and calculated timing on the part of gay-rights operatives at the highest levels.
    Here is some brief history. In 2010, the BSA commissioned a comprehensive two-year study on its membership standards and specifically on the policy to not inquire about the sexual orientation or same sex attractions but to prohibit “open and avowed homosexuality”. After the eleven-member committee of professional Scout executives and adult volunteers completed the study they “unanimously concluded” the policy should be maintained. In fact, accordingly to AP news stories, BSA spokesmen said this was “the absolute best policy for the organization.”
    So what would possess the BSA to risk embarrassing themselves on a national stage by opening back up such a controversial and divisive issue when months earlier they proclaimed they had the “absolute best policy?”
    For me, the answer to that question was found in a little chicken wing and pizza restaurant right across from my office in Orlando, Florida last year in the summer of 2012. I was at this dive of a restaurant I frequent and happened to see Tico Perez, the National Commissioner of the BSA. Now I grew up in the same Scouting Council with Tico and we have also known each other for many years as fellow lawyers in the same city. I asked him how the BSA membership controversy was going and he assured me that the “Key Three” leaders in the organization had the issue “locked down” and the policy would not change. This was right after the BSA affirmed their policy and the two-year study. But he also described to me in detail the ugly onslaught of the types of sharp criticism BSA leadership had been receiving, which he described as “brutal and ongoing.” Then in January 2013, I saw a breaking news story that the BSA had opened “the conversation” back up again and was now reconsidering the same policy which they just re-affirmed only months ago! Why did the BSA do this? Well, very simply because the intensity of the criticism was too much for them to handle. Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and other gay-rights activist groups were steady and relentless in their systematic lobbying of BSA leaders, not to mention the mainstream media and Hollywood piling on right behind them. But why the top down full court press on the Boy Scouts by gay-rights leaders around the country?
    Well, unbeknownst to the BSA officials who were being pounded by activists from all sides, the two same-sex marriage cases were also slowly and silently making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    If you are a Supreme Court “watcher” most agree that any close decisions are usually about Justice Anthony Kennedy. He is the most obvious and most often-discussed swing vote on the high court. And if you read his previous opinions on social issues, Kennedy does not seem as concerned with legal issues as with public opinion. Kennedy’s opinions are not filled with extensive analyses of the nuisances of equal protection, state’s rights or statutory construction. He seems more concerned with culture, polling numbers and signs of the times. If the BSA changes its membership policy and allows open homosexuality among its boys, you can be guaranteed that this event will be cited to by Justice Kennedy in his decision on the same sex marriage cases. So as the Supreme Court is taking up the next big “gay rights” issue this year, it’s no large leap to consider the timing of this latest BSA gay rights push as aimed at influencing those few Justices who are susceptible to the court of public opinion, especially when it comes to cries of “discrimination.” What’s at stake in this Boy Scout controversy is not just the future of Scouting. It is also the future of the institution of marriage and whether or not we will undergo yet another “fundamental transformation of America. “I originally pledged to Tico to create an organization which would support top BSA leadership. Sadly and ironically, I am now instead leading the national movement OnMyHonor.Net, to criticize him and other top BSA leaders for not being brave enough to stand up to their own adult peers and do what is right by standing up for what is the “absolute best” for the boys in Scouting.
    John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout and president of On My Honor (OnMyHonor.net]
    So Karen and ScoutMom this also validates my statement of the 854 biased delegates on the vote. They voted to please the GLBT and their agenda of making sure that the funding from Homosexual supporters would influence the vote. I rest my case. Trenton Spears

    • How does any of that change the fact that you and I and every other Scout and Scouter had representation, by volunteers just like us, voting on the policy? I know who our three delegates were, and I saw the process by which they decided their votes. The BSA established an open process that had representation from every council, and they followed it.

        • Are you a member of a Council? Did your council have delegates? Did they vote? They represented your council. Every council had a number of delegates that corresponded to the size of the council; mine had three, some had seven. Your delegates, all of them volunteers just like you and me, were your representatives.

        • They did NOT represent the members desire to keep the policy as is. They were puppet reps and failed to truly represent the membership.

        • Do you know who your delegates were? Do you know how they voted? What process did they follow to collect input from your council? All of that was open information in my council, and I expect it was in yours also. So in what way did your three or seven delegates not follow the process?

        • Actually Karen, in my Council I called the Council Executive and asked him if there would any town meetings or votes and he said no the Board would decide. After a lot of asking I found out the Council President, Council Commissioner and regional officer would vote for us. Our Board voted unanimously to reject the Proposal. They surveyed 100 registered members and had only one if favor. The representatives were instructed to vote the will of the Council and the survey results. We were 74% to reject the proposal in the “VOS” survey. I don’t know how they voted but I am going to ask to be sure they followed the will of the Council.

        • It sounds like you did have a process for assessing the thoughts of the members of the council and its leadership, a process for determining how the delegates would vote, and three representatives who went to the meeting to vote. Sounds like representation to me. The particular details of how information was collected differ from my council, but representation in both cases.

        • I’m okay with it since it reflected everything and everyone I have ever known in Scouting. but the Council adjoining ours had town hall meetings and surveys. Much larger Council and actually more conservative. Same result.

          I’m not making the representation argument but I know that when BSA had the voters all rounded up they gave the full-court press with presentation and appeals to the “good of Scouting” and probably changed some votes. Based on their own survey it should have failed. Heads were turned, man-tears were shed and a percentage did not vote with their Council. Their is certainly a chance this vote did not reflect the will of the Council registered members.

        • Karen, explain to me how over 60% of the membership in BSA nationwide did NOT support the policy change while the policy was still changed. It’s not me who has to explain anything to anyone. It’s the BSA representatives who ignored the members that need to answer to us. Get it straight.

        • It was changed by the following process:
          1. National proposed a tentative policy change, which was not the final policy proposal. They asked for input on it in many different ways.
          2. Each council designated delegates. Those delegates had the opportunity to get input from people in their councils, both before and after the final proposal was written.
          3. Those delegates, all volunteers, represented their councils at the national meeting. They voted as representatives of their councils.
          That’s how it happened. But you know that.

        • Karen, you have failed to answer the obvious fact of well over 60% of the membership being AGAINST the change!!!! LOL Sheesh woman! The membership majority spoke and were ignored. You know that!

        • The survey was not created or announced as a binding vote, nor did it represent the policy change that was finally proposed. It was one of many tools for assessing impact of various possible changes. It was only one part of the “listening phase,” and was labeled as such. From the beginning, the listening phase was one step in an open and declared process. From the first announcement in February, the process was to end in the delegates’ vote in Texas in May. Every council had representation commensurate with its size. You were represented by volunteers who voted. All of us in all councils were represented by our own volunteer delegates after extensive preparation.

        • Kathy, if the BSA had reversed the process laid out in February and said, “Oh, yeah, that online survey that some of you took and some didn’t, that we said was part of the listening process — that survey was REALLY our decision-making tool, and whether you voted or not, it’s done. That was the decision you made” — that would be a very unfair process, not aboveboard, systematic, or fair. Instead, they laid out a systematic process from the beginning, of which that was one early, exploratory step. They followed that process. Yes, Kathy, you were represented: you had delegates representing your council.

        • I expect the difference between your statements and mine, Kathy, derives from different definitions of “represent.” The word has several, quite different meanings. I used the word first, and I think it was clear in the context of my message that “represent” meant “to serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for.” You surely do understand that you had delegates representing you in an orderly process, official and authorized volunteer delegates from your council? This is the commonly used meaning in governance, whether of a public or private organization. You seem to be using it to mean “to serve as an example of” or “to be the equivalent of,” and therefore you object that you did not have representation because the vote did not have the same result as the national survey (although they were on different questions, so they are really comparing apples and oranges, or at least apples and pears). Every one of us had representation in the decision made.

        • When my COR and I sent an email to our council Scout Executive stating that we were opposed to the policy change, we received a reply from a regional VP stating that other religions are ok with homosexuality, that the BSA’s policy is to not favor one religion over another, and that we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on other people.

        • Wow. I think BSA has decided to move away from the CO model. I think even though they created mountains of marketing material (the spokesman for ours was Zig Zigler) they realized CO’s might want to have a voice in policy and that bit them in the butt on the PC Fortune 500 crowd. Always follow the money.

          I can’t speak for other CO’s but the CO’s in this Council are almost exclusively faith based and provide meeting places and vehicles and equipment. The only think they ask in return is to maintain instruction compatible with Christian beliefs. Too much to ask I guess.

          We accept all people in our Church as long as they are repentant. BSA is not a Church. In my opinion, it has always been an organization of high ethical principles and moral values. For me, effective January 1, 2014 that will no longer be the case.

        • SM13, So what that reply to your message was saying is that the BSA, for 103 years, has favored one religion over the other and that they believe it is time to change the 103 year old policy based on their views. See how they ignored the members? The BSA leadership during the Supreme Court hearing must have been ousted by the Militant Political Machine. The BSA views have done a 180 degree change and the new leadership thinks they know what is best for the BSA even over the majority of it’s members. It’s a sick world. It’s why I can no longer belong to BSA.

      • Karen I posted the article because it is another view of circumstances of why the proposal passed. I know you don’t like other views other than your own except that the bloggers need to form a consensus of a broader perspective and the possibility that the vote was tainted by pressure from outside groups and the fact that the 854 delegates voted in spite of the 60% majority who sent in the survey and on top of the fact of the BSA Leaderships published stand of leaving the ban as is. Karen do you have any issues to this mystery I certainly do. When the BSA won the Supreme Court decision in 2000 I was confident that the BSA would protect the youth of scouting from the homosexual issue and they lived up to their promise and the BSA did enforce the ban. The last 10 months I was confident that the BSA would uphold the costly Supreme Court decision and the BSA’s position of Morally Straight. Karen don’t you believe that at best the BSA flipped flopped and what was the reason. That is the issue it needs to be answered. I would like to see a name list of all of the 1400 delegates posted and a list of all the Councils and their results. We must have a open and honest Scouting program don’t you think. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • Excuse me, Trenton, you “know” that I “don’t like views other than my own”? What? You are making huge leaps about someone you have never met. I have dealt very little with opinions in this discussion, mine or anyone else’s. In fact, you do not even know what my opinions are, in any depth, let alone what I like or don’t like. Trenton, does your faith allow you to treat people this way? The members of your faith that I know personally would never treat people that way.

          Regarding the 1400 delegates, I would suggest beginning with the delegates in your own district. I talked to the ones in my district and had no difficulty finding out who they were and how they voted and why. I am sure you can do the same.

        • Karen please stop questioning my religion and my faith it has nothing to do with it would you talk to your scouts about their religion and how they follow the teachings of their church. Karen please put the shoe on the other foot. You don’t know me other than my comments and I have a right to express my views as I see them you have called me dishonorable and as you say you don’t know me either but why do you judge me I leave judging to the holy one of Israel . I only know about your comments and most of them support homosexuality in Scouting that has been the issue. I am a simple man with a simple mission to keep the BSA a homosexual free organization. My comments are not always simple because of restructuring of the BSA to accommodate the new policy of the homosexual organization. For me it is no longer a possibility as the vote opened the door for the Homosexual agenda and the issue is not closed and more problems will keep the BSA in turmoil for years to come. I have asked you some basic pacific questions and you chose to not answer them. I will answer any question you ask of me. I consider this forum as a debate between opposite views and is a healthy and informative forum. Karen you have posted many comments and a lot of them drift away from the basic issue do homosexuals belong in scouting that is the issue as some have commented it is only half done and the blogging continues as it should this is America and was it was formed on open debate. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • By the way, Trenton, who were the delegates in your council? Do you feel that they did their job correctly? Were there three or seven from your council?

        • Karen I talked with a delegate before the vote and he expressed to me that the Council would not support lifting the ban and knowing this individual I believe he stood by his convictions. I would suggest that the BSA disclose all the Councils vote on the issue in a nation wide survey and why the 1400 delegates voted there choice of representing their councils . Asking Scouters to ask how their council voted is a good thing but it will not give a clear consensus of the overall vote. I believe that all scouters deserve a clear consensus of the results of the vote Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • I agree Trenton…..I think those who voted should explain everything. I want to see just how the majority of the membership was voted against. I think had the vote went the other way, the militant homosexual group would be demanding the same thing and they’d get it.

        • Karen….stop asking the same question over and again. It’s getting annoying. Well, feel free to actually….it’s still a free world…well almost! LOL Your question (continuous one at that) reflects a total lack of either smarts or willingness to understand the point. Now, don’t mind me if I ignore your pointless question from now on. It is not a question that matters one way or another. The majority of people were not represented. The BSA flip flopped, did a 180 degree switcharoo, due to the militant machine. End of story. You can “understand” it any way you wish but your reasoning just makes you look …. I’ll skip the adjective.

        • But if you really want to know how everyone else’s delegates voted, why aren’t you willing to start with your own? If you haven’t even asked the ones you know, how much do you really care about all the others?

        • Karen….you really need to stop assuming things. Who said I didn’t ask my delegates??? LOL You aren’t hearing me. We want all the delegates to answer to us publicly. But then you know that.

        • I’m sorry — I misunderstood. So who were your delegates, and what did they tell you about their votes and the process involved?

        • all they will tell me is that is was a secret ballot. Makes me kinda wonder.

        • Did your council tell you who your delegates were, Fred? If so — try inviting one to have a cup of coffee with you. Tell him you want to hear about the experience. I know our delegates really felt a lot of stress going in, because of the difficulty of sorting out everything they heard from within our council and because of different perspectives between the three of them. But they put that work in — which is usually the kind of experience that leaves you with something you want to talk about. The meeting itself gave them a lot to talk about, too — I’ll bet that one-on-one, with someone that clearly wants to listen, they’ll tell you a lot.

        • They’re all personal friends. why would I grill them if they not offer an answer voluntarily? Speaks volumes.

        • I really didn’t imagine hot irons, Fred :) . All I had to do here was say, “Well, a bit of travel last week, eh? How’d it go?” …and the conversation went from there.

        • Please don’t take this as sexist but guys don’t add a lot of fluff to conversations. If I ask a question and a male friend dances around the issue or is silent, I don’t press them unless it is very important. How they votes is interesting but not essential. Why force them to tell me? BSA is an opt-in organization. Those who do not like the policy have the option to leave and I recommend it if they cannot internalize this compromising policy,.

        • Talking with all of your own delegates might give you insight on what happened. Your delegates are accountable to you. Other delegates are accountable to their councils.

        • Karen Zeller Asking your local council is not enough it will keep the issue local and prevent an overall consensus of a Nation wide polling of the national delegate vote. Karen could you answer that simple question. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • You didn’t ask a question, Trenton? But I do think that the clearest understanding comes not from outside sources but from discussion with your own delegates. Then people can share with one another across council lines what they learn. How did your delegates make the decision on their vote — by direction of your council’s board, some other way? What happened at the meeting? What conversations did they have with other delegates?

        • Karen Zeller. Question do you believe that we need a nation wide poll of all the councils and how the individual 1400 delegates voted on the issue. Trenton Spears

        • I don’t see any value in it, Trenton. They already voted. Their ballots were not public, but I’m sure that members of their councils can ask and will get an answer. Have you asked yours? If you ask yours, and I ask mine, and everyone else asks theirs — we’ll all have better understanding, I would think. I also think that a person-to-person, face-to-face extended conversation with my delegates was far more valuable than a list of names & numbers.

        • Karen I ask you a simple question and you still duck the main question. How do we know that the vote was tabulated correctly this vote effected the National Boy scouts of America for the whole nation not just a council what if the company that counted the votes made some mistakes. Karen don’t we as scout leaders deserve a democratic voting process with accountability should we trust the vote count that was a reversal of the position of the National Board just 6 months ago to not lift the ban. Should we trust the vote after 60% of Parents and Scouters on the survey did not want the ban lifted. Should we trust the vote after the National Board suggested each Charter form their own plan of how to handle homosexual scouts in their own Charter. Karen we are talking about 308 vote margin to lift the ban. It has effected millions of scouts and scouters nationwide. Is it to much to ask that all the councils and delegates post the numbers nationwide so there would be more of a consensus of their voting numbers? I hope more bloggers take up the issue because many Scout Charters mostly in Churches at this time are leaving the BSA or preparing to leave the BSA. it would be a shame if the vote was not tabulated correctly or the issue was misrepresented to the 1400 delegates and the Charters left because of it. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • Trenton, you asked, “Question do you believe that we need a nation wide poll of all the councils and how the individual 1400 delegates voted on the issue.” I gave you a straightforward answer and my reason why. And you say that is “ducking”? You must have been asking a different question than ” Question do you believe that we need a nation wide poll of all the councils and how the individual 1400 delegates voted on the issue” if you think I did not answer.

        • Karen Zeller My question was a yes or no question. I was asking a for simple yes or no. I expected you to add other comments and I respect that as it is a open forum. Like I stated earlier Karen I will answer any question from you without beating around the bush and I will give you a direct answer along with my personal added comments. Karen I believe that you have a great love and passion to make the BSA the best it can be I also have the same love and passion for the same reasons we just have different views I believe that homosexuality in Scouting will bring more problems to the BSA and it will create such a great division that it will tear this great organization apart. Karen I am not talking about scout homosexuals I am talking about adult homosexuals represented by GLAAD and GLBT The BSA will certainly have to cave in as they already have with a this for the boys proposal Karen this was not about the boys it was just a selling point that had approval votes written all over it. It was the fact that the BSA was pressured by the homosexual agenda and the loss of funds by corporations that caved in to the same pressure. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • As for how we know the balloting was correct — I think I remember seeing that BSA had hired an outside firm to certify the vote, as you might in a contentious stockholders’ meeting. But I don’t remember what the firm was and I can’t find it right now. That is another question that one should be able to get an answer to at the Council or from email to National — the question of how the ballot was constructed and how the vote was certified.

        • I read that, as well, Karen. It’s referenced in the article above… “Voting results were tabulated and certified by TrueBallot, an independent, third-party voting firm.”

        • So are you asking for the delegates to reveal how they voted in a secret ballot election?

        • Yes db I am. I think they should prove what ya’ll are saying….that they voted according to their membership majority. Cuz the numbers don’t add up. The vote should not be in secret when the outcome goes against the majority voice. Yup….you got it.

        • The answer you will get from your delegate is that the vote was not made public. They aren’t (at least mine won’t) going to reveal the vote.

          I want to know. Who voted for this? Did their Council want it? The answer, of course, is that overwhelmingly, the members in Councils did not. That’s why they won’t make their votes public.

        • That’s not the answer I got from the delegates I talked with. If you are talking person-to-person, and it is clear that you are really listening and want to know about their experience at the meeting, people will tell you a lot. If they think that you are just polling for data to publish, then no, they probably will avoid talking with you.

        • Karen, I respect your opinion and you are a fair person in a debate although we disagree.

          After everything I have read and experienced, i would like to offer where I stand on the Immortal 1400. As best I can tell, BSA sent out their 1 hour presentation and scheduled several hard-press meetings with targeted Councils throughout the day beginning with the Mormon breakfast speech. I speculate that by the time the vote was taken, the fix was in. Happens all the time in these kind of meetings. Most of the Council Reps were volunteers with a heart for Scouting who kids were long gone and BSA bigwigs were telling them homosexual youth were good for Scouting for money, perception and acceptance in modern culture. Its the main reason I left Youth ministry in the Church at one time. The Youth Minister said “find them where they are, accept their faults with no correction and soft-pedal the Gospel. The Church has since replaced that Youth minister and I am involved again. .That is exactly what Scouts is doing in my opinion. Accept everybody and soft pedal the high ethical and moral standards BSA used to stand for and i supported. Their parents don’t believe in it anyway and we will be more widely accepted and “relevant.” Didn’t need a govt survey by a reputable polling firm paid for by the bovt or BSA to determine that answer. The facts as I see them and demonstrated on this list support that conclusion.

          Most of the pro-policy side want fewer standards, less Christianity, lower moral standards and less scrutiny on sexual habits and behavior. Homosexuality as a moral is is dead with the pro-policy people. Scouts will be much more secular and accepting of unethical and immoral behavior in my opinion. Everyone can disagree and that is fine. Its what enforced my decision to leave.

      • How is it “representation” when they did not vote in the manner that their councils wanted? Not an open process when the vote was not an open one. I call shenanigans.

        • Who were the delegates from *your* council? How did they vote, and why? Do you feel that your delegates misrepresented your council?

    • >>>>Then about 30 days after the BSA decision, the nation will receive two key critical decisions from the US Supreme Court on same sex marriage that will have dramatic consequences on the entire country. If you think it is just a coincidence that these two matters are being decided so closely to each other, one right after the other, on similar topics — think again. It is strategic and calculated timing on the part of gay-rights operatives at the highest levels. … Well, unbeknownst to the BSA officials who were being pounded by activists from all sides, the two same-sex marriage cases were also slowly and silently making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      So do I understand correctly that this article is arguing that folks were lobbying the BSA in order to get them to change the policy because such a change would influence the decision in the Supreme Court’s marriage cases?

      I don’t understand the part about the marriage cases “silently” making their way towards the Supreme Court. Edie Windsor filed her DOMA case in 2010, and it was clear from the start it was likely to be headed for the Supreme Court. The Prop 8 case was started even earlier, in 2009, and again it was clear it was bound for the Supreme Court. The BSA reviewed their policy starting in 2010 and as a result, in 2012, decided against changing the policy. I don’t see how this timeline supports the article’s assertion that the BSA reopened their policy decision in order to influence the outcome of these cases.

      • The contention is the reversal of the previous policy decision you mentioned from just a few months before came at a time that would have an effect on public opinion while the Supreme Court decision was being finalized. The suggestion is that activists were working this specifically now knowing the Supreme Court was hearing the case. I think the quiet part is the fact if that is the goal, it hasn’t been expressed. I don’t think the article suggests it was planned all along, but a recent setting in motion based on the public situation.
        The idea has some merit – the question is whether there is a cabal of conspiracy or a serendipitous collection of circumstances (or as the A Team would say “I love it when a plan comes together”). Ever since Prop 8, virtually every TV sitcom includes a sympathetic gay character designed to help us feel their plight, the Huffington Post published it’s list of BSA supporters designed to get them to cut off funding (btw, campaigns to cut off United Way and other funding have been going on for years – the attack on corporate funding was sheer genius – and effective).
        I’m don’t believe in the great conspiracy – I would have a hard time even if someone came out and admitted it). But I do believe that a general and sustained campaign of activism has been going on. I also know that this same campaign has been one of anti-religion as well.

        • “But I do believe that a general and sustained campaign of activism has been going on.”

          Why wouldn’t people that seek to achieve legal equality for gay people not be working towards it in this matter? Is it a problem that they do so?

  2. I don’t go around saying “I’m attracted to men! I’m attracted to men! Look at me I am sexually excited by the opposite sex! Accept me please for who I am!!!” Why do homosexuals need everyone to accept their life style so much??? I have plenty if people who don’t accept me for elements of who I am. Guess what? I don’t care if you don’t approve of me and who I am. The need for homosexuals to silence disapproval of who they are is called approval addiction and is rooted in a negative sense if self. This is the reason for gay pride parades and such…..Cruz these people need external approval from the masses in order to feel good about themselves and their place in this world. What they need is some self confidence and an ability to not care if others disapprove of them. It comes with maturity. This is what I am finding my forties are useful for. I am learning that other people’s opinions don’t determine my self worth. I am learning to accept others disapproval as their right to their own thoughts. But homosexuals don’t have that self confidence. They need it. Once they get it they won’t have a need to try to force everyone to accept and validate their life style in order to feel good about themselves. To be free of other approval and disapproval and learn to welcome one and detach with love from the other is turning point in human freedom that I wish for everyone. It truly frees us up to be ourselves, to not try to control others, and to ultimately make tough decisions that are in keeping with our own values despite what others think. I am not responsible for the hurt feelings of others when they feel hurt by my opinion. We each are responsible for our own life and feelings. Eagle mom….while she seems so loving is simply acting in codependence towards the homosexual kids she feels so much love for. We can love people and care about their feelings but their pain is not ours to carry. They took an oath. When they realize they cannot keep it….they should leave the group and form their own where they make an oath they can keep. It might seem unfair but it is not. It is the way of honor and integrity.

    • Oh and if I did that at a BSA event it would be inappropriate would it not? It would be inappropriate to do that anywhere. In fact, if I constantly talked about my sexual attractions I would most likely be considered a pervert and as a woman a slut. Why us this different for homosexuals? Why do they get honored for going around with vocally identifying their sexual preference? It’s just weird and socially deviant for anyone to do so but somehow the homosexual gets a pass…..why?

      • Kathy,
        I agree with you with about what is inappropriate to talk about in front of scouts or young children by straight or gay people. Someone should get kicked out for the kinds of actions you mentioned. But under the current policy, a gay leader will be kicked out if found out about outside of scouts. They could keep their mouth shut completely while in scouts, but the fact they live with their partner would get them kicked out without nothing ever being said at all. Telling somebody they cannot be “open an avowed” just rubs me the wrong way.

        • So Todd, if people should be kicked out for these actions, you are supporting a moral guideline that results in getting kicked out. How is that different from the once existing moral guideline for membership that is also contained in the Scout Oath? Some would say THAT is discrimination to kick someone out for being sexually open and expressive. In fact, to kick someone out for words they speak would be discrimination, would it not?, if we reason this thing out along the lines of those who claim the original policy for membership was wrong due to discrimination. Where does it end?

        • And I hear you about the restriction “open and avowed” rubbing you wrong. Here is the thing….why would I join an organization whose policy rubbed me wrong???? I think the homosexual community are activists pushing for everyone to validate and approve of their lifestyle – which is not mentally healthy to have that as one’s goal. They CAN be open and avowed everywhere in this country. It was this private organization that didn’t allow it because the members, the vast majority, don’t approve of the homosexual life style so they made that membership policy.

          If I were looking into joining an organization that had as its membership policy something like “We don’t allow members who drink alcohol at all, either socially, to excess, or in any way at any time” I would not join that group. In fact, I was at one time when I was very young, going to register to Attend Moody Bible School. Their rules were “no drinking, no playing cards, no watching any movies, etc…” I was like “OMG! I can’t abide by that!!!” Guess what???? I didn’t go to that school due to the agreement I would have had to make. Now some people agree to those rules, enroll in the school because they want the benefits of what the school offers but they fully intend to not obey the rules and to do so under cover. Well, I could have done that. Could I not? But instead, I maintained my own integrity, and decided to go elsewhere because I knew I could not live by what I thought were ridiculous rules. I was and still am free to do so.

          This situation is no different but it seems unique because of the comparison that homosexuals have made of themselves to the plight of the African American which is a ridiculous comparison and frankly offensive because not ONE homosexual in this country has EVER been a slave and not free to pursue happiness as they see fit unlike our African American brothers and sisters. I resent that comparison. It is NOT valid.

          I support homosexuals to be open and avowed if they want to be but they need to accept that not everyone approves of their lifestyles. Homosexuals need to accept that some disapprove of their lifestyle and just go elsewhere to live their life and pursue happiness. Stop the conflict and just pursue PEACE please!

    • Kathy, do you live with your husband? If so, do people know that you live with your husband? Because you live with your husband, do you suppose that people that are aware of your living arrangements might assume that you are a heterosexual woman? That is how you make it known that you are attracted to men. A man in a relationship with another man may make public announcement whatsoever. The simple fact that others may be aware of his living arrangements would define this man as an ‘open and avowed’ homosexual. This is what the current membership policy excludes, until the end of the calendar year. Gay people aren’t really looking for everyone to accept them. They really only want to have the same rights everyone else has. They want to live their lives, raise a family, and be happy. They want to be able to visit their partner in the hospital and make healthcare decisions when necessary. They really don’t care if Kathy Perkins accepts their lifestyle. They want equal protection under the law. They want to be treated fairly in society.

      • Beth, Kathy Perkins does accept their life style. I am not against a homosexual life style. There you go assuming. I am all for the right of EVERY American to pursue happiness as they see fit. What I am opposed to is the Militant tactics of the homosexual political machine who feel entitled to the GREAT organization that was CREATED by the people they accuse of being bigots. I am all for homosexual rights and they have them. What I am NOT for is them bullying a private organization, threatening the private organization, and taking it over against the will of the majority of the members simply because they feel entitled to the GREAT organization that those same “bigots” they hate so much created.

        Chew on that. It might come to you that my stance is Pure American thought that you simply are void of apparently.

        • Kathy, you say that you are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, but everything else that you say says otherwise. This policy was changed from within. By regular Scouts that don’t feel its right to discriminate. By a change in public opinion over time.

        • “By regular Scouts that don’t feel its right to discriminate. By a change in public opinion over time”
          I’m not sure that’s a valid statement. One, they were not regular Scouts – they were volunteers, yes, but the delegates are rarely involved in unit level Scouting. Two, based on the final policy, they obviously, at least the majority, felt it’s ok to discriminate. Particularly with the adults. They just identified that there is no place in Scouting for sex, so excluding young men didn’t make sense.

        • I can’t say who the delegates are for other councils. The three from our council included our council president, who is an Eagle and whose son made Eagle about three years ago. Dad was involved with the troop throughout, and he went to World Jam with his son’s Jamboree unit. He also has served on a Wood Badge staff, in 2012. The second delegate was the former council commissioner, who has been involved in Scouting “on the ground” for 50 years or more. When I first met him, he was a Cub committee chair & roundtable commissioner, involved in Scouting events every week. The third delegate is our current council commissioner; I don’t know him as well, but I know he has been involved in other commissioner positions in the council, which implies work with units. Who are the delegates in your council?

        • Each Council had delegates similar to those you mentioned, but the National Council and National Executive Board who come from the various sponsors (community and corporate) of Scouting – many of whom may or may not have ever been involved in unit level Scouting, such as James S. Turley of Ernst & Young. There are a number of Scouting leaders (on Council, Regional and higher levels) that have had little association with Scouting until they were in their position to be a philanthropist.

        • But wait, when you said, “One, they were not regular Scouts – they were volunteers, yes, but the delegates are rarely involved in unit level Scouting,” weren’t you talking about the delegates who made the decision, the ~1400 who voted? I’m sorry if I misunderstood you — I thought you were saying the delegates who voted were not really involved in unit level Scouting.

        • Some were, some were not. At least the ones that we know of. Many of the delegates are not public. Some of the activist groups were trying to publish the names of the delegates and their religious affiliations. They were not able to compile a complete list even when trying. I’m not trying – it really doesn’t matter to me. The decision has been made. I disagree, but my CO is going along for now. I just don’t believe this is the end of it, and I think my time may be limited.

        • So your council is keeping your 3 or 7 delegates secret? The Scout Exec won’t say who they were?

        • I’m not saying that – I haven’t asked. Some of them are specific – part of their Scuting job, such as the Council Commissioner. Some are parts of the groups of Scouting that aren’t really involved with the rank and file unit Scouting – like the 4 Areas and 9 Areas. They are mostly corporate and political leaders who have varying involvement in Scouting through their philanthropic endeavors. Some have been unit level involved and some haven’t been.
          Keep in mind, I am in no way trying to suggest anything but the best of these people. I’m just suggesting that they are looking at issues from a different perspective than the unit and CO might.

        • Your own 3 or 7 delegates might be very interesting people for you to talk with, with insight on how your council approached the vote and what the experience was like for those who were representing your council’s stance. I found those conversations very interesting here.

        • I’m not really concerned with how the voting went – I know some of my Council delegates and I’m pretty sure how their thoughts went. I’m more concerned with how my Church (my CO) delegates voted, and I know how they did as they made it public.
          In all honesty, assuming the issue ended here, I might have made the same vote. I do feel that young men with same sex attraction would be better with the positive influence than without.
          I just don’t believe this is a vacuum though. While I don’t think so on an individual basis, I think the goal of the activists is to remove the BSA from it’s prominence in the American public. Is it a grand scheme by a group of conspirators – no I don’t believe so. But I do believe some strategists with several organizations realized it’s much better to work from within that from the outside. Then it’s a matter of the appropriate media campaign to get the ball rolling – to the point that people are all going the same direction but for different reasons. I expect the next several years we’ll see the BSA drop to what the GSUSA program is today – a program for elementary age girls (whose eminence is primarily for selling cookies). It is the religious involvement and organization that has kept the BSA as it is. The GSUSA has little of that due to it’s more leftist nature.

        • I agree that there are youth protection issues that will need to be addressed. Its my belief that this waiting period between adoption and implementation of the new policy will allow us to address these issues.

          The one specific thing I’d like to say is the issue of tenting situations… I would never require a scout to share a tent with someone that made him feel uncomfortable. In my troop, we don’t assign tents. The boys choose if they will tent alone, or with another scout, and who that would be.

        • I’ve read bios of Mr. Turley in the past. While I don’t know that he was involved in scouting in his youth, he was active in both his local council as an adult, and now, of course, on the national level. As his father and grandfather are both Silver Beaver recipients, it doesn’t seem that he joined the BSA on a whim to advance a homosexual agenda. His chosen profession of accounting, is typically considered to be relatively conservative. Do you think he is a homosexual activist?

        • Obviously he has been. He has been very outspoken about changing Scouts from within the organization. I think that’s the definition of an activist.

        • You know, it’s late, and I’m clearly tired, and have a headache on top of it. I helped with an Eagle project this weekend (for a boy in a neighboring troop), and spent 6 hours for each of three days working on it. I prepared for and conducted a unit meeting this evening. I had a few graduation parties and a 50th wedding anniversary party to attend this weekend. I’m exhausted. Correct… the delegates did not vote to not discriminate against adult gay Scouters. That was not presented to them for a vote in the first place. Correct… it was Scouters, not Scouts that voted at all. Scouts, however, are even more against discrimination than adult members and parents are. The youngest among us are the most accepting.

          So yes, regular Scouters, who don’t want to discriminate made this happen.

        • @Kathy Perkins

          >>>>What I am opposed to is the Militant tactics of the homosexual political machine who feel entitled to the GREAT organization that was CREATED by the people they accuse of being bigots. I am all for homosexual rights and they have them. What I am NOT for is them bullying a private organization, threatening the private organization, and taking it over against the will of the majority of the members simply because they feel entitled to the GREAT organization that those same “bigots” they hate so much created.

          What “Militant tactics”?

          I am aware of some petitions, letter-writing campaigns, and protests; these are hardly militant tactics. They are time-honored, peaceful ways that Americans have always used to advocate for the things they believe in.
          I am aware that through this advocacy, government entities and other organizations have been persuaded not to fund organizations that exclude gay youth based on their thoughts (not behavior). This, too, is a time-honored, peaceful way that Americans have created change on questions of morality, which both sides believe is the issue here. I see nothing militant about these approaches.

          What bullying? What “taking over”?

          The BSA is free to take whatever position they choose on the matter. The general public is free to make their opinion about it known.

          >>>>Chew on that. It might come to you that my stance is Pure American thought that you simply are void of apparently.

          There is no need to imply that those who disagree with you are somehow unAmerican. Everyone posting here is presumably American. Neither side has a monopoly on that. By debating here, we are all carrying on the great American tradition of hashing out differences through peaceful dialog in the public arena. That’s a good thing, something we all can be proud of, regardless of which side we’re on.

        • “What bullying?”
          I think posting a list of BSA Corporate Sponsors in a national magazine (Huffington Post) and calling for boycotts could be seen as bullying.

        • Concerned about Youth – I think these people will NEVER see the bullying tactics that have been used. Well, I take that back…they see it….but since it represents their side of the argument, they reword it and make it all nice a pretty sounding. How nice!!! How nice of the militant homosexual machine to make relentless calls, how nice of them to file relentless law suits that cost the BSA millions to right, how nice of them to invade a private organization who has a right to exist as they see fit here in America….. Yeah…that’s the Proud American way. Yeah for sure!!! LOL I think the fact is…those are tactics SHE is proud of and sees as the American way. God help America because these people who call themselves American haven’t a clue what it means to be American. They are people who feel entitled to what they see as good and they want it and take it by force if necessary. Yeah….what great character these people have!

        • Kathy,
          As I mentioned elsewhere, I don’t really buy the great conspiracy thought, but I think people who sincerely want to do the right thing are manipulated by very specific targeted media. I see the same thing with some of the education committees I’ve worked with. Someone can propose anything and show some connection, however unlikely, with youth, and people will jump all over it. “It’s for the children” is the buzz phrase. Nobody wants to be seen as standing against the children. So we watch shows like Glee, where the poor Kurt Hummel is continuously harassed because he is gay, and we feel sympathetic. We then watch Modern Family and see how loving the son and his partner are with their adopted daughter. Then we talk about Scouting and use language like discrimination, exclusion, hate, bigotry, and homophobia – all where it really doesn’t exist – but we allow the language to be framed that way.
          I didn’t see this going any other way.
          But I also don’t think that’s a reason to show disrespect or attack a person’s patriotism.

        • Said nothing about Patriotism. I commented on honor and integrity. My comments stand as I see nine of either in people who join an organization and stay in it when they disagree with the values of the organization. That s the same for both sides of this argument. Honor and I integrity…… I’d love to see the different definitions here defined and then the manipulations done to fit the points if view into the different brands of honor and integrity.

        • @Concerned About Youth

          >>>>I think posting a list of BSA Corporate Sponsors in a national magazine (Huffington Post) and calling for boycotts could be seen as bullying.

          I don’t know, I think lots of organizations on both right and left use boycotts to influence businesses to support or stop supporting various causes. The general public then votes with their money, with one side avoiding the businesses and the other going out of their way to buy from them. Influencing, yes, but bullying? I’m not sure it crosses that line for me.

          Advocates against the old policy used boycotts to try to influence change. But those tactics only work if a significant portion of the public agrees with them, which would seem to be the case here. And either way, the BSA as a private organization has the right to ignore public opinion if they want to.

        • Lots of social and political groups use boycotts to effect change in some arena or another. Why is it bullying? It makes sense to me to not do business with a person or company that supports some cause that you don’t wish to give money to.

        • Kathy
          June 3, 2013 @ 9:53 am
          Said nothing about Patriotism. I commented on honor and integrity. My comments stand as I see nine of either in people who join an organization and stay in it when they disagree with the values of the organization. That s the same for both sides of this argument. Honor and I integrity…… I’d love to see the different definitions here defined and then the manipulations done to fit the points if view into the different brands of honor and integrity.

          Kathy, our local Scout camp allows adults to smoke. The are not allowed to smoke around the weekly campers, but they *are* allowed to smoke in front of the 15-year-old CIT’s and other underage staff.

          I don’t agree with this policy. It’s against my values. I think it’s immoral to for adults in leadership positions to model this unhealthy behavior in front of impressionable teens. In my interpretation, and in my value system, it’s also not in agreement with the requirement that a Scout be “clean”.

          However, I weighed the pros and cons, and decided that even though I disagreed with the BSA’s values that allowed adults to smoke in front of teens, on the whole I felt that the pros of Scouting outweighed the cons. I discussed my concerns with my son, reminded him of our family’s values on the matter, and then trusted that he would do the right thing. And he did.

          If the opportunity arose to offer an opinion or a vote on the issue, I’d vote that BSA camps should be a smoke-free environment for *all* underage youth, and that adult staff should not smoke in front of them.

          In the meantime, I accept that I will not agree with or endorse everything the BSA does, and I will assume that others feel the same on one issue or another. Nonetheless, I keep the big picture in mind.

          The BSA isn’t perfect, but it still has a lot to offer. Deciding to advocate for change to policies you don’t like, from *within* the organization, *can* be done with honor and integrity. Indeed, healthy organizations benefit from this kind of internal debate, and emerge stronger for it.

        • @Beth, While Accounting may be a “conservative” field, Turley is about as far from “conservative” that you can get. A simple search should provide you with many references. He will push for full “inclusiveness.”

          Boiling the frog…

        • “beth
          June 2, 2013 @ 10:24 pm
          Kathy, you say that you are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, but everything else that you say says otherwise. This policy was changed from within. By regular Scouts that don’t feel its right to discriminate. By a change in public opinion over time.”

          Where have I EVER said I’m against the homosexual lifestyle???? Never did. You are assuming that because I’m against this ONE decision the BSA made AGAINST the majority of it’s members of a private organization.

          The need to categorize people into one group or another is so frustrating. Try to resist it. One can be supportive of the homosexual to be free to pursue happiness as they see fit AND against them bullying a private organization that opposed their lifestyle into accepting their lifestyle.

        • Kathy, I didn’t realize that I am part of the “Militant homosexual political machine” until you pointed it out–and I am not even gay! For many, many people, straight and gay, this issue is about civil rights, and if standing up for equal rights and respect is “bullying”–um, well, I guess I am a “bully”, by this definition. (Don’t usually tend to think of myself this way, but….)

          I seem to remember that African-Americans, and women, and anyone else who has not always been part of the mainstream (women couldn’t vote in this country for a long time, remember) have often been called “militant” when asking for equal treatment and inclusion. Have often been referred to as “bullies” or “loud” or as “trying to take over.”

          Those of us who have been so insistent that the old policy had to go feel very, very deeply that it was wrong, and thus….we feel compelled to say so, loudly and frequently, which makes us “militant,” in the eyes of some. So be it.

          But it’s the first time I’ve been accused of being part of a “political machine.” Yeehaw!

      • Beth, let me remind what happens when people assume….you make an ass out of you and me. So let’s just stop the silly argument you are making here. We all know that open and avowed homosexuality has NOTHING to do with who your roommate is. There are PLENTY of women who room with women who are not lesbian and men with men who are not gay. Please for the love of god stop making such silly arguments!

        • So it’s not fair to assume that you’re attracted to the person you’re married to? OK, my bad. I didn’t make a silly argument. The simple facts of one’s living arrangements absolutely can ‘out’ them even if they don’t openly proclaim their sexual orientation. It’s just the way it is.

        • @Kathy Perkins

          You said, “Beth, let me remind what happens when people assume….you make an ass out of you and me. So let’s just stop the silly argument you are making here. We all know that open and avowed homosexuality has NOTHING to do with who your roommate is. There are PLENTY of women who room with women who are not lesbian and men with men who are not gay. Please for the love of god stop making such silly arguments!”

          I think you missed Beth’s point entirely.

          Imagine that you didn’t want anyone to know you were heterosexual. If you are married, you would have to pretend your husband was really your roommate. You would have to be careful not to publicly show your affection – no holding hands, for example. You’d have to be careful not to let the full depth of your love for him show in public. You’d have to go to events without him, even though others would be at the event with their partners. Can you imagine if your husband was not able to go to your son’s Courts of Honor for fear it would expose your relationship and get your son kicked out of Scouting? Now imagine having to keep up these pretenses every time you are out of your home – at the grocery story, at neighborhood events, at your child’s school – for fear that word would get back to someone in your son’s Scout troop.

          This is what it would take to hide your orientation. We should not be asking people to go to these lengths to hide their relationships. It is not kind, it is not friendly, it is not courteous.

        • @Mom, the basic assumption you’re making is flawed — that heterosexuality is comparable to homosexuality. That is the problem with the resolution. It equates normalcy with aberration.

      • Beth,
        I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one as well. Maybe not for some individuals, but the vocal activist LGBT community insists that it’s hateful, bigoted and wrong to suggest homosexuality is sinful. There are court cases going on in the US and elsewhere suggesting religious leaders are guilty of hate speech for stating that homosexuality is a sin.

        • @Concerned About Youth

          You said, “There are court cases going on in the US and elsewhere suggesting religious leaders are guilty of hate speech for stating that homosexuality is a sin.”

          Could you give some examples of this? I’ve can’t think of any offhand, but then I don’t always follow the news.

          A brief Google seems to show that the Supreme Court routinely upholds the First Amendment, as they should, even in cases involving extreme groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church.

          It is my understanding that “hate speech” really only comes into play legally when it is in the context of a crime. The idea behind “hate crimes” is when you, for example, burn a cross on a black family’s lawn, or throw a brick through their window, your crime is against not only that particular black family, but also others in the neighborhood who will now live in fear that they could be targeted next. The “hate speech” is used to show that you are not targeting the victim as an individual, but rather as a representative of the targeted group.

          The “hate crime” label has also been used to allow state officials to get involved in small town crime prosecution when it is feared that it won’t be handled fairly due to the insular nature of the community.

          I’m not a huge fan of hate crimes laws, but I do see the reasoning behind them. I *am* a big fan of the First Amendment, as most Americans are!

      • No Beth that is not so. You might see it that way but you are once again assuming what I think and support and what I don’t support. I think you are unclear on my stance because you have lost the American thinking process that I use to decide what I will and not get behind.

        No matter how you twist things….this decision is factually not representative of the majority of the members of this organization.

        No matter how you twist things…this decision is a result of bullying tactics from a militant group who hates the American way and hates the right of people to disagree with their life style and want to make it a hate crime to talk about their life style in any way other than support and respect.

        No matter how you twist things….the homosexual people attacked, took over, and now own the BSA and the very core values that once made this organization the GREAT one that is obviously SO valued that homosexuals feel entitled to it are gone and dishonored.

        You don’t get honor and integrity. That is why you don’t get my position. I don’t agree with the tactics used and I never will. I would have had tons of respect for homosexual community had they created their own organization rather than pursued one that was clearly against their values.

        Chew on it. It might come to you.

        • It’s simply laughable to say that anyone involved in this debate ‘hates the American way.’ You don’t have a monopoly on honor and integrity. I understand it perfectly, thanks. I don’t get your position, though… you’re right about that.

        • No Beth, you just redefine Honor and Integrity to suite you position. You are in the BSA for how long???? You were against their policies that were in place…for how long???? You remain in the BSA though the BSA still discriminates against adults and this is against your belief and values that they discriminate at all????? Beth, you don’t know what Integrity and Honor is. I don’t have the monopoly that is for the sure, but your brand of honor and integrity are very dishonorable indeed.

        • “bullying tactics from a militant group who hates the American way”

          I would not call a boy of 15 part of a militant group or hates the American way. Over 70% of scouts wanted to see their fellow scouts be able to earn their Eagle regardless of the fact they may be gay. That is an important fact to remember.

          I doubt that the scouts (ages 6-17) that are homosexual would be able to create their own organization that would rival the BSA. Do you believe that these scouts used tactic that would be described as militant.

          My own sons (12 and 15) have been involved in the BSA since they were 6 and I have been a registered scouter for 9 years. My eldest has been very vocal for the change in the membership policy. He wanted to support his friends that are gay and in the BSA. My youngest supports the change because he feels every boy should have a chance to be a scout. I don’t think that either boy is militant or hates the “American Way”.

        • Excellent point, Deanna. My 14 year old son is also in favor of the change. He doesn’t see why gay boys should be excluded from scouts. He’s certainly no activist.

        • Beth, ask your 14 year old if he can “down load” Revelation 2:14 & 1 Corinthians 7:2 / 6:9 Leviticus 20-13. read this and then see what Sexual Immorality is. How is he on “Trans-Gender Boys” issue? Will they be “OK” with all this? I just saw where a “Trans-Gender” boy was “Prom Queen”. These people need help, not encouragement.

        • And Bill there IS help for those who want the help. It is their choice. Exodus International http://exodusinternational.org/ has helped hundreds of men and women to turn away from the homosexual lifestyle they didn’t wish to identify with. Their stories are heart breaking and also moving. I don’t think ANYONE who is on the side of the Militant Homosexual Machine cares about these people who want to be free from the temptations of homosexuality. In fact, the homosexual community has verbally attacked and bullied these wonderful men and women who have made this choice. Why? Because it shows that not all homosexuals are of the Militant type. While Exodus International exists and helps countless men and women daily, it is still acceptable that some will not choose to want freedom from the homosexual life style. Here is where the true character of a person is shown….being able to accept ALL the choices that exist for the human being in this country, to include NOT approving of the homosexual life style at all, to accepting it (acceptance doesn’t necessarily imply approval), to living it, to teaching against it….ALL views are welcome. When one group decides to silence another because their view point is different that is when it becomes unAmerican. That being said, the BSA being a private organization was attacked and silenced in their views against homosexuality….that is wrong. That’s why supporting BSA is no longer an option.

        • I appreciate you sharing that. It’s a good informative article about the fact that homosexuals who don’t wish to live a homosexual lifestyle still struggle with homosexual urges. I honestly didn’t think they would stop. If the people look upon homosexuality as sin, because they believe in the Bible, then go with me on this….just like any other sin humans struggle with in temptation, that sin would remain a temptation, would it not? Their struggle against their own sexual desires would be a tough one indeed!!!!

          Yet my point in posting about Exodus is to say that there are some people who truly do not want to live the lifestyle. I’m asking those who are gay friendly, if you respect those people’s right to pursue their faith though they clearly struggle with a particular “sin” according to the Bible?

          My point isn’t to defend what the Bible says about homosexuality here….or even if it’s a desire one can over come. (Side note…if some one asked me to over come my sexual attraction to men I’d be like “um, I don’t think I can” yet I could refrain from inappropriate sexual behaviors with men if I thought I was going to go to hell for those behaviors.)

          My point is that there are MANY diverse people’s in the world and when one group seeks to make it illegal and wrong for another to believe as they do, then no one is truly free.

          Homosexuals find it abhorrent that Christians call their sexuality sin and condemned to eternal hell. Christians find homosexual behavior abhorrent, sinful and condemned in the word of God. In between those two opposite ends of the issue, there are other points of view that exist too. So I support not silencing people just because you find their choices to be abhorrent. When we think another’s choices are abhorrent, we should not seek to control them, make them change, make their freedom of faith and thought about things of life illegal. We should embrace the differences in people, the very things about others that we feel are abhorrent, as a sign of our own freedom to express ourselves and live our lives as we see fit.

          The ONLY reason it might seem I’m against the homosexual life style is because of how the Homosexual political group has attacked a private organization for their membership policy when that private organization has ever right to decide for their organization how they will operate. The majority of the people should be the deciding factor, not a secret closed group of the few especially when changing existing policy.

          If the BSA were NOT a private group, had the Homosexual political machine not been a driving force in this decision, had the majority of the members been for the change and brought up the change themselves…..I personally would not be upset. But it was an outside group who used this private popular group as a pawn in their political agenda that has at it’s goal to make illegal the freedoms of others.

          Just because you find it distasteful that christians call homosexuality sin, doesn’t mean they should be prosecuted for hate crimes (and I bring that up because that is the END GAME GOAL of this militant group and that is what is in sight for me with this decision. I see the BSA caving as one more step to making freedom of thought and faith illegal and that just is not American.The BSA was not thinking about the serious ramifications their compromise would cause for our Nation….albeit, the are just one step in the master plan and if you don’t believe that, well god help you and help us all.) Just because a christian finds it distasteful that a homosexual couple wants to get married, doesn’t mean they should use tactics to keep our Nation ruled by their faith principles – faith principles that not everyone in this Nation abides by or want to even give the time of day. I personally think that the homosexual groups are fighting fire with fire but they are going about it the wrong way. Revenge for wrongs done never ends in good things. They are pushing their views on people just like they hate the christians pushing their views on everyone. I just wish the pushing would stop. When we push our views, everyone’s freedoms are at stake. I really hoped that the BSA would be one place where integrity would have stood the test, where they would have just stood firm that they have a right to make their own policy and not have caved to the manipulations of the militant group. It’s obvious the BSA changed their position due to severe pressure. It’s not only obvious because it was a long standing policy to ban gays but because their decision is a compromise that reflects a serious conflict of values….ban one homosexual and allow another. Makes no sense.

          Hate my position if you will. Even think it stupid or immoral. The homosexuals don’t like my position because I’m saying “make your own group, you are not entitled.” People who believe this country should be ruled by the Bible think I’m just as bad as the homosexuals and remind me that this country was founded on Christian principles. Well, I support both groups right to think what they will. GO PURSUE your way of life!!! That’s what America is all about. Stop forcing gays to live according to the Bible and gays stop forcing Christians to accept your lifestyle as anything but sinful….it ain’t gonna happen. If people could just stop trying to control everyone else we’d all get along a lot better. Yes, there would be different groups for different people….ever hear the saying “different strokes for different folks.” What’s wrong with that?

          I truly hope our country gets back to living in freedom and learns the REAL definition of tolerance for differing beliefs.

        • Stick with me here, Kathy Perkins. The Boy Scouts of America have members from all faith backgrounds. Not all religions view homosexuality the way yours does. So why do we all have to follow your faith’s rules?

        • Because Kathy’s Christianity like mine is not in error and in direct contradiction of scripture in the New Testament? How do you reconcile that homosexuality is moral behavior when the Holy Bible clearly preaches against active homosexuality?

          we certainly accept homosexuals in Church and counsel them against giving in to homosexual tendencies. Not in Scouting.

        • That’s fine, Fred… That’s YOUR church. It’s not up to you to determine if an entire Christian denomination is worthy to actually be called Christian, because they don’t condemn homosexuality. You may not agree with it, which is, of course, your right. What you don’t have the right to do is impose your belief system on them.

        • I am commanded to speak my faith boldly as your are yours. I respect your right to choose your religion and live it, please respect my right to point out error when I see it.

        • But each of our rights end where another’s begin, yes? The Declaration of Religious Principles states that we are to respect others’ religions within Scouting. It is not respectful of another’s religion to say that it is not valid.

        • There is a higher law than Scouting that I have to follow. I do not believe what you said; “But each of our rights end where another’s begin, yes?” Rather I believe “Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins.” A lively debate is necessary to have a civil society and who learns without having their foundational beliefs tested?

        • So you don’t feel compelled to abide by the BSA’s Declaration of Religious Principle? Isn’t that ‘breaking the rules?’

        • I respectfully disagree. I don’t think that is a violation of the Declaration of religious principle. Not going to interfere with any person in any way. Supreme Court guarantees the right of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion personally anywhere and anytime. Does the “Declaration Of religious principle” trump the Constitution and Supreme Court. Is it overly offensive to offer a statement of faith. Not in any Scout meeting I have been a part of. Most stand by their faith in a peaceful manner. BSA says it is absolutely permissable to pray to your God if asked to pray at a Scout meeting. That would be offensive by your rules. Is BSA violating its own policy?

        • First of all db, you don’t know my faith values….You are assuming what I think about homosexuality in my personal faith and wrongly at that.

          But yes, you are right BUT follow me here….the BSA is a private organization that up until just a few days ago had a policy that banned open homosexuality.

          If the Majority of the members wanted the ban lifted then I’d support it. What are you missing?

        • Kathy said: “It’s obvious the BSA changed their position due to severe pressure. It’s not only obvious because it was a long standing policy to ban gays but because their decision is a compromise that reflects a serious conflict of values….ban one homosexual and allow another. Makes no sense.”

          Has it ever occurred to you that those who voted for change may just have thought that the existing policy was wrong and should be corrected?

        • I have a question for those who are FOR the lifting of the Ban, both hetero and homosexual people:

          Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin?

          Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?

          Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?

          Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirited?

          I’ll share why I’m asking after I get some answer.

        • Kathy Perkins asked: “Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly…”

          Hi Kathy – I don’t think it matters if the subject matter is homosexuality, or whether women should be ordained, or if the subject is slavery. If someone wants to listen to your message, then you are free to share it openly. If someone isn’t interested in listening to your message, then you are being confrontational and disrespectful.

        • Kathy asked: “Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin?” Certainly. Constitutional right to do so. There are limits in the courts’ interpretations of where that is appropriate — one doesn’t preach to students in a public school, for example.

          “Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?” Having earned my M.Div. in a conservative seminary, yes, I understand the reasoning.

          “Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?” Context, relationship, form of the message, attitude, and a judgment of receptivity matter a lot. I don’t think one can make a blanket statement about that.

          “Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirited?” The reason they should not say it in a Scouting context is because sexuality and religious doctrine are the province of the family and the faith community. In the role of Scout leader, it is not appropriate to usurp the role of family or pastor, to teach about sexuality or religious doctrine. This is true whether the speaker’s intent is loving or not.

        • Kathy,
          Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin?
          Yes I do support that right, do you support he right for people to ignore your preaching and to treat everyone as an equal

          Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?
          Yes I do understand why. I also understand that there is no growth potential in Christian teachings, that they have been stuck where they are for the at 2013 years. Do you understand that there are religions out there that ave grown like the Phoenix and can embrace everyone and their bipeliefs.

          Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?
          Yes it is hateful, as it is christian views only.

          Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirite
          No they shouldn’t. Scouting including the BSA is in theory supposed to be non denominational. If Christians tell others that (insert any thing out of the normal for a Christian) is inful then scouting and the BSA has become a ingle religious unit.

        • @Kathy Perkins
          >>>>I have a question for those who are FOR the lifting of the Ban, both hetero and homosexual people:

          For the record, I’m heterosexual, married to my hubby for over 25 years.

          >>>>Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin?

          Absolutely. This is America. Anyone can preach anything they want. Even extremists like the KKK or the Westboro Baptist folks or the Nazis can preach what they want. The Supreme Court has always upheld this right, as they should.

          >>>>Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?

          Yes, of course. It would be their interpretation of the Old Testament of the Bible, the Christian holy book.
          I would note that most Christians make a distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior, with only the latter being deemed sinful.
          And of course some Christian denominations interpret the Bible differently and even go so far as to have partnered gay clergy; homosexuality = sin is not a universal belief for all Christian denominations.

          >>>>Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?

          Hateful? I don’t think most Christians hate sinners, or explain sinfulness from a place of hate. I think it comes from a place of love and concern for the homosexual’s salvation.

          >>>> Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirited?

          I don’t think it would be hateful or mean spirited. It would come from a spirit of kindness and love.

          However, I don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss in the context of Scouting, especially when the adult and the Scout do not share a common religion. Matters of sexuality and teachings on the finer points of sexual morality should be left to the parents. (The line may be fuzzier in the case of a Scout and an adult who share a common religion,and who have a more personal mentor/mentee relationship outside of Scouting.)

          I think that, generally speaking, for many reasons, in the context of Scouting, it is not appropriate for Scout leaders to be discussing matters of sexuality with Scouts.

          Most parents don’t want other adults teaching their kids religious beliefs that may contradict those of the parents. In particular, parents in general do not want Scout leaders teaching things about sexuality that go against their family’s religious beliefs. This is the case for both parents who feel homosexuality is sinful, and for parents who believe the opposite. It’s also the case for heterosexual issues regarding sexuality. Different Christian denominations have quite different beliefs when it comes to all kinds of aspects of gender and sexuality.

          It is hard, when you see someone on a path you feel may lead away from salvation, to honor the parents’ wishes and not discuss it with the child. Nonetheless, in the context of Scouting, we are called upon to respect the religious beliefs of others, even when they differ from our own, and to refrain from pointing out areas in which we feel others’ faiths may fall short. If an adult in Scouting has concerns about a child in their care, the appropriate route would be to discuss their concerns with the child’s parents, not with the child himself.

          It is a fine line to walk, and sometimes a difficult one, but Scouting families have walked this line for over 100 years, and on the whole it’s been a good experience for all involved..

        • “Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin? ”
          Sure.

          “Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?”
          As a Christian I do.

          “Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?”
          Not hateful. If a person felt the need to preach to my cousins/friends about their homosexuality in my presence I most likely would find a way to leave the area with my cousins/friends. If the person persisted and followed I would have to be firm in my request for them to stop evangelizing. If my cousins/friends decided to engage in the conversation then that is their will.

          “Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirited?”
          Emphatically NO. The BSA is not the place for such actions. I do not believe that to the person evangelizing feels that they are being hateful or mean spirited but a Scout event (meeting, camp, fieldtrip, etc) is not the place for such preaching. Best to leave those discussions to the Scout’s family and church. If the Scout is a member of your church then have the discussion in the church setting and not the Troop / Pack setting.

        • “Stick with me here, Kathy Perkins. The Boy Scouts of America have members from all faith backgrounds. Not all religions view homosexuality the way yours does. So why do we all have to follow your faith’s rules?”

          My Response: Stick with ME here. First of all You do not know what my faith values are!!! You and others continue to assume I’m opposed to the homosexual life style and the freedom of people to live that lifestyle. That is absolutely NOT true. I would fight just as fiercely for the right of homosexuals to live their life freely and pursue happiness as I would anyone else. Why? Because that is the mark of FREEDOM! This is what you don’t understand! You want to categorize me as anti-gay or homophobic or a religious bigot because I’m against this ONE decision that is in favor of the Homosexual lifestyle. I’m against this ONE decision of the BSA that favors homosexuals, yes. That does NOT mean I’m against the homosexual lifestyle and people’s right to live it! I am NOT a religious bigot.

          I’ve spoken my position over and again and you don’t want to listen to it. I think it must be a foreign idea to support the right of a private organization to make it’s own membership policies – which is just plain scary that you and others don’t get that concept! It’s scary because it is chipping away at YOUR freedoms just as much as it is chipping away at MY freedoms to support minority groups who use threat of financial ruin to take over private organizations who oppose the homosexual lifestyle (or any other moral idea that might exist out there.)

          You are SO stuck in defending the right of the homosexual to be a scout that you cannot see the forest through the trees.

          I’ll say it again….IF and that is a big IF (because it isn’t so) the majority of the BSA members wanted the change, asked for the change, and made the change minus the political machine that drove this change…I would support it!!!!!!! Do you NOT hear that?

          I don’t think you will because you are too caught up in cheering on the bullies!

      • Oh and BTW, it isn’t about fair treatment protection under the law – it’s equal plus. Research the Kaitlyn Hunt story from Florida. She is an 18 year old being prosecuted for sexual relations with a 14 year old. The LGBT community is up in arms about this saying that she is being persecuted because she is homosexual and she should be freed – yet thousands of young men get prosecuted for this every year. If the LGBT activists really wanted equality, they’d be wanting Kaitlyn prosecuted.

        • I agree, with you on the Kaitlyn Hunt story on one point. Many boys are prosecuted for this as well. I believe there are a lot of intricacies involved in a case such as this, and I think each of these cases must be dealt with individually. Some 18 year old boys (and girls) that have sex with an underage partner should be prosecuted for statutory rape. Others shouldn’t. Whether or not Kaitlyn Hunt should or shouldn’t be, I can’t say. I’m not involved in the case. I believe that her family is using the argument that they are in an effort to help her. The other family is pretty quiet on the matter, so we don’t have both sides of the story.

          I don’t believe that gay people are looking for more than equal treatment.

        • The other family hasn’t been quiet. They just don’t get the reporting the Hunt family gets. They other family have publically stated they specifically told Kaitlyn to not get involved with their daughter, and Kaitlyn refused to comply.
          If you’ll look at them, you’ll notice when there’s a year, maybe two difference, and the relationship had been going on for a while, sometimes there is leniency. This was an 18 year old who started dating and having sex with a 14 year old. I don’t see any grey areas there. Not at all.

        • Hi Trenton: I read about this a few days ago. My understanding was that she was 17 years old when the relationship happened. The parents went after her when she turned 18. I don’t know these individuals. You can put evil intentions in there if you want. But I’m not judging and I’m not jumping to conclusions. I don’t know who is right and who is wrong. “Judge not lest ye be judged” Matthew 7

        • Yes, db… That’s what I was saying as well. I don’t know these people, and I can’t make a judgement as to whether or not Kaitlyn Hunt should be prosecuted for statutory rape.

        • Beth,
          Really? You want to play that card? You have questions about whether an 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old is guilty of statutory rape? Is your question whether or not they had sex (the Hunts don’t suggest she didn’t) or whether an 18 year old having sex qualifies as statutory rape? I ask because that’s a pretty important distinction here.

        • Maybe she’s just suggesting that in America, guilt and innocence are determined in a courtroom. As for me, I haven’t read anything about the case and have no comment on it.

        • Karen, guilt and innocence are not determined in a court room at all. A court room determines legal culpability and punishment. The guilt or innocence is determined by the act itself. But I’m sure Beth is a big girl and can answer for herself. My question didn’t really matter with the details of the case. The question is one of values. Is an 18 year old that has sex with a 14 year old guilty of statutory rape? Are there situations where that wouldn’t be considered statutory rape?
          Really, it’s just about establishing a baseline in the conversation. It’s a pretty important baseline in this discussion. That’s the very issue we’re discussing with young men in Scouting. Fred Cooper’s comment is a bit harsh, but he makes it clear where his line is. I’m trying to find your line for the conversation. I’m not in agreement with Fred that you think sex between consenting youth is not such a bad thing. That is an assumption I’m trying not to make – hence the questioning.

        • I believe that teaching about sexuality is the province of the parents and the faith community, so other than enforcing YP standards, I don’t teach about sexuality in a Scout setting at all, and I don’t expect to see it there. In my *own* family, we guide children’s values about sexuality from early childhood on, and as teens, they have each made the decision to remain celibate. At 21, 17, and 13, they do not date, and they don’t expect to until they are closer to being ready for marriage. If they were to decide differently, they have the information they need to make wise decisions. Their decision, based on their values, developed under our care. Their church expects them to respect the decisions others make, and they do. Does that answer your question about my personal baseline? The bottom line in a Scouting setting is that such teaching is the province of the parents and the faith community, not my province as Cubmaster or Scoutmaster or Advisor.

        • Karen,
          Not at all. You volunteered a lot of personal information, but you didn’t address the question at all. I was not asking how you feel about dating or about teaching sexuality. My question was whether sex between consenting teens (or in this case an adult and a teen) was grounds for statutory rape. I’m not sure why that question is so emotionally charged. After all we are talking about youth that as of now are officially supposed to be celibate until they are 18. My experience this is becoming less common.
          You can say “such teaching is the province of the parents and the faith community” but that is not really the case. As a leader, everything you do is teaching. And of course, in many units, such as mine, the troop is the faith community. I’m not saying we should be teaching about sexuality, but it is going to come up particularly around the campfire. The comments you give there are sermons whether you want them to be or not. Particularly with older Scouts.

        • I support existing law in my country, state, and community. How those are applied in varied circumstances are the purview of a court. Did I answer your question yet?

        • Not at all. But that’s ok. I wonder if you’d be as non committal if the situation happened in your troop. That’s where the rubber hits the road.

        • Sexual harassment has happened in my troop, and it was dealt with in the manner prescribed by both the council and state law.

        • And really, I don’t think “I support current law” and “I support Boy Scout policy on the teaching of sexuality and of religious doctrine” is noncommittal. In fact, those are very firm commitments, stated directly. If you are asking me to comment on the particulars of a legal case about which I know nothing, well that seems like a very silly thing for me to do. The particular facts of a case are very important, and those are discovered in the courtroom, not the press. Really — I’m being very direct.

        • I simply asked if consenting sex between a minor (14 years old) and a barely legal adult (18 years old) is statutory rape. I’m was not asking about Kaitlyn and her girlfriend, nor was I asking about nuances of the law. I asked Beth that because her comments left some doubt about whether her question on the situation was whether she believed they had sex or whether is was statutory rape. That prompted Fred’s comment. Rather than make the assumption, I wanted to clarify the issue.

        • If that’s the question, it’s a very simple one. Is ” consenting sex between a minor (14 years old) and a barely legal adult (18 years old)…statutory rape”? It is if your state law says it is. It is in my state.

        • I also support the BSA’s position that both teaching of sexuality and teaching of religious doctrine are the province of the parents and the faith community, not of the Cubmaster or the Scoutmaster.

        • It is becoming apparent to me that a lot of younger Scouting parents and leaders think sex between consenting (whether immature or not) youth is not such a bad thing. A predatory 18 year old young woman of maturity seduces a much younger girl and there is no judgement (discernment of evil) by the pro revised policy crowd. I do not think sex in the woods between young Scouts will come with condemnation or discipline. I am getting out at the right time. I don’t that burden on my soul.

        • I don’t believe sex between consenting youth is not a big deal. I know that it does happen, however, and I don’t see it as a criminal matter. It’s a family matter.

        • db I believe you have responded to a different Trenton I was never involved with any female conversation on this blog. I know of many women in Scouting and they are great leaders. I always use my full name Trenton Spears

  3. db there you go again twisting words I did not say that any non- Scout homosexual parent was banned from scouting I did state that they should not be taking YPT period because homosexuality is at present banned from scouting. db what would be the purpose. If I knew that a parent was homosexual and their child was not I would explain the BSA policy of no homosexuals are allowed to be a Scout leader in scouting and would graciously say that their child would be in a safe environment and that I and other leaders were YPT certified. Could they attend a day activity certainly so as long as they stay with their child only. I have a responsibility to have a safe environment to protect our youth that is what youth protection is all about . On January 1st 2014 these conditions will still be enforced. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

    • “If I knew that a parent was homosexual and their child was not I would explain the BSA policy of no homosexuals are allowed to be a Scout leader in scouting and would graciously say that their child would be in a safe environment and that I and other leaders were YPT certified. Could they attend a day activity certainly so as long as they stay with their child only.”

      What policy in BSA states that adult non-leader gay parents are to be treated differently than other parents?

  4. db again you are stating words that are not true and twisting my comments is most disturbing. You act as if the many bloggers on this issue don’t pay any attention to what your comments are they see it and most do not agree with your comments. You and the 854 delegates have won half of the homosexual movement in scouting by lifting the ban on homosexual scouts. Where it will end will be up to the BSA not you or me. The deed is done and the future will decide if it was good decision or bad. So far the results are not so good. Sincerely Trenton Spears

    • @Trenton, I think there will be a SPIKE in membership for next year. Those with near-Eagles will largely remain (even though RR has offered equivalent rank). There will be new members seeking to support the decision. Many who have said they will leave will cave because their convictions are not strong or they’re just lazy. The real results will show in five or six years.

      I hope that BSA gets more specific insurance, especially for the camps. Judging from the things mine learned there (great program; not very good things from some of the other boys), the camps are going to need their own law firms…

  5. Beth Sorry but you really don’t understand the Supreme Court ruling. Beth you don’t understand the Values of the BSA. I respect your passion for your agenda of endorsing homosexuality in scouting even though you belong to the minority of the members of the BSA. The BSA and will never be the same for the majority of its members. I believe the ban was lifted not because it was wrong it was a mistaken financial votethat had pressure from the large corporations and GLAAD and GLBT disorganizations their mission is to impose the homosexuality agenda and influence the future of the BSA and change its policies to fit their own. Beth it is a possibility with supporters like you the fear that it could become true is possibility reality is . Sincerely, the old, problem of the issue, now dishonorable . Trenton Spears

    • Yes, Trenton, I understand the ruling. I also understand the values of the BSA, I assure you. It’s insulting for you to state otherwise. There was a representative vote, where 61% of the voting members approved the new policy. Yes, I know, you like to point out that in the VOS survey that was sent out earlier in the process, greater than 60% of the respondents disagreed with the then proposed policy. What you fail to acknowledge is that the policy that was accepted is not the one that was asked about in the VOS survey. The policy that was accepted was the one that was crafted as a result of the VOS survey. What that survey noted was that overwhelmingly, it was seen as unjust to remove a boy from scouting if he comes to realize that he is homosexual. It is unjust to kick a boy out, to deny him his Eagle rank, after he has worked toward that goal since before he knew what it meant to be gay, or that he may someday identify as gay himself. All of our councils had a process for receiving input on what the members of the council would like to see done. I attended a meeting within my district to give my input. Others did the same. Even the Mormon church released a statement accepting the policy change. What you can’t believe, is that you find yourself in the minority. The simple fact is, that public opinion about the acceptance of gay people in our society is changing, and really rather quickly. A few years ago, there were resolutions banning same sex marriage in many states, both on the ballot and in state houses. Today, the reverse is true. Twelve states have given gay people the right to marry. DOMA and prop 8 have been challenged before the Supreme Court, and we will see later this month where the rulings will come down as it pertains to this. As more and more people ‘come out of the closet,’ more and more family members realize that their gay family member isn’t evil. They love them. They see that their family member is just like everyone else. They just want to be able to have a family of their own. They shouldn’t be discriminated against. And hey, if MY gay family member isn’t evil, maybe OTHER gay people are ok too. This is how acceptance has happened. One person at a time. It has happened for Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and now Rob Portman. Maybe we, as Scouts, who are kind, friendly, and courteous, can have some compassion for people that aren’t like us. I don’t know of a point of the Scout Law that states a Scout is judgemental. What I don’t understand is why we can’t live our lives, let others live theirs, and not worry what our neighbors do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

      • Beth,
        I’m not sure you can make that statement that the accepted proposal was the result of the VOS survey. At least I haven’t seen that much information on it published. And of course, you need to understand that the Mormon Church wants these young men is Scouting so they can do their best to keep the young man from living a homosexual lifestyle. I obviously can’t speak for the Mormon Church, but they have not in any way endorsed homosexuality. They have merely said that having same sex attraction itself is not a sin – only the action. You can be active, hold leadership, etc as long as you do not practice homosexuality in any way. They are practicing the theory of love the sinner not the sin. Don’t mistake for a minute their resolve that homosexual behavior is acceptable. It is merely a recognition that people have the feelings and inclinations, and that they aren’t responsible for how they feel, only what they choose to do.
        That’s the challenge here. In a way it becomes all or nothing. The LGBT community hasn’t shown a lot of acceptance with a live and let live lifestyle – they have demonstrated repeatedly that the only thing they will be happy with is full acceptance and denial of any association with sin. I know that doesn’t mean every individual, but the activist groups have been pretty clear. BSA has played the middle ground here – which will likely prove their undoing. As you can see from the many posts here, the supporters of the new policy are pretty consistent with the “good start, now let leaders in” comments. With the new policy wording, they’ve pretty much reversed the previous assertion that homosexuality is inconsistent with morality, so how will they continue to exclude the adults?
        All this policy really did is draw out the inevitable. It’s the baby step. It does remind me of the “how to boil a frog” parable. The idea is that a frog won’t sit in hot water. But if you heat is up slowly, he won’t notice until it’s too late. This policy was easy to pass – after all, who would want to exclude innocent children? It’s reminiscent of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. There was no way the military would have allowed open homosexuality at the time, but the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was the step to pave the way.
        I have no problem with homosexuals. I believe it is sinful, but then, so are a lot of things. I think living together and all unmarried sex is sinful. If I refused relationships with all other sinners, it would be pretty lonely. As a matter of fact, I couldn’t even talk to myself. But I don’t think that’ll be good enough. We’ll see. I’ll be surprised if a year goes by before the adult exclusion goes away. This recent change has done nothing but embolden the LGBT community and the attack on Scouting will be redoubled.

        • Of course the Mormon church doesn’t accept homosexuality. Their church does, however, allow members with same sex attraction. They are not supposed to act on those feelings. They did, however, voice support for the resolution, as it specifically states that sexual activity, either gay or straight, is not consistent with the values of Scouting.

          As for where the resolution comes from…

          http://scoutingmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/executive-summary-of-study-findings.pdf

          http://scoutingmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/membership-standards-frequently-asked-questions.pdf

        • Concerned About Youth. You hit a bases loaded home run a grand slam. Congratulations for your great commentary. I am a member of the LDS Church and I could not have said it better. My Church is a Church of conversion and its mission to baptize and bring other sheep not of this fold including non sexual active homosexuals is the most important mission of the Church. While I don’t agree with the lifting of the ban that is only my opinion and my Church respect the members views as long as they don’t conflict with doctrine of the Church. I believe that sexually active adult homosexuals in the near future will be allowed to be in Scouting and there will begin the problem you see the LDS Church will be under constant attack by GLAAD and the LGBT because of their Scouting association with the BSA it will overwhelm the BSA and force it to repeal all opposition to the homosexual movement including its code of values and any outside Church doctrine. The difference between the LDS Church and the BSA is that the Church can control sexually active homosexually by excommunication and they certainly will at a given time after all efforts have been exhausted . The BSA will not have the right to exclude anyone based on their homosexual sexual preference. The tolerant seeking active homosexuals will have no tolerance for opposition to their life styles and then the exodus will be most prevalent at this point. Thanks for your prophetic views. Trenton Spears Scoutmaster Troop 144.

      • Beth I know of your arguments and there is a major majority of Scouters and churches that did not want the ban to be lifted. Beth you misunderstood why the Survey was sent out it was to poll the parents and scouters to see their view on lifting the ban on homosexuals 60% said do not lift the ban and it was the same issue as the May 23rd 2013 vote. Beth if a youth cheated on his final test when he knew it was against the rules would it be okay to pass him when others did not cheat should he be honored for his cheating? The same is for Scouting there is no honor if a homosexual scout received his Eagle by breaking the rules. Stating what is not in the Scout law is pointless. How about loyal, trustworthy, reverent and clean does this support cheating. I don’t think so. Beth you should never be insulted because other view are not yours my views were not meant to insult you by the way I hope you viewed the Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parade be sure and observe the Boy Scouts in uniform Sincerely, Trenton Spears

  6. Had another great conversation with a scouter about this issue last night….

    Trenton is correct that 60 % of the scouters do not support the new policy BUT…..

    He said 30% of the folks opposed were opposed to the new policy because they believed it should also have allowed adults in as well……He did not site his source……

    But I was entertained by the anti gay crowd throwing around the 60% number as being opposed to gays being permitted in when in fact that percentage is actually smaller…..

    So some number larger than zero and less than 60% are opposed to the currently policy because it does not include gay adults being permitted as members.

    I am just entertained by it at this point…..

    Ok Trenton….Lets here it.

    • I was not entertained today when my 61 year old ASM who is agile and fits and bikes hundreds of miles each year and hikes at least 100 called me to tell me that he could not in good conscience continue to be a registered leader. He is a fine gentleman with tremendous skills and a veteran. For three years, he and I were the only constant two on every campout. He is in until December 31 or before if we do not need him on Campouts. A sad day for me and I believe for Scouting.

      His first words in reaction were: “Why not defend it instead of defile it!”

      Out of the mouth of sages…

      • Fred, we are in until Dec 31 as well. We’re in because we want to help those near-Eagles become Eagles while it means something.

    • BOB Basement I know you want me to responded so that you can twist my comments. I did not state the % of the minority that responded to the survey I only responded to the results of 60% that the BSA published on the results. Wow Bob you do not even trust the BSA please refer to the Scout law you might learn something. Those that wanted the ban lifted and their reasons are known only to them. I would have to assume that it was for the homosexual youth as that was the purpose of the survey. The BSA has discriminated against the adult homosexuals and that is a fact the vote on May 23, 2013 was the worst thing to happen to the BSA and time will reveal this blunder to be discriminating and serving no one in the end. Bob I am not going to take your bait truth does not serve your purpose. Sincerely Trenton Spears

      • “The BSA has discriminated against the adult homosexuals and that is a fact the vote on May 23, 2013 was the worst thing to happen to the BSA and time will reveal this blunder to be discriminating and serving no one in the end. Bob I am not going to take your bait truth does not serve your purpose. Sincerely Trenton Spears”

        Trenton, I think we agree on something finally! Yes, its nonsense and wrong to say to an 18 year old Eagle, “Sorry, we don’t want you any more”, just because he’s gay. Equally wrong to not want an adult leader that has much to share that happens to be gay. I expect this will eventually get sorted out as well just like integration in BSA finally did.

        • Todd Kunze We don’t agree on much I believe that a 18 yr. old homosexual is being discriminated and it was the wrong for the homosexual issue to be voted on in the first place. If the policy of being morally straight was the policy in the BSA for years it should have been the policy of the National Board on the May vote. I believe that lifting the ban on homosexuals is morally wrong and you and a few others will never convinced me other wise Todd when the great Jehovah says homosexual is acceptable then I will change my mind and then only. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

  7. db There was no reason for the BSA to continue the stand on homosexuality and its immorality and when you are a value based morally straight organization what would be point. They won the right to ban homosexuality end of issue. Beth you have the right to agree or disagree with the decision the path was set and the morality compass was reinstated by the Supreme Court the last legal judgment in America .db the parents were not the only persons that were represented with the decision so were a major majority of scouts and scout leaders were represented and the BSA policy was for them also. Lets don’t leave them out of the comments. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

    • California so it doesn’t surprise me at all.

      I’m cherry-picking here but turnabout is fair play right. At least I said i was going to do it.

      “About two-thirds of the council’s members support the change, according to a survey.- the group conducted in February. More than 2,100 people responded. But about 30 percent indicated that they would leave the Scouts if they disagreed with the membership policy.

      Many Scout leaders are crossing their fingers that that doesn’t happen. As of Friday, Fenoglio said there had been no mass defections.

      “For some parents, this is going to be a pill they can’t swallow,” said one former Benicia scoutmaster, who preferred to remain anonymous. “That could adversely affect scouting.”

      So 30% loss in active Scouting is acceptable to slide a few homosexuals into the mix?

      • >>>> So 30% loss in active Scouting is acceptable to slide a few homosexuals into the mix?

        One side of the coin is the loss of families currently active in scouting who object to the new policy, but the other side is all of the families who would have been putting their boys into Scouting but could not in good conscience do so under the old policy which excluded gay youth. As the BSA grows more accepting of gay youth, they will gain not only gay youth and their families, but their friends and neighbors who did not want to be part of the BSA under the old policy.

        Our country is changing. Good people are reevaluating where they stand. As more and more people look at the issues involved, they are growing more accepting of gay youth. Even folks such as the LDS church, who caught a lot bad publicity through their financial support of Prop 8 in California, have joined groups like the Catholic church who have taken on a more nuanced position supporting celibate gay youth.

        If our churches aren’t shunning gay youth, why should the BSA?

        • So, 30% loss of membership is acceptable because you might make it up with people who were not interested in Scouts before. Good luck with that.

        • EagleMom,
          I think you are reading more into this – for example the LDS Church “growing more accepting of gay youth” – that’s not an accurate statement. The LDS Church did not shun and kick out members who were gay – even if they committed homosexual acts. They just would not allow them to hold callings or jobs, or pray in public. In essence, the new policy as written had no changes to the way the Church practiced previously.
          Don’t mistake that for acceptance of homosexuality. Celibate homosexuals who live up to the standards have not been shunned nor were they before – even during the Prop 8 issue.
          You continue to refuse to acknowledge the real issues with homosexuality involved in Scouting – particularly with young men. As we’ve already discussed there are some real youth protection issues exposing young men to sexual harassment (defined as any unwanted touching or even asking out if it’s already been turned down – same as workplace standards). At least under the policy not allowing open sexuality, the was a negative association with it. That no longer exists.

        • @Fred Cooper

          >>>>So, 30% loss of membership is acceptable because you might make it up with people who were not interested in Scouts before. Good luck with that.

          Fred, I would have liked to see them craft a policy that was less likely to lose *any* scouts. I personally liked the policy they floated first, where CO’s got to decide on the policy that was right for their troop, based on the CO’s particular beliefs and values about the issue. It wasn’t perfect, but at least that way each Scout could be in a troop that reflected his family’s values, either way.

          However, all I was saying in my post above was that I can’t evaluate the impact of the 30% number without knowing what the opposite number is. It’s a mathematical thing. A loss of 30% is huge. The number of scouts gained may or may not make up for it. A gain of 30% of current membership would balance the loss. A gain of 10% would not. A gain of 50% would balance it and then some. Regardless of what we may gain, I do hope (maybe unrealistically, I don’t know) that we don’t lose 30%. There are a lot of folks doing a lot of good through Scouting. I hope most folks don’t lose sight of that.

          I do think that as the country continues to move in the direction of being more inclusive of homosexuals, the numbers will continue to change. The entire Northeast now allows gay marriage, much of it voted in by legislatures and public referendums. This is a world-wide trend. Even our churches are developing more nuanced teachings.

          I do know that the vast majority of my friends here in the Northeast won’t even consider putting their boys in Scouts. I know quite a few boys who love the outdoors and all it has to offer, and who would have both benefited from Scouting and also given a lot back, but who could not join because their families did not want to appear to support the exclusion of gay youth. I hope their younger brothers get to enjoy all that Scouting has to offer.

        • Eagle Mom I was involved with proposition 8 and the LDS Church was not involved financially they would lose their tax exempt status if they did. I contributed to support the Proposition by giving to a independent organization not associated with the Church like all the other members did. The Church sent only letters out supporting the proposition. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Trenton, I don’t really know absolutely if the LDS Church was involved financially in Prop 8 – I don’t really believe it – it doesn’t fit in with the mission, but in any case, it wouldn’t affect the tax exempt status from a legal standpoint. A tax exempt organization cannot campaign – ie they can’t endorse candidates or parties, but they can actively support legislation and issues that they feel affected by. That is a red herring used by a lot of folks to attach the Church. In reality, most 501c3 agencies are involved in legislative issues – both on the right and left.

        • >>>>Eagle Mom I was involved with proposition 8 and the LDS Church was not involved financially they would lose their tax exempt status if they did. I contributed to support the Proposition by giving to a independent organization not associated with the Church like all the other members did. The Church sent only letters out supporting the proposition. Sincerely Trenton Spears

          Trenton, I apologize. You are correct. The LDS church was not directly financially involved with California’s Prop 8. Instead, they sent out letters supporting the proposition, telling members that local church leaders would provide information about how they might become involved in “this important cause,” and asking members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.”

        • EagleMom,
          – asking members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” You mean becoming involved in issues that are important to them? Guilty as charged. Are you suggesting that’s a bad thing?

        • @Concerned About Youth

          >>>>You continue to refuse to acknowledge the real issues with homosexuality involved in Scouting – particularly with young men. As we’ve already discussed there are some real youth protection issues exposing young men to sexual harassment (defined as any unwanted touching or even asking out if it’s already been turned down – same as workplace standards).

          I apologize C.A.Y., you wrote some thoughtful posts a few days back and I haven’t had time to reply to them. Briefly, I feel that there *are* youth protection issues that need to be addressed, but they don’t go away by excluding gay scouts. For one thing, sexual harassment is unacceptable regardless of the sexual preference of the perpetrator. For another, even gay youth who would choose to leave because of the old policy wouldn’t know they’re gay at age 7 or 8 when they join Scouts, and there would likely be a delay in their leaving Scouts while they wrestle with their attraction and how they plan to deal with it, and discuss their decision to quit with their parents. Thus it is wise to assume that there will be gay Scouts, sometimes in even the most conservative of troops, regardless of any policy that is supposed to exclude them, and write guidelines accordingly.

          >>>>At least under the policy not allowing open sexuality, the was a negative association with it. That no longer exists

          The “negative association” can be legitimately put on *any* sexual contact outside of marriage, which applies equally to straight and gay scouts, without any discrimination involved. It can also be put on any unwanted romantic/physical advances, regardless of the gender of the recipient – same as workplace standards, as you rightfully point out.

        • EagleMom, I appreciate your comments. Through all of the discussions, I do try to be respectful and talk from a reasoned position. I agree with you. Under the previous policy, I don’t believe there was shunning of youth who considered themselves gay unless they went out of their way to out themselves and make public pronouncements. I expect it probably happened in some local situations, but I don’t believe it was the BSA’s policy – nor have I heard of the situation arising.
          “”The “negative association” can be legitimately put on *any* sexual contact outside of marriage, which applies equally to straight and gay scouts, without any discrimination involved. It can also be put on any unwanted romantic/physical advances, regardless of the gender of the recipient – same as workplace standards, as you rightfully point out.” That is rightly so, but at least with young women, we separate them.
          I don’t know how to not discriminate and then force a heterosexual scout to share a tent, bathroom or shower with a homosexual scout where he might feel uncomfortable – and more than likely now will feel uncomfortable saying anything because he might be labeled as a homophobe or worse. What we have done is just put the shoe on the other foot. I’m not sure that’s any more ethical than the discrimination.

        • >>>>EagleMom, – asking members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” You mean becoming involved in issues that are important to them? Guilty as charged. Are you suggesting that’s a bad thing?

          Nope, to the contrary, it’s the American way! Of course, I would have preferred it if they had encouraged their members to support the opposite side! But I have no problem with the basic concept of churches becoming involved in issues that are important to them. It’s no different than organizations like GLADD doing the same thing. Our tradition of influencing public opinion and debate through peaceful means is what makes this country great.

        • @C.A.Y.-

          You said, “I don’t know how to not discriminate and then force a heterosexual scout to share a tent, bathroom or shower with a homosexual scout where he might feel uncomfortable – and more than likely now will feel uncomfortable saying anything because he might be labeled as a homophobe or worse.”

          I think Beth gave some wise advice elsewhere in this conversation. She said, “The one specific thing I’d like to say is the issue of tenting situations… I would never require a scout to share a tent with someone that made him feel uncomfortable. In my troop, we don’t assign tents. The boys choose if they will tent alone, or with another scout, and who that would be.”

          A friend of mine has a daughter in Scouting. There is a young lesbian teen in her troop. This teen asked her fellow Scouts to be a bit more modest around her under the circumstances. Her fellow Scouts understood and have modified their behavior accordingly. In the same way, a boy in Beth’s troop could choose to tent alone, without having to publicly discuss the reasons behind his decision. Other boys could also choose not to tent with him, without having to justify their choice to anyone. It sounds like a good start to me.

          In my experience with youth in various settings, I’ve found it best to be open to accommodating special requests whenever reasonably possible, whether the request comes with a “special needs” label or not, and whether I fully understand or agree with the reasoning/need behind it or not. Youth themselves can speak up about their needs, a parent can have a quiet word with the event leaders, or the leaders themselves can keep a sharp, sensitive eye out for youth who look uncomfortable. Leaders in general can educate themselves about all kinds of special needs that may affect the youth in their care.

          There will be a learning curve, but I trust that the BSA volunteers are for the most part good folks, who will be able to handle this issue, as their peers in other youth organizations do.

        • “So, 30% loss of membership is acceptable because you might make it up with people who were not interested in Scouts before. Good luck with that.”

          Its about what is right, not about the losses. If we lost 50% during the time of integration it would have been okay with me because it was the right thing to do.

        • IN your opinion, Todd. In your opinion. As we discover every day, truth is in the eyes of the beholder any more and neither one of us has a claim on universal truth.

          I disagree with you completely that it was the right think to do along with a significant number of other folks

          I does not equate with ending the evil practice of segregation. IMHO, it is impossible to make that stretch. Ending segregation was the right and moral thing to do. Homosexuality is Scouting is neither.

  8. I have been following this argument since the vote came out. Read back through all these posts, you all keep bouncing around the true facts. Religion says this, religion says that, gays this, gays that, YPT this, YPT that. Some have had personal digs at others, others are having a dig at the BSA. What has happened is the BSA asked 1400 randomly selected persons to vote this they believe gives them a broad cross sectional view of the members in BSA. 61% (854) people said yes.

    This has caused a rift between the left and right wing. Some of you like it, some of you don’t, that is way make the American Society so great, everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to speak. It also gives the choice to choose. If you don’t like the result, then there is nothing stopping you from leaving.

    How ever remember this Lord Baden Powell created scouts for the youth, not for the adults and over time this hasn’t changed. The youth of today is far more accepting of what is not accepted by the older generation. We can learn from them, learn how to accept how to respect.

    Instead of fighting here between each other if you want to leave, then leave but at the end of the day lets see how the youth handle it. If the youth can accept it then so can the adults.

    • David,
      That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Your comment about youth vs adults has been used here, and sounds good as long as you don’t look at it too closely. The kids like to play with fire. They like to jump off cliffs. They will do many things that are harmful to them. The adult’s role is to guide and support them. That’s the purpose of Scouting in the first place – to teach young men character, citizenship and morality. Baden Powell saw that young men were not learning important skills on their own (at least the men that were joining the military). He organized this movement as a structure to do that. So if you want to appeal to the authority, you really ought to research the authority a bit. I can’t say where he’d be in this argument, but he was pretty specific about the importance of avoiding impure thoughts.
      I’m sure there will be a number of folks following up on this accusing BP of homosexuality – but that is nothing more than slander. The only argument was that he was too interested in boys. Based on that argument, virtually every good teacher ever must be a homosexual…

      • Concerned About Youth,
        You are so right. Kids love to pay with fire. You know what providing that they aren’t going to kill themselves or seriously hurt themselves then let them do it. The Adult in scouting is to ensure what the youth want to do wont be dangerous. When I moved up to scouts as a SM, my hardest thing was learning to let go. I had two great mentors, one from my troop and another from a second troop, now unless I perceive there is a danger to a youth member, where it means I will have to do paperwork (I hate paperwork) I sit back and enjoy a cup of coffee and a scotch finger biscuit

        • Well said. That has been our troop’s SM’s policy for the last three years (well, except for the scotch finger biscuit but I think I’ll try that next campout!)

        • Nice hot cup of coffee (hotter the better)
          Scotch finger biscuit dunked in the coffee (double and triple dunking permitted)
          Eat biscuit. If you can’t get scotch fingers then use ginger nuts. Steve if you can’t get them at all Facebook me and send me a postal address and I will send someto you :)

          Must let go…… Must let go…….. Must let go

  9. I must jump into the fray….I am disgusted that an organization that my father revered, I have spent more than 40 years supporting, and I have two Eagle Scout sons has turned its back on the values it stood for. The geniuses that voted for this change need to ask themselves, what would Baden Powell think of there vote? BSA needs to take a trip a to Ottawa,Illinois and trample on the grave of W.D. Boyce as he overlooks the Illinois River – for there policy change did as much as trample the organization he founded in 1910.
    I ask this simple analogy…..would a person who does not hunt or shoot a gun want to gain entry into a hunt club, the obvious answer is NO so why do homosexuals have this strong desire to join the Boy Scouts of America ??? And the bigger question is WHY did BSA change its policy that had just been affirmed “unanimously” in 2011????
    My family is considering strongly whether or not to continue in Scouting – my oldest Eagle has earned 4 Palms as well as being Vigil Honor in the OA, my younger son has his Eagle and is Brotherhood in the OA – myself I am Brotherhood in the OA and serve as the Chapter Adviser. What this action has done is put in jeopardy a solid facet of our family life and it squarely rejects the Oath and Law that we are instrructed to follow.
    I plan to inquire my Council (Tidewater of Virginia Beach, VA) as to how our members voted
    Michael Gardner

  10. db, that has been debunked. The Hunts put that story out to make it seem less of an issue. The facts are that she was 18 and her partner was 14 when it started. You mention the “parents went after her when she turned 18″ as if the 14 (now 15) year old’s parents were somehow in the wrong. Your bias is showing.
    You make my point exactly. I’m not suggesting there were evil intentions per se. The intentions in this issue re pretty meaningless. If it was a young man who was 18, and a 14 year old young women, there would be no questions. It happens all the time. There are hundreds of men around the country who have to register as sex offenders for the very same thing.
    No judgment involved here – note I’m not saying it’s good or bad (I’m not sure I need to). I’m saying that heterosexual males get charged for that. Shouldn’t a homosexual female get charged for the same thing? Isn’t that equality?

  11. Well Trenton

    You are throwing around stats without telling the whole story..

    While your not a liar you are being less that totally honest…..

    Throwing your own question back in your face….A scout is trustworthy

    Of the 60% opposed to the policy what is the break down of folks who are totally opposed to gays being in the BSA on any level VS the folks wanting the BSA to be completely open to both youth and adult gays.

    Your 60% number is not the entire story my friend..

    • Bob Basement My numbers come from reliable sources. The 60% majority of those that participated in the BSA survey that did not want the BSA to not lift the ban were numbers that were provided by the BSA they did not provide a breakdown so how would I know. Bob since you seem curious about the survey can you provide me a breakdown ? While your at it could you provide me with a breakdown of the 61% of the delegates that approved to lift the ban or are you just throwing numbers around and being dishonest. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Bob there is nothing I could say to please you support homosexuality in Scouting I do not that is the issue try blogging others and stop bashing me. By the way Bob you might ask God he is the source of all my thoughts and integrity. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Bob we have nothing in common Like I have said before let a fool speak long enough and the world will know they are a fool. Trenton Spears

        • Trenton said: “let a fool speak long enough and the world will know they are a fool.” Trenton, thanks for demonstrating the truth of your statement.

        • Mike my comment on fools was posted because of Bob Basement’s repeated refusal to acknowledge the BSA results on the survey that was sent out to the parents and scouters across this nation to receive a consensus of the views of its members. The survey said 60% of those who filled out the survey did not want the ban lifted. Bob kept asking for my sources on this survey and I repeatedly gave him the same report that the BSA posted on the results of the survey. I know that Bob already knew of this report but he chose to harass me knowing I had answered his question several times of my source. Mike don’t you think his comments were foolish and non productive? I certainly do. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Your right we are not alike

          I thank my god of that for that.

          If the LDS church did not improperly support prop 8 then why did the receive a fine from the California fair political practices commission.

        • Because CA adds to the federal rules with their Title 2 Div 6 laws – the Fair Political Practices Commission. They have some additional requirements for reporting donations – or services. In the case you are talking about, the fine was for late reporting of in kind contributions – in other words, some leaders traveled to the area, and their expenses didn’t get reported in the daily filings but compiled later. Even the the commission acknowledged the contributions were reported on a post-election semi-annual campaign statement that was filed on time. I’m not sure that’s a major ethical issue to worry about.
          501c3 organizations, specifically Churches, can do some campaigning for important issues – within limits. The reporting process allows the state to monitor that. In this case, the LDS Church was guilty of a procedural error in reporting.

          FYI, the LDS Church reported almost $190 k in contributions to the Prop 8 campaign – all were in kind (labor, video production and travel costs) with no monetary contributions.

          From the IRS:
          http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations

          It’s funny, every one is up in arms about Church’s being involved in political issues that affect Churches, but don’t seem to worry about liberal “charitable organizations” with little discernable purpose other than to practice politics.

        • Bob it seems that you did not believe the results of the survey that the BSA reported. That was my source if you have an issue with the report I do not know how to help you. I guess the BSA deliberately gave false information. I did not say that we were not alike I said we do not have anything in common and we don’t. Bob more twisting and changing others comments that you don’t like to suit your agenda. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Ya there’s that whole separation of church and state thing…

          Founding fathers were very wise indeed.

  12. EagleMom I was simply informing you of an error you stating that the LDS financed Proposition 8 they did not. I hoped that you would except my explanation I guess you will have to check it out for yourself I can’t help you. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

  13. For you who disagree that there are Militant Tactics being utilized by the homosexual political groups, who think that these people “just want equal right”, who think that this homosexual militant machine is somehow American in their tactics, just read this article. Attempting to get a company to “provide acceptance training of homosexuality to all employees, even if they had religious objections.” Wake up!!! This IS the agenda of the homosexual militant machine and NO ONE should be okay with it if you are truly an American. Because this is about legislating thought and religious convictions which is NOT American. So earlier I said I was not mentioning anything about Patriotism….well now I am. True Patriots need to stand up against this militant group! Before you know it, it will be against the law to even teach the Bible in church and what it says about homosexuality. That is their goal. Whether you agree with the Bible or not, that should be a HUGE red flag for you. If it’s not, I do question your American Patriotism unashamedly.
    ————————–

    Say Thanks! ExxonMobil votes against special rights for gays

    May 30, 2013

    Dear Kathy,
    In its annual shareholder meeting this week, ExxonMobil Corporation overwhelming rejected a shareholder proposal demanding changes to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policy that would grant special rights to homosexual employees.

    Had the resolution passed, the company would have been forced to begin promoting and providing “acceptance” training of homosexuality to all employees, even if they had religious objections.

    By a margin of 81 to 19 percent against the resolution, this vote marks the 14th year in a row that the company has refused to cave in to the bully tactics by gay activists.

    The Board of Directors strongly recommended shareholders vote “Against” the proposal. In a statement, ExxonMobil said it already prohibits “all forms of discrimination” and “believes the proposal is unnecessary.”

    AFA continues to encourage all companies to stay neutral in the culture war over special rights for those who choose to engage in unnatural sexual behavior.

    Join us in thanking ExxonMobil for making the right decision!

    TAKE ACTION

    We have prepared an email letter for you to send to ExxonMobil and its chairman, Rex Tillerson. Let them know you agree with their vote.

    • This brings up an interesting question. Will we, as adult volunteer leaders of various religious and moral backgrounds, now have to go through sensitivity training about how to recognize and accept a homosexual youth in Scouting? Will the youth have to sit through a DVD of how to accept a fellow boy that is homosexual?

      Well, perhaps not the recognize part as they will be allowed to announce themselves and immediately be accepted by other members of their troop, where was my head?

      Will SPL’s and PL’s be required perhaps to go through some sort of required training on how to deal with others in their troop and patrols that are having trouble accepting an openly gay Scout?

      How soon before the first lawsuit will fly in 2014?

      • Hi stjoemikey: I don’t recall the BSA having any sensitivity training when they racially integrated troops. They didn’t create any special sensitivity training when women were allowed to become scout leaders. I wouldn’t suspect that there would be a need for any special training now. I think the only training one needs to follow are the points of the scout law: “friendly, courteous, and kind”

        • I guess we will wait and see if it might happen then. I know I just completed sexual harassment training today as required by my Council in order for me to be on Cub Camping staff for the summer. It cannot be said that it is entirely out of question that something will come down the pipe later asking leaders or even Scouts to watch this or view this regarding the change.

  14. Scouters I believe we need to have Mobil USA take over the BSA before the Homosexual Agenda does. Sincerely Trenton Spears

  15. When you guys are done beating this dead horse……

    Make sure you turn the lights off

    Bob oooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttt

  16. The bottom line is that the “family meeting” was nothing more than a way to figure out how to best mitigate any damage once the votes were cast. Does anyone actually believe that an organization which stated, “…homosexuality is incompatible with Scouting” in 2000, and proclaimed in July of 2012 (such a short time ago!) that its membership did not want homosexuality in Scouting and that the issue WOULD NOT BE REVISITED really was after yet another membership study to see what the members wanted?

    IMHO, these men have no honor nor integrity. The decision had already been made. It was largely a financial one. The overwhelming majority of us are the victims of a scam. Shame on them.

    • I agree completely with you AATMoney…. Such a shame that one organization had to suffer a hostile take over by the minority group. Something seriously wrong happened at the BSA National Level between 2000 and now. It’s SO obvious. Unfortunately, the tactics used are sneaky and scandalous and we’ll never know the full extent of how this happened against the will of the members.

      Scouting will go on. I feel no sense of sorrow for the financial struggles of BSA packs whose CO’s wish to leave BSA on principle and for their own organization. The kids have NOT been robbed of scouting in this. Scouting IS available. Just under a new name with honorable leadership coming out of BSA into the new organization. There will be bumps along the way as the new organization is formed. No one is feeling sorry for the kids “robbed” of scouting who had to leave based on principle now are they???? Huh? Huh???? So each camp will have to work through their own issues and survive.

      Hopefully both will so that the BSA will be a safe place for homosexuals to Scout and the new Organization will be a safe place to Scout for those opposed militant political groups taking over private organizations.

      I wish nothing but peace for both groups. I just say “shame on the Homosexual groups for not just starting their own organization as they were free to do. Watch us and learn how to do that. We’ll emerge I believe even better than the BSA ever was. Thanks to the OLD values of the BSA….we’ll take those and never waiver from them like the New BSA has.

      I believe that the New BSA will create new policies they will never waiver from as well – policies totally opposing to the Old BSA policies but none-the-less, ones they can take a true oath to keeping. I wish them well.

      • Any new organization will be fraught with the same peril. Unfortunately, this has been a common thread for quite a while. I just finished reading about a woman suing a Catholic School for firing her for breaching her contract to comply with philosophies and teachings. She was gay, unmarried and went through artificial insemination to get pregnant. She sued because “she was unaware that these things were not compliant with Catholic teaching.” I’ve never set foot in a Catholic Church and I knew that – well, ok, I did go to a wedding in a Catholic Church once). The courts ruled in her favor basically telling the Catholic Church they can’t insist their employees (employees of the Catholic Church) live by the tenants of their beliefs. Soon a religion will be forced to not discriminate when hiring pastors.
        That’s as bad as the girl who got a job at Hooters because they insisted she wear the shorts and t-shirt. She felt she was being sexually harassed. My question is “didn’t she notice anything when she showed up for an interview?”

        • If the Catholic Church advised her when she was hired and had her sign a mission statement, that decision will be overturned. Any employee at my Church has to sign the mission statement and our Staff has fired several who cohabitate. and do not live by biblical teaching. That is a Constitutional guarantee but secular judges and juries have made that mistake at the trial level. If they didn’t advise her, it is uncertain.

        • Fred – gurantees only exist as long as the courts will support them. I agree with you on the rights, etc, but whether the courts of today will support it is a crap shoot. Even the Supreme Court swings with public opinion as often as not now, regardless of the law.

  17. On May 23rd I posted the situation that our Troop faced when we were advised by our CO that as a result of the vote taken by BSA we would not be again sponsored, despite a 57 year relationship. Several of you were kind enough to make suggestions. We were reminded that despite all of the fundraising by the boys and leaders, all equipment, trailers, etc. remains the property of the CO – not the Troop. We did locate two organizations (in our rather small rural community) who agreed to sponsor us, but little financial support could be provided to re-equip. We tallied up what it would take to replace all for 53 boys and 9 leaders – WOW! From a practical standpoint and so that we can return to camping it appears that we may be compelled to become Royal Rangers (not a bad organization – our heart just is not in it) Our final vote is this weekend. I still maintain my original premise that the vote by the BSA had an unfortunate impact upon kids and leaders who would like to continue with the BSA, but due to no fault of their own may be unable to … and must, like the parent organization, follow the money!

    • Mark,
      Were you reminded of the ownership by the CO? I guess what I’m really asking is how the CO feels. Are they insistent on keeping the unit equipment or are they willing to donate it to the new CO? Does your current CO have a competing youth program now that would stand to gain from the equipment? Is the Royal Rangers a program of your existing CO?

      • Yes, the CO wants to start a RR program and yes they want to use the existing equipment to do that. I am aware that they have the legal right to do so and verified that fact with our Council. I have personally offered to match $ for $ all that can be raised by Troop members and third parties, but it appears we are stuck in the parking lot until that money can be raised or we elect to join RR. Please do not misunderstand me, a CO has every right to sponsor or not based on its convictions, but it does put a serious damper on Summer Camps at the moment. I feel certain we will hold together with the BSA until we can complete the Jamboree, after that … we shall see.

        • Is your CO an Assemblies of God church? If not, they need to know that the Sixteen Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God are integrated into the RR program, including specifically into the boys’ advancement. If that is in line with their own doctrine and the beliefs of your boys — well, you’ll be off to a good start with plenty of equipment and a developed leadership cadre.

        • I should have read all replies prior to my previous comment, because here is the answer to the question I asked! Again… I think this is unfortunate. You have a large troop, and I really hate to see boys that want to stay with the BSA move on to an alternate program. My heart wouldn’t be in it either. I’m sure the replacement costs would be considerable for that size of troop. Personally, I think if it were me, I would vote to stay with the BSA, even with the knowledge that things may be tight financially for a while. I would come up with every fundraising opportunity I could, and I would contribute myself to help re-equip the new troop. I hope you are able to find a suitable solution to this, whatever you and your troop end up doing.

    • Excuse my lack of understanding here, but how can the CO claim ownership on equipment that was purchased through fund raising or donations.

      If it was me I would be seeking legal advise in this matter. Even for equipment that the CO donated to the troop, unless there was a written contract stating that in the event that the CO no longer sponsors or the troop folds then the equipment reverts to bing the property of the CO, then I would assume that all equipment belongs to the troop. Just my two cents worth but its an avenue I would be exploring

      • Yeah, that is the way it is here, David. The CO owns the troop, and therefore owns the troop’s money and equipment. Many COs would rather see that equipment go with the troop when there is a change; but of course, if the CO wants to use the equipment to start up another program, they do own it and can do that. Or perhaps the CO is sufficiently disturbed by the change that they would not want to see any boys continue in Scouting, so are refusing the transfer of equipment.

      • David,
        There is no troop (or other unit) without a CO. While in practice, sometimes unts go “shopping” for COs, officially the CO sponsors a unit. If a unit chooses not to charter a unit anymore, that unit ceases to exist and the number is available for another unit. In practice, Districts may work with the unit leaders to organize a new unit for a new CO with the same leaders, boys, keep the number, etc that was with the old unit, but officially, it is a new unit. The tenure should start over. And of course, the funds and equipment belong to the CO.
        I think a lot of folks don’t understand the CO role in Scouting. The Girl Scouts abandoned the CO process, but it’s really a critical part of how Boy Scouting functions,.

        • Mamy national organizations try this rule to retain assets purchased by their volunteer members. We battled Easter Seals years ago over our building for a non-profit speech and hearing center. If the equipment was purchased with Church money, they own it. If volunteers bought in the Troop name, volunteers own it and BSA can try to take it but in a local legal system they will be hard pressed to seize it. Possible but bad publicity will be enormous.

        • Fred,
          You misunderstand the Charter system. The troop is not merely an entity in partnership with the CO. The unit is part of the CO. Without a CO, there is no unit. The unit itself can own nothing – so it can’t sue to take assets from the CO. Once the CO cancels the charter, the unit doesn’t exit and the participants are merely a collection of individuals with no rights to the assets.
          If you start another unit with another CO, you are a functionary of that new CO – and you have no rights to the assets of a different CO.

        • Fred and CAY,
          This might be a little left field but why couldn’t a troop stand up without a CO

        • There are two questions here. One specific and legal and i answered. One general brought up by CAY

          The first question regarding who owns the equipment is a legal one. I have litigated this with another organization. Legal departments of major non-profit organizations including some Churches with an International or National Head like the Catholic Church inserted language in their Charters to assume ownership of property if the Charter was surrendered. may Churches have been lost to their congregations even though they paid for them and maintained them for over 100 years due to progressive polices such as homosexuality acceptance and ordainment that the national or International Church leadership adopted as moral but the local congregation believed were in error with Scripture. The Southern Baptist denomination does not due that or issue Charters. It is a legal question as to whether the local Council could seize the property of a Church Troop purchased by the Church with Church funds. That is why everything we own is in the name of the Church. BSA can try but in a local jurisdiction will be hard-pressed to seize property of a Church Troop when the Church surrenders its BSA Charter over BSA Policies in conflict with direct scripture of the faith of the Church. They an certainly try. I have not read the provision reported here but trust the posters who linked it and have reviewed it before

          If volunteers did not protect their assets by keeping them in a name other than the Charter name, then BSA would be on more solid footing to seize their equipment if they left Scouting. A Church or other organization would most likely surrender any equipment they did not but anyway. I don’t know why a Church would want to take something they dis not spend God’s tithe and provision on. The volunteers would have to battle BSA to keep it in my opinion.

          The second question deals with whether the CO and Troop are one. They are not. Especially one like ours where the Church owns the Charter and has certain responsibilities like providing a meeting place and equipment and supporting the Program but the Troop does not consist of Church members. No one would say BSA could seize the Church if they closed the Troop. The CO is the partner with BSA for specific purposes and that’s it. The Troop runs the Program according to Boy Scout rules which in our case have to also respect the Church Calendar for building reservation and use of vehicles and be compatible with the faith statement of the Church through the COR.

          They are separable and must be and have separate missions. The Church evangelizes in the name of Jesus Christ and BSA tries to accommodate all religions or no religion with nebulous God figure. In our Troop, that is Jesus Christ and we are all Christians but not all Baptist.

          I hope that clarifies my statement and position. You have to have a CO to have a Charter. It does not have to be a Church and can be a Pool Hall if BSA accepts it.

          Fred Cooper

          Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:06:46 +0000 To: fcoopercpa@hotmail.com

        • Fred,
          I would disagree with you on a major point. Any community organization can essentially partner with the BSA to create a charter – which creates the unit. While your unit may function separately from the Church, the Church as the CO is responsible for installing the leadership of the unit. Whether they choose to be directly involved is not so meaningful. The point is that is the responsibility. Refer to the charter afreement for details – http://cubmaster.org/charterpartneragreement.pdf.
          BAsically, the BSA operates like a franchise. They own the licensing of the name, training materials, program, etc, while the CO owns the actual unit. The unit is chartered to use Scouting as part of their service to their service to their members.
          The unit has no existence outside the charter. Other organizationis work differently. For example, the Girl Scouts do not use the charter system. They have units that exist on their own. Boy Scouting does not.

        • Trust me that we are in agreement and there is no need to extend it. Mine is a purely legal question. All I said was that I would fight it if anyone tried to take equipment a group of parents had bought without compensation. That’s it.

          The CO charters the Troop and it is true they approve leadership but if we send them up, they approve them in out Troop. They do not meddle. They can if they want to but the CO has to support the program so why would they? I also said if teh Church bought it they own it and I would expect them to fight if BSA or parents tried to take it away. NO peripheral issues for me.

        • I don’t think the battle is with the BSA Fred. It’s between the troop and the CO. Let’s say the members of the troop bought the gear through fundraising and dues. Now the CO wants to keep everything for their new Royal Ranger unit. But the bulk of the troop will move to a different church down the road. The troop wants to take their gear with them, but some member of the church has read on the internet that the “CO owns the gear” . I think from what you’re saying, the members of the troop are the real owners. Not the BSA council. Not the CO. The people who actually put their money into buying it.

        • Technically and legally, you have signed away your ownership by agreeing with the provisions of the Boy Scout Charter if its in the Troop Charter name “BSA Troop 999″ for example. You have a chance if it never went into the name of the Church and was not bought by the Troop Treasurer with Troop funds.

          The Church should do the right thing and release equipment purchased by others. I do not know why they would not.

          BSA to make a point unless the Troop Charter was transferred with BSA approval which I do not even know is possible, might get cute and try to seize it. I don’t think they would but I don’t trust them anymore. As long as a Troop results, they should be happy.

        • Fred,
          “The Church should do the right thing” – the right thing in this case is a matter of opinion. The CO charters with the BSA to provide a program for the youth of its community. That was based on the BSA program values coinciding with the Church values. If that changes, the Church would be very legitimate in severing the relationship and doing a different program for the youth. If they were not planning to provide an alternative program, then I would agree with you. But as they are planning an alternative, I would be hard pressed to criticize them.

        • You’re misreading my comments and misstating my words. I said “if” the equipment was not purchased with Church money “then” the Church would do the right thing and let go of the equipment. How is that not fair and just?

          “If” my Church surrenders its charter and purchased all of the equipment (which it did) “then” it would give it over to Royal Ambassadors and they would continue using it. That is fair and just.

          That is what I said and meant.

        • Fred,
          Not at all. I understood exactly what you were saying. My point is that when you are acting in the unit – fundraising, purchasing equpment, etc, you are acting as an agent of the CO. The volunteers doing the fund raising were doing so in the name of the CO – whether you think it or not, that is the reality. If your troop did criminal activities, the CO would likewise be liable. All troop monies, technically were the Church’s.

        • I’m sorry, I do not see your argument but that is okay. We are not agents for our CO. We are legal agents under the umbrella of BSA if you paid your dues. We do not fund raise in the name of the Church unless we keep the money and do send a slice to the Council and National. To us, that is Church money. But if a parent gives $150 to help purchase a trailer, that is not Church money and we would keep the trailer if we left and the Church would say fine. Its splitting hairs and I am fine with the way we do it and it is legally tested. You can do it however you like

        • The problem is – we don’t know from the original poster who actually purchased the equipment. And it sounds like the legal opinion is that the church owns the property whether or not they actually paid for it. If the troop paid for it, which I believe is usually the case, the troop members are dependent on the church “doing the right” thing and letting the gear go with the troop to a new home. If the church wants to be stubborn about it, they can legally sieze the troop’s equipment for whatever purpose they want: sell it on craigslist, give it to a homeless encampment, start a royal rangers group.

        • db, it looks like we cross posted so you didn’t see my comment. The troop is acting as an agent of the CO, so any fundraising, purchasing, etc is done in the CO’s name. Likewise any liability goes with the CO. The unit owns nothing in and of itself, has no money, and cannot buy things. The unit may open a bank account, but it is supposed to be in the name of the CO (with the unit id).

        • I heard that a few CO are not renewing the troop charter and are going to charter from the Faith Based Boys when they get their program going. The equipment will go to them. Remember 70% of the charting Orgs did not want this change. When a better organization comes along, they will vote with their feet and wallets.

        • db, “I think from what you’re saying, the members of the troop are the real owners. Not the BSA council. Not the CO. The people who actually put their money into buying it.” that would be Fred’s opinion – not necessarily what’s real. As he posted the actual policy, the only possible ownership is the CO or Council. The unit has no existence in and of itself. All the fund raising the volunteers did was in the name of the unit – chartered to the CO. The individuals in the troop have no claim – even if they all join together to form a new troop. If the CO relinquishes the funds/equipment to the Council, technically the Council has no right to bestow it on the new unit, but to absorb it into the Council. Anything else would put the Council in danger of financial mismanagement.
          Again, you have to remember, the troop is not an entity unto itself. It only exists as an agreement between the CO and the Council. If the CO dissolves the charter, you are nothing more than a group of individuals. That would be like having a company lay off a department of a company, and then trying to get the company assets devoted to that department. The BSA charter is a substantially different example than the Easter Seals and a Speech and Hearing Center.

        • Here is the text of the policy:
          “What happens to the unit funds and equipment should the unit dissolve?
          In the event of the dissolution of a unit, or the revocation or lapse of its charter, the unit committee shall apply unit funds and property to the payment of unit obligations and shall turn over the surplus, if any, to the local council. In the case of a chartered organization, any funds or equipment which may have been secured as property of the unit shall be held in trust by the chartering organization or the council, as may be agreed upon, pending reorganization of the unit or for the promotion of the program of the Boy Scouts of America. ”
          http://www.scouting.org/filestore/financeimpact/pdf/Fiscal_Policies_and_Procedures_for_BSA%20Units-9-2010.pdf

          Assuming that this policy is legally sound, how would the CO or the volunteers be able to keep the funds or equipment (except to pay debts). If the unit’s bank account uses the CO’s EIN, though, it may be a different story.

        • If BSA tried to seize Church or Scout Property in the name of the Church, I would litigate it. If its in the Troop name purchased in the Troop name, you’d have a greater chance of losing.

    • Hi Mark. That’s really unfortunate. Did you approach the CO about allowing you to retain your equipment? I know, that legally speaking, the material goods belong to the CO. However, the troop probably actually paid for most, if not all of it, I would imagine, through fundraising work of the boys. A Scout is Thrifty, and pays his own way… I would imagine this must be a Christian CO if they are not rechartering due to the new policy. Perhaps appealing to their Christian sensibility to ‘do the right thing’ is worth an effort?

    • Hi Mark- join scouts-l and ask the email group for advice. There are a large number of wise veterans who would lend you sound advice. Plus – post your troop’s website on scouts-l and how we can donate money to you.

    • Should push come to shove, asking your community for help, on behalf of the boys in the troop, might be effective in two ways. One, to solicit donations who wish to support your choice to stay with BSA, and two, to shame the church into letting the boys who are staying with the BSA keep a proportionate share of the troop’s assets. Companies and organizations like United Way who may have not funded the BSA in the past may be willing to chip in now.
      I suggest you take this question up the line in BSA; they may be able to help you access funds in this matter.
      I”m glad to hear your troop is staying. I’m sure there are folks out there who will come to your aid to help it happen.

      • Thanks Eagle Mom. I did take the question up with Council Reps today including the SE himself. Wow … was I in for a shock. I was advised that the BSA expected a loss in membership due to the change in policy and it appeared that our troop was “part of that collateral damage” and there was little the Council could do to assist. I was advised that this was a “local matter” between the C/O and the Troop and the council would not become involved! REALLY …. I asked our SE if that was a “local vote” that had been taken which landed us in this pickle? The last comment of the SE was ” this is all really rough on everyone, you make sure you keep us posted on the outcome, OK” Hmmmm… I certainly hope other BSA councils are better prepared to meet this challenge than our is, because this problem will arise elsewhere. Thanks for your suggestions.

        • Mark, what denomination is your CO church? And do you have a strong unit commissioner?

        • Karen,
          It really won’t matter. BSA is kind of in a position here. They will not fight a unit over this. As mentioned, they expected this, and the answer is to let the CO make their decision. BSA made theirs.

        • OK, wait a minute… Your council considers your troop collateral damage, and won’t do anything to assist you in finding a way to remain with the BSA?

        • This is for Karen and Beth. Yes we have a Unit Commissioner, but i have not seen him in 3 years. As far as the Council reps are concerned – what I related is what took place.

          I am not a member of the faith based CO that sponsors our Troop, as most of the boys and leaders are not. I have approached “my” church located 57 miles away to consider a “long distance” sponsorship. I am Episcopalian and my community does not have a church here. We obviously could not meet there (120 miles + or – round trip is a bit far for a weekly meeting), but it may gain the needed sponsorship, without placing a local pastor or civic leader in a small community in a position of feeling as though they “took sides”.

          This would allow us to remain together for the completion of the Jamboree. Afterwards, I am of the belief that the boys and leaders who are members of the current CO will join their RR program, I can understand the issue. Hopefully, they can remain scouts too.

          However, I am I greatly pained by our council response to our problem. From a broad perspective I would like for the Troop to have a choice (no matter how inconvenient) and make sure they remain on their feet. From a personal standpoint, I admit that I have re-evaluated. My youngest son turns 18 in September and he wants an opportunity to attend his second jamboree on O/A Staff, complete his second term as O/A Lodge Chief and earn his 20th Eagle Palm. I will certainly stay until December, after that I now think I will pass the spurs. Does this have to do with the outcome of the vote – No. Does this have to do with the cavalier and flippant attitude of our local council reps toward our situation …. well, it would make most people ponder.

          Thanks!

        • I am inclined to agree with you, Mark, that your council is mishandling your situation. They should be in the problem-solving business, truly — the brush-off is no help. This is where functional unit commissioners are supposed to kick in, too; your council has some housekeeping to take care of if it is going to survive.

          Your boys who are going to Jambo — are they going with a council contingent, or as a troop? I’m just wondering about what impact the loss of equipment will have on that adventure; I’m guessing that, just for Jambo and for your son’s OA things, all the boys could even register as Lone Scouts, if your Episcopal sponsor doesn’t work out.

          I’m sure you have touched base with whatever Rotary, Kiwanis, etc., are in your town. Best wishes, Mark. I hope things brighten up soon for your youth. Are there any other Boy Scout troops closer than your church? If so — maybe their CO would sponsor two units? Good luck, Mark.

  18. Scouters I revisited the video of the press conference after the vote was counted you can access it on this forum. One thing that was disturbing was some of the press ask questions you could not hear them and only the Scout Executives could be heard. Wayne Perry the National President of the BSA repeated numerous times that this was for the boys and that every boy should be in scouting and this is why the ban should be lifted so scouters their was pressure put on the delegates and it came from the top. When asked about adult homosexual scouts he commented that leadership requirements were different than a boy scout so I assume that he meant that adult homosexuals could not meet the requirements of leadership in the BSA without revealing what the difference would be between a homosexual adult leader and any other adult leader.The mission of the BSA for its youth is to prepare them for leaders role on their lives this is most disturbing and if discriminating is a issue for the BSA why are they doing it. Scouters I believe that we have been taking over by left wing National Scout Executives and the BSA will never be the same for Scouts of Value again. Scouters I hope you will log on and watch the video if you haven’t seen it is at the top of this page. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

      • db did you watch the press release could you hear the questions being ask by the media? Wayne Perry is not the only executive in scouting I have never inquired about anyone’s political party affiliation in scouting the ones I know it doesn’t matter they support Timeless Values the National Exe don’t. db do you think that it was a good ideal to leave out adult homosexuals I think if you were going to add homosexuals to scouting legally why not the whole package in one swoop. My instinct are that they would not have been able to get enough votes to lift the ban on homosexuals in scouting. They came up with the ideal that it was for the boys and every boy needs to be in scouting they mentioned that many times at the press release in truth it was a better selling point to pass the proposal so they could cover the real reason. It was for money and most scouters see through the phoniness of the press release. This was only step one step 2 comes next year when the dust settles. Wayne Perry could not even explain why a adult homosexual could not be a scout leader. What a PR blunder. He did not want to offend the homosexuals so he left out the reason so he could push for adult homosexual leaders next year. Tico Perez the National Commissioner of the BSA was at the press release. Tico said last year the National Board was solid and would not lift any ban on homosexuals. We have the weakest bunch of National Executives in the history of the BSA flip flopping all over the place. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • I’m just sayin’ that Wayne Perry is not “left wing” like you claimed in your previous statement. He always donates his money to republicans. He supported Herman Cain in the republican primary for pete’s sake. Now whether or not the key 3 are “weak” is clearly your opinion. If you view this from those who support the new policy, they were strong and brave in attempting to move the BSA forward into the 21st century.

        • I wouldn’t say weak either, nor would I say ” strong and brave.” The words I would use are calculating. This was pretty clearly a set up from the beginning. The big announcement that they would make the change in January, then backing off “to give time for discussion,” and then modifying the proposal to a lesser proposal that had a high probability of passing – letting the religious groups kind of feel like they dodged a bullet. Meanwhile, they have a year to work on the adult passage. Of course, on the way they’ve made a big public sentiment play – hopefully swinging the Supreme Court’s decision on the gay marriage cases. And giving time to work up a media campaign and desensitize the local unit leaders to the issue.
          No, nothing weak here at all. Very calculated.

        • Concerned I was referring to the all of the National Exe. and they defiantly flip flopped. I do agree that Wayne Perry has had a lot of influence for a couple of years to add homosexual members in to the BSA He and the LDS Church were working together to propose a agenda that the Church would except. All though I don’t’ agree with the new proposal and felt it supported discrimination by excluding adult homosexuals in scouting. I believe that this will be lifted next year I am not sure what the LDS Church will do . We will have to wait and see it sounds like a soap opera with those on the front lines bearing the consequences. Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • That’s the way it always is Trenton. BSA leadership makes the load, we bear the weight and pay the price in whatever form it takes..

        • Wayne Perry could not even explain because he doesn’t believe so. He has been actively working on this throughout his tenure. He has been vocal about changing the BSA from within.
          Wayne is only going along with this compromise because that’s all he could get away with now. This compromise kept the LDS Church in Scouting. I believe he thinks since the Church went this far, they take the next step is he goes slowly.
          They’re just boiling the frog. Starting off cool so no one notices and slowly turning the heat up until it’s too late. I think he underestimates the resolve.
          My belief is that Wayne is not flip flopping at all, but that his intentions are deliberate. Even the press release makes a specific point to identify there’s no reason why adults aren’t allowed to join – just that they didn’t vote on it. My contention was that by making this change, they could get it to pass. And once this has passed, it will force the rest.

  19. We had a terrific Roundtable tonight. We opened in prayer, and also gave thanks for the life of our long-time District Commissioner, who died after a long illness this week. We welcomed several who had not been to Roundtable before, and gave awards to a dozen leaders. Then we awarded Wood Badge beads to two who had worked their tickets, one an LDS Scouter and one from a community-based unit. A dozen people asked for the flyer for next year’s Wood Badge. Cake and conversation were enjoyed by all. Lots of talk about camps coming soon, and training events in July and August. No controversy at Roundtable, nor at the Troop or Pack meetings this week. A wide-spread suburban, small-town & rural district in the northwest.

    • Did you really expect different? These are Scouters you’re talking about. They may get heated on a discussion group, but respect really is the name of the game with this population.

      • No, I expected no different, because I know my district Scouters. It was reassuring that, as I expected, Scouting life was going on as usual, with great optimism and investment in the future.

        • Our roundtable is next week. I am looking forward to attending.

        • What will really be telling is what happens over the next 7 or 8 months, and then the year following. I think it’s too soon to really see the effects.

  20. ? I don’t understand how this passed with the membership votes so against it. This is a shame because many of the church chartered troops will drop. My son’s troop dropped their charter the next day. Our council did not even seem concerned. I haven’t met with our pastor to see what the Board of Regents are going to do. I had five and it was going to be six grandsons in Scouts. The only one left is my oldest grandson who I am raising. I have been a lifelong Scouter and am appalled that our National Electorate would give in to pressure from less than 6% of the populace. They sure better get a lot of corporate backing or take 40% cut in wages and loss of workforce once the layoffs start.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

    Bryan

    • I think the pressure came from more than just 6% of the populace. There have been many folks from within Scouting who wanted to see the policy changed. Some have gay family and friends, and others see it as a civil rights issue, or a religious issue, or simply an issue of kindness.
      The BSA’s North Star Opinion Research survey showed that among parents of current Scouts, less than half supported the existing policy. Among Scouts themselves, a majority oppose the existing policy and feel it does not represent a core value of Scouting. Generally speaking, attitudes are changing, with younger people being more in favor of a policy that does not routinely exclude gay Scouts.
      The membership survey asked a lot of questions, but it was not a vote. The actual vote came in, as I understand it, with a clear majority in favor of the new policy.
      I hope the boys and men in your family will be able to find another BSA troop in your area and continue your contribution to your community through Scouting. Chances are good that very little about day-to-day life in BSA activities will change.

    • I agree Bryan. Those who support this change like to make up fantasies about how they had the majority of people who wanted the change. It’s all political manipulations from a group of people who don’t believe that people have a right to make rules in their own private organization and/or believe according to their faith.

      They preach tolerance but they are the MOST intolerant people that exist. They only “tolerate” views that align with their own which I will say over and again…is NOT American.

      It is reverse discrimination.

      Eagle mom and others here who talk and talk about this issue in support of it will not look at the reality of the MAJORITY that you point out. They are delusional in their thoughts about what really happened here.

      It’s nothing short of a hostile take over of a private organization by those who wanted, in fact felt entitled to, the benefits of the BSA (benefits those “bigots” created might I add) without obeying its fundamental principles that laid the groundwork for such a great organization to become what it was up until May 2013.

      I wouldn’t waste time arguing the obvious with the people who support this policy change. I have resolved they see the world through a different reality….one that is severely tainted by their codependency and inability to see the facts when the facts are not supportive of their position.

      I hope to see you and your Grandson join us at http://www.onmyhonor.net and join in making and ever greater organization that the BSA was before.

  21. “Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirited?”

    “Emphatically NO. The BSA is not the place for such actions. I do not believe that to the person evangelizing feels that they are being hateful or mean spirited but a Scout event (meeting, camp, fieldtrip, etc) is not the place for such preaching. Best to leave those discussions to the Scout’s family and church. If the Scout is a member of your church then have the discussion in the church setting and not the Troop / Pack setting.”

    ————-

    “Emphatically NO” She says. If you are SO emphatic about this then WHY in the world would you support a Gay person to be openly GAY in the BSA? It’s not a place for such actions. Gay people are “evangelizing”!!!! But you won’t see that. I do agree with you though. It’s not a place to preach ONE way or another in the BSA but now the BSA has in fact turned into an Evangelical group for the homosexual – promoting valuing homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. This message directly opposes the values of Bible believing people. But you think it’s right so you don’t care that it’s reverse evangelizing.

    The BSA should NEVER have had to change. We all know there were gays in the group who were scouts and leaders. All they had to do was leave their views about it and their lifestyle out of scouting and everyone could have gone on in peace. The policy was there to Keep sex out of scouting but now it’s in the face of every scout to embrace homosexuality as a moral and acceptable lifestyle which is opposed to some people’s religion/faith – you don’t see the double standard!

    • Kathy Perkins wrote: “‘Emphatically NO’ She says. If you are SO emphatic about this then WHY in the world would you support a Gay person to be openly GAY in the BSA? It’s not a place for such actions. Gay people are “evangelizing”!!!! But you won’t see that. ”

      My understanding of the new policy (and which is basically the same as it ever was) is that members are not to discuss sex or sexuality. I live my life openly as a heterosexual. I’ve never considered myself to be evangelizing a heterosexual lifestyle. When Robbie Rogers plays for the L.A. Galaxy, is he evangelizing a gay lifestyle? To me, he’s playing a game of soccer. There’s no discussion of sex nor sexuality in soccer, just as there’s no discussion of sex nor sexuality in scouting.

      • Kathy Perkins wrote: “‘Emphatically NO’ She says. If you are SO emphatic about this then WHY in the world would you support a Gay person to be openly GAY in the BSA? It’s not a place for such actions. Gay people are “evangelizing”!!!! But you won’t see that. ”

        db said : “My understanding of the new policy (and which is basically the same as it ever was) is that members are not to discuss sex or sexuality. I live my life openly as a heterosexual. I’ve never considered myself to be evangelizing a heterosexual lifestyle. When Robbie Rogers plays for the L.A. Galaxy, is he evangelizing a gay lifestyle? To me, he’s playing a game of soccer. There’s no discussion of sex nor sexuality in soccer, just as there’s no discussion of sex nor sexuality in scouting.”

        Kathy: db….really? I’m sure there has always been a LOT of sex discussed amongst the boys. They are BOYS!!!! The homosexual group already has put out a Rainbow Badge! How do you figure they aren’t “evangelizing?”

        Check THIS out! http://newsninja2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/a41meritrequirements.pdf

        • You write “the homosexual group has already put out a merit badge”. That is not a real merit badge. It is an outside group. I thought you said you were in favor of FREEDOM (and not just any freedom, but FREEDOM). So isn’t that outside group free to do what they want? And yes – working on that “badge” within scouting would be against the BSA rules. It would be against the rules in the past and it would be against the rules now. So if an opposing group created a “merit badge” that advocated an opposing position, it too would be against the rules to work on within scouting.

        • “db said:
          June 6, 2013 @ 3:41 pm
          You write “the homosexual group has already put out a merit badge”. That is not a real merit badge. It is an outside group. I thought you said you were in favor of FREEDOM (and not just any freedom, but FREEDOM). So isn’t that outside group free to do what they want? And yes – working on that “badge” within scouting would be against the BSA rules. It would be against the rules in the past and it would be against the rules now. So if an opposing group created a “merit badge” that advocated an opposing position, it too would be against the rules to work on within scouting.”

          —-

          Kathy: I am db. What am I saying that opposes freedom???? I posted that “merit badge” to show the world what the REAL goals of the homosexual machine is about. Read it. They have laid it out as plain as day that anyone who opposes the homosexual life style is guilty of hate and they are actively pursuing this teaching….which IS evangelizing. I’m not opposed to their right to do so, I’m opposed to their desire to make it a hate crime to disagree with them. But apparently you are all in favor of making one belief illegal over another. To support that ideology is not supporting freedom.

        • I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say anything about making a belief illegal. I did say that this advocating a position like this is against the BSA rules now, and it was against the rules for at least the last generation.

        • “db
          June 6, 2013 @ 4:07 pm
          I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say anything about making a belief illegal. I did say that this advocating a position like this is against the BSA rules now, and it was against the rules for at least the last generation.”
          ——
          Reply: I think I know why you are confused. I am a BIG PICTURE person. The Micro Picture of the here and now is what you are looking at. The End Goal of the group that forced this decision through AGAINST the majority of the BSA is clearly FOR making it a hate crime to be opposed to homosexuality and to state it is sinful. Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the “merit badge” I posted. These people KNOW it’s against the rules yet they are actively encouraging people in the organization to break the existing rules of the organization! It’s all part of the end goal. I’m sorry if you don’t see that.

          It’s this activism IN the BSA that is SO WRONG! It’s against the BSA as you say but they continue to encourage it and do it and will until they get everything they want, which includes it being a hate crime to oppose the homosexual lifestyle in any way.

    • “All they had to do was leave their views about it and their lifestyle out of scouting and everyone could have gone on in peace.”

      Kathy, I’m sorry, but that is a really simplistic way to look at this issue. Gay people have the fear, that if they are found out for who they are, they can be escorted out of the organization. I’ve pointed out before – (and others have reinforced it) – that gay people don’t have to come in to a scout meeting and talk about the guy they are dating, or how they think another guy is cute, even, to be outed. Scouting does not exist in a vacuum. Our outside relationships are often known to those around us. Boys in a middle school or high school setting certainly know who is dating whom, who went to prom together, and so on. These boys are not asking to come to a scout meeting and proclaim their sexuality. They don’t want to evangelize it. If someone is behaving inappropriately, they should be advised that they need to stop. If it persists, that would be grounds for removal from the troop. Hiding homosexuality from scouts means living their life in the closet. This shouldn’t be a requirement for being a scout. How can we encourage dishonesty in these boys in this one aspect of their lives, yet expect them to uphold it in every other avenue. There are certainly those now who state that if an Eagle Scout is gay, he is unworthy of the award because he obtained it dishonestly. How can we possibly reconcile encouraging this type of dishonesty within Scouting?

      • Beth,
        In 30 years of Scouting, including years on the District and Council level, the only young men I’ve ever seen forced to leave Scouting were those who made of point of publically speaking against Scouting in the issue. I know people in many other councils who have a similar experience. If that’s the case, why them all the fear?

        • Can you tell me what Ryan Andresen said negatively about the BSA that caused his council to deny his Eagle Rank?

        • Beth,
          I wasn’t part of that Board of Review or Council, so all I can offer is what was reported, and there were several issues. One of the reports is that he was actually already 18 when he turned in his eagle packet and had his Board of Review. Those can be excepted under specific circumstances – I’m not sure he met those – in any case, it forces national approval, and after the following items, it was unlikely that would happen. Secondly, it has been reported that he volunteered his unwillingness to Scouting’s principle of ‘Duty to God’ which would make him ineligible based on Scouting’s membership requirements. Thirdly, he also volunteered his avowed homosexual status – in opposition to BSA’s membership policy. My understanding was that he was not asked if he was homosexual. If he had not disavowed the Duty to God and advertised his sexuality (which had no place coming up in an Eagle Board of Review), he would have probably been awarded his rank.
          From the reporting, and I have no way of knowing, it appears he went to his Eagle Board as a form of protest. He went in knowing the rules, and announced his position – in essence throwing down the gauntlet for BSA. It appears he went out of his way to get his application denied so he could start this protest. I have no way of knowing what’s in his heart, but the actions he took give me that impression.
          Ultimately, his participation in Scouting, knowing that membership required a commitment to Duty to God (unrelated to his homosexuality) was under false pretenses. By his very actions, he showed a lack of respect for the Scout Oath and Law.

        • From the reporting, and I have no way of knowing, it appears he went to his Eagle Board as a form of protest. He went in knowing the rules, and announced his position – in essence throwing down the gauntlet for BSA. It appears he went out of his way to get his application denied so he could start this protest. I have no way of knowing what’s in his heart, but the actions he took give me that impression.
          Ultimately, his participation in Scouting, knowing that membership required a commitment to Duty to God (unrelated to his homosexuality) was under false pretenses. By his very actions, he showed a lack of respect for the Scout Oath and Law.

          ———-

          EXACTLY! You put this SO well CAY!!!!! Thank You!

        • >>>>In 30 years of Scouting, including years on the District and Council level, the only young men I’ve ever seen forced to leave Scouting were those who made of point of publically speaking against Scouting in the issue. I know people in many other councils who have a similar experience. If that’s the case, why them all the fear?

          I agree that, at least in some troops and/or some areas, a gay Scout would be unlikely to be kicked out unless he make a huge fuss about his sexuality. But what did it look like from the point of view of the gay Scout? He would likely be aware of the policy, as it has been in the news over the years. However, he would be unlikely to have a broad sense of how the policy was (or was not) applied across the organization – his perspective would mostly come from his local troop. Because people’s views on the issue usually come from their very personal experience with beloved relatives or close friends, unless you’ve actually spoken to a person about the issue, it’s hard to guess where they stand on it. In practical terms, a Scout would not be able to accurately predict whether his troop would “don’t ask don’t tell” in his case, or whether the smallest slip could get him kicked out.

          C.A.Y.- I don’t know if anyone has ever personally come out to you? Several times, I’ve had someone who was already a friend tell me they were gay. In each case, even though I’m an easy-going person, and even though we’d been friends for some time, the person was *absolutely terrified* to tell me. They simply could not predict what I’d say, or how I’d feel, and they were afraid they’d lose me as a friend, or worse. If people can’t predict how close friends or relatives will react, they are even less likely to predict how a Scoutmaster, who they may not know outside of Scouting, will react.

          The new policy lets these boys, and their friends and families, know that they are welcome in Scouting, even if someone finds out they are gay. That’s a *huge* difference than a de facto “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

          But it also makes it clear that scouts shouldn’t be a place for proselytizing for any political cause or position, which would include for or against gay rights or acceptance.

          As I read it, this policy is *exactly* what those uncomfortable with homosexuality have said they wanted – a policy which doesn’t kick out gay kids who keep relatively quiet about their orientation, which doesn’t allow gay kids (or others) to advocate for an acceptance of homesexuality during scouting events (or otherwise make their sexuality a focus of attention), and which makes it clear that non-celibate boys are not living up to the values in the Scout Law.

        • Eagle Mom said: “But it also makes it clear that scouts shouldn’t be a place for proselytizing for any political cause or position, which would include for or against gay rights or acceptance.

          As I read it, this policy is *exactly* what those uncomfortable with homosexuality have said they wanted – a policy which doesn’t kick out gay kids who keep relatively quiet about their orientation, which doesn’t allow gay kids (or others) to advocate for an acceptance of homesexuality during scouting events (or otherwise make their sexuality a focus of attention), and which makes it clear that non-celibate boys are not living up to the values in the Scout Law.”

          —–

          In Utopia this what you just wrote would be IDEAL! I understand why you support the ban lifting when I see what you think it will produce for the BSA. Here is the thing though EagleMom, I don’t see the same result you see. I see the activist homosexual groups who were behind the lifting of the ban, the funding for all the court cases, etc….as having an agenda and using the BSA to further it. This Merit Badge requirement pdf says it all. It says what the homosexual groups’ goal is….to proselytize. http://newsninja2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/a41meritrequirements.pdf Now is that EVERY homosexual’s goal? I’m sure not!!!! But that is the goal of the groups who financed and drove this ban lifting in a clearly majority christian values private organization. There are different groups of homosexuals we are talking about. This San Diego group is an outside group guiding homosexual boys in their activities in the BSA. Just like it was outside groups who drove this whole ordeal we find ourselves in today. It’s a power struggle. It’s very sad and to me, yes, UnAmerican that we have any group trying to push beliefs and morals down any other group’s throats. Just live and let live. I truly don’t believe either side of this issue really has hate at the core of their heart. They both are just equally as passionate about their point of view.

        • KP writes: “in a clearly majority christian values private organization”. Wow. We clearly have a different view of the BSA. The BSA has been open to people of all faiths from the very founding. It was only under poor leadership in the past decades that the BSA joined into the culture wars and veered sharply to the right. Before that, it stayed clear of anything political. Now that it wants to extract itself from the war, the BSA can not find a path. Especially since it has attracted culture warriors into its fold.

        • db, I’m sorry but that’s a bit specious. BSA didn’t join the culture war – it was dragged into it. And BSA’s position is not new. Baden-Powell himself was interviewed in sometimes negative ways about Scouting’s involvement in religion and good citizenship, and he stayed pretty clear on his position in support of both. It was always open to boys of faith – but faith has always been a requirement.
          The cultural war is a relatively recent even – staring in earnest in the 60′s and continuing in various forms since then. Since that time, BSA has been progressively dragged into it. For most of the time it has been the target of mockery and belittling by the “progressives.” The concept of “change from within” is the result of some very well planned organizations starting really in the late 80s. Whether you agree with the position or not, in the 8os for example, the movement made a drastic shift. By targeting various institutions that recently were seen as the largest enemy, they could force changes. The military was really the first and most important. It was critical because the rank structure forces compliance and brooks no complaint. That would allow the movement to show there is no worries or complaints. If you support the movement, you are glad about this, it not, you’re unhappy about this. In any case, it has been effective strategy. The BSA is just the next step on the road.

        • EagleMom,
          I have had people “come out” to me. Never a Scout. Neither have I had a Scout volunteer his heterosexual status to me. It doesn’t come up – that’s a point many of us have tried to make. I can look back on Scouts that I am pretty sure they were gay, but didn’t discuss it. They never identified themselves as gay until after they were long gone. Yet they stayed in Scouting.
          Those that “came out” to me had no need to do so either. In some cases it was pretty obvious, but we were not sharing facilities and there was no reason to bring it up. I didn’t need to know. They felt this compunction to come out to me. I don’t discuss my sexuality with anyone, and I really don’t see why everyone feels this need to share it with everyone around them. I have family members that are gay – they haven’t come out to me, yet it’s pretty obvious from their Facebook pages. They don’t share my religious views – so there’s not really much reason for me to tell them I think it’s a sin. They know my religious views (not because I shared them, but because they grew up with it and left it) so obviously know that I believe it’s sinful. Of course, I have cousins who do their best to bed every girl they ever meet. They also know I consider that sinful. Yet we can associate on family social events and get along. I will say that I think it’s interesting, I consider their actions sinful, but would never call them sinners, yet I often get derided by these for believing and practicing my religion. So I think there’s tolerance to be learned on all sides.
          You mentioned “As I read it, this policy is *exactly* what those uncomfortable with homosexuality have said they wanted – a policy which doesn’t kick out gay kids who keep relatively quiet about their orientation, which doesn’t allow gay kids (or others) to advocate for an acceptance of homesexuality during scouting events (or otherwise make their sexuality a focus of attention), and which makes it clear that non-celibate boys are not living up to the values in the Scout Law.” I know hoe you read it – you’ve made it clear in a number of posts – it’s just that that’s not the way it’s written. There’s no requirement to be quiet about their orientation, and under the new policy, “coming out” is now essentially protected speech. Based on the policy itself, as long as they don’t have sex, they may advocate all they want. BTW, how do you tell the difference between the celibate and non-celibate youth? You’ve been very vocal about he fear of communicating – wouldn’t a non-celibate youth fear talking about it so as not to get kicked out? As I see it, the only way we’d be able to kick a homosexual young man out of Scouting is if he was caught having sex or attempting to with another troop member.

        • Concerned for youth wrote: “Neither have I had a Scout volunteer his heterosexual status to me.” really? none of your scouts has a girl friend? none of them have ever gone to the prom with a date? none of them missed a campout because they were going to the movies on their first date? Because all those things reveal to you that a scout is either heterosexual or homosexual depending on the gender of the person they are attracted to. Maybe you live in a town where no kid is allowed to date?

      • Beth….the point you miss is SO OBVIOUS!!! They were “afraid” BECAUSE they were BREAKING the RULES!!!! You advocate kids breaking the rules when the rules don’t suit them. Shame on you!

        • No Kathy, I don’t advocate breaking the rules. What I have advocated for is that an unfair rule be changed. YOU advocated breaking the rules when you stated if they kept their mouth shut, they could stay in.

        • Beth said: “No Kathy, I don’t advocate breaking the rules. What I have advocated for is that an unfair rule be changed.”

          And why do you get to decide what is fair and unfair for the majority of the organization?

        • I don’t claim the right to decide what’s fair and unfair for the organization. I’ve only stated my opinion. The voting members did that. I didn’t get a vote.

        • Yes, exactly. The only voice that was represented at the vote was the personal opinion of the 1400 people who ignored the majority of the membership.

        • Our three delegates did not ignore what our council members told them. I haven’t heard whether your delegates ignored your council’s members.

        • Beth must feel like a ping pong ball between those who are telling her that the gay boys didn’t have to worry and could have easily stayed in troops, and those who are telling her they never should have been in troops. Looks like there are more than two sides here.

        • I would agree with you there are multiple camps. I disagree that homosexuality (or the way to say t now – same sex attraction) itself was grounds for expulsion. It was always the espousing of it and practice that was the problem. I never heard of a Board of Review legitimately asking too much detail about how a Scout was morally straight. Based on estimates of teen sexuality, the majority of Scouts over 16 are probably active sexually. I’ve never heard of a BoR asking a young man if they’re having sex – just if they are morally straight.
          Semantics yes, but very important semantics.

        • Karen, in some cases, it’s the same person saying they could have remained in silence AND they should have never been there in the first place! It’s truly dizzying! :-)

        • “Karen, in some cases, it’s the same person saying they could have remained in silence AND they should have never been there in the first place! It’s truly dizzying! :-)”

          Beth and Karen…..You two LOVE to confuse the issue. That is truly what is dizzying. My point of view is that if you KNOW you are breaking the rules you take an oath to keep you should remove yourself or not have ever joined in the first place. The BSA rule was clear. What the suggestion to keep their mouth shut about their sexual preference refers to, in what I was saying, was in reference to you both stating there were homosexual boys in scouting who didn’t have the honor to leave a group they swore an oath to in order to stay in. I don’t support them staying in at all. What I was saying was that they were not in danger of getting kicked out by the so called “bigots” in the BSA if they simply kept their sexual preferences to themselves. It’s your own examples I’m referring to. The honorable thing to do would be to get out of an organization that you cannot be faithful to when you are taking an oath swearing you will abide by the values of the organization.

          You both are the ones who encourage dishonorable behavior. Not me. You might feel dizzy because of all the hoops you have to jump through and twists you have to take to make your position make sense and try to make what is dishonorable honorable.

          Keeping one’s oath and word is what I’m talking about. The BEST possible choice would be get out of the group who’s values you don’t agree with. In fact, the BSA STILL promotes discrimination yet you all stay! Very dishonorable indeed. You’ve all been in the BSA, who before just a couple of weeks ago, stood in opposition to your values. You promote breaking rules that you don’t like. Your lives and actions promote civil disobedience when the rules don’t suit you. Very shameful values to be teaching kids.

        • Please find a direct citation from my writing of a rule I have broken if you are going to accuse me.

        • Karen: “Please find a direct citation from my writing of a rule I have broken if you are going to accuse me.”

          Kathy’s reply: Karen…please reread what I said. I said you support and advocate for the breaking of the rules of the BSA.

        • Find direct citations from my writing if you are going to accuse me. Here are some of the most recent accusations:
          Kathy wrote: “You two LOVE to confuse the issue.” I think you would need to know me better to make such a statement. I haven’t told you about anything I love, I don’t believe.
          Kathy wrote: “… you KNOW you are breaking the rules….” No, I am not. And you haven’t cited anything to prove that I am.
          Kathy wrote: “you both stating there were homosexual boys in scouting who didn’t have the honor to leave a group they swore an oath to in order to stay in” I don’t believe I have said any such thing. If you are going to accuse, prove it.
          Kathy wrote: “you cannot be faithful to when you are taking an oath swearing you will abide by the values of the organization.” The oath I take is extremely important to me. I reaffirm and keep it every day. If you are going to accuse, prove it.
          Kathy wrote: “You promote breaking rules that you don’t like.” If you are going to accuse, prove it.
          Kathy wrote: “Your lives and actions promote civil disobedience when the rules don’t suit you..” You have no basis for discussing my life and actions. If you are going to accuse, prove it.

          While you are at it, you might consider reviewing your Wood Badge course materials on conflict resolution. I find them very helpful to me when a situation is frustrating.

      • beth…they don’t want to evangelize homosexuality???? Really???? After all the evidence to the contrary, to prove that the homosexuality militant political machine wants nothing less than total approval from 100% of America to their lifestyle…using THEIR own words and “merit badge” pdf…..you still want to say this? There is nothing left for you beth…you are in your bubble of denial. I hope it doesn’t pop too late. Your freedoms are being intruded upon by this group as well..though you don’t yet see it.

        • Kathy, do you know any gay teens? I do. They’re not part of a militant political machine. They’re just teenage boys. They’re good kids. They go to school like my kids, they do afterschool clubs and sports like my kids, and some of them are Scouts, like my kids. As Beth said, “These boys are not asking to come to a scout meeting and proclaim their sexuality. They don’t want to evangelize it.” They want to be Scouts for all the same reasons that any other boy wants to be a Scout. And now, under the new policy, they can be.

      • beth said: “Hiding homosexuality from scouts means living their life in the closet. This shouldn’t be a requirement for being a scout.”

        Then beth, hiding one’s Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin shouldn’t have to be kept in a closet either and shouldn’t be a requirement for being a scout. However, you already have stated that the christian should keep their views of homosexuality to themself in the context of scouting. The double standard you make is incredible. What’s more incredible is that you don’t see your own double standard. I think BOTH groups should just shut up and leave the other alone to live their lives and not put their lifestyle and beliefs in each other’s face! You advocate one to push something totally Anti-Bible in the Face of the Bible believers but you oppose putting Pro-Bible in from of those who want to silence what the Bible says about homosexuality. Unreal.

        • ” I think BOTH groups should just shut up and leave the other alone to live their lives and not put their lifestyle and beliefs in each other’s face”

          We somewhat agree here, Kathy. And this is what the new proposal asks. Keep sex out of scouting. Period. Heterosexual and homosexual youth alike are expected to abstain from sex. Leave teaching about sex to the family and the church.

          I have not stated that christians should keep their views on homosexuality to themselves in the context of scouting. What I *do* believe is that everyone should keep their views regarding sexuality in general to themselves in the context of scouting.

        • beth, and after reading this pdf http://newsninja2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/a41meritrequirements.pdf you still believe that the homosexual group wants to just be quiet about their lifestyle and not put their homosexuality in the faces of those who oppose it as sinful????

          It’s great that you want them to just be quiet and get on with scouting as I do, but you aren’t seeing their agenda here. This is THEIR own words and they DO advocate for breaking the rules so if you support these groups then you support the breaking of the rules. It is groups like this one in San Diego that pushed this decision through.

          The policy change is set up in order to put homosexuality in the face of every scout as an acceptable moral lifestyle choice. The first pack/troop/den who verbally opposes homosexuality in any way will face a law suite. The clear message of this policy change is “accept the lifestyle as good and moral or face consequences.” That’s the goal. To think anything less of it is to miss the point of the change. Prior to the change, obviously there were many boys who were NOT open and avowed homosexuals and never had an incident in scouting. To be open and avowed as a homosexual in scouting is inappropriate in scouting. It is a moral lifestyle choice. Though the homosexual groups don’t believe it is a moral issue, it is for the vast majority of the BSA membership who voted against the change and who supported spending thousands of dollars to keep the ban in place at the supreme court level.

        • Homosexuality and homosexual behavior is clearly a sin if your follow scripture literally. God got it right the first time. No need for man to re-shape scripture to include culturally acceptable behavior.

        • I agree Fred, that the Bible says homosexuality is sin. Do you agree that not everyone cares what the Bible says about it though? I support your faith and belief in the Bible. I just also support the right of Americans to choose to live their life by the Bible or not. The BSA clearly had Biblical values instilled in it before the policy change. Clearly, the majority of people in the BSA agree with you. That is why the policy change, IMO, was wrong. I support your position Fred. I just don’t believe in either side pushing their view about it down each other’s throat…..because this is the mess we find ourselves in.

        • You’re a good Christian Kathy. I am compelled to speak the Gospel whether folks like it or not. They can choose to ignore, just as I ignore the raft of profanity and sexuality in common culture. Ain’t nobody worrying about offending me and so far no one has been offended by me I deal with daily.

        • Clarification: I said “It IS a moral choice” to be homosexual. I don’t believe that. Honestly, I don’t know how much nature vs. nurture has in determining sexual attraction. It’s really none of my business either way. To each his own. What I do know is that some people believe that and they have a right to that opinion just as someone has a right to the opposite opinion.

        • And to be clear, at this point, it is the homosexual groups that are pushing their view down the throat of this private organization this time. They should have started their own group. But their goal is not to be free to live their live as they see fit…their goal is to push their lifestyle down bible believing people’s throat. That’s wrong.

  22. Kathy Asked: Do you support the right of the Christian person to preach openly that homosexuality is a sin?

    David answered: Yes I do support that right, do you support he right for people to ignore your preaching and to treat everyone as an equal

    Kathy’s Reply to David: Absolutely!!! I myself ignore a LOT of what people in the church say! But just know it’s NOT my preaching – although you and others keep assuming that. I don’t tell people how to live their life. I’m not preaching against homosexuality. I’m speaking against hostile take overs of a private organization by way of threats of financial ruin.
    ——
    Kathy Asked: Do you understand why a Christian would preach that?

    David Answered: Yes I do understand why. I also understand that there is no growth potential in Christian teachings, that they have been stuck where they are for the at 2013 years. Do you understand that there are religions out there that ave grown like the Phoenix and can embrace everyone and their bipeliefs.

    Kathy’s Reply: David…that is your opinion about Christianity and you are entitled to it. Do you support the right of people to disagree with you and pursue their faith as they see fit or do you see your call in life to evangelize people out of Christianity?
    ——-
    Kathy Asked: Do you see preaching that homosexuality is a sin as a hateful thing to say to a homosexual person?

    David Answered: Yes it is hateful, as it is christian views only.

    Kathy’s Reply: This is exactly the true belief of the homosexual Political machine. Thank you for speaking your truth. You believe it is hateful to say and teach that homosexuality is sinful to a homosexual. This belief is what I’m MOST afraid of. You represent a person who is for making it a hate crime to live one’s faith out according to their religion. Muslims also believe it is sinful as well and they are WAY less tolerant than Christians are of the homosexual lifestyle. I believe they would publically execute a homosexual under Sharia Law. You hate the Christian’s believe that it is sinful because you disagree with it. But don’t hate their belief. Embrace it as a reminder that YOU TOO are free to believe as you wish. Ignore them. Walk away. Just as you would someone who flipped you off while driving. You cannot stop people from offending you. Well, that is exactly what the militant homosexual group is trying to do…..legislate Christian teaching about homosexualit as sin as a hate crime. That should scare you David! Yes, it is hard to see why it should scare you because this time it represents your point of view about homosexuality but once the government starts to make it a hate crime to believe and teach moral values….we are ALL in trouble. That’s all I’m saying.

    ——-

    Kathy’s Question: Should Christians who remain in the BSA be allowed to tell homosexual boys and adults (when the adults are allowed in because they will be eventually) that their lifestyle is sinful or would that be something they should keep to themselves because it is hateful or mean spirite

    David Said: No they shouldn’t. Scouting including the BSA is in theory supposed to be non denominational. If Christians tell others that (insert any thing out of the normal for a Christian) is inful then scouting and the BSA has become a ingle
    religious unit.

    Kathy’s Reply: I totally agree with you! Prior to the policy change it was ALL quiet! No one preached, or should have preached, about one moral teaching/faith. To INCLUDE homosexuality as sinful or acceptable. It was simply left OUT of the organization!!!! But today, those who believe Homosexuality is sinful are now forced to value the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable even when it is against their faith. You seem to only be against evangelizing when it’s evangelizing against your own beliefs. Some people of faith Cannot condone homosexuality at all because they truly believe that it is against their God’s will! But you don’t seem to respect their right to not have their kids and themselves have homosexuality validated in their scouting troop as a moral lifestyle. You don’t seem to respect those who disagree with you belief that homosexuality is a natural sexual lifestyle. That’s the issue here. You cannot seem to see the other side’s point of view. You don’t want christians evangelizing but you support Gays who do it!

  23. Mike Said:
    June 4, 2013 @ 11:09 am
    Kathy said: “It’s obvious the BSA changed their position due to severe pressure. It’s not only obvious because it was a long standing policy to ban gays but because their decision is a compromise that reflects a serious conflict of values….ban one homosexual and allow another. Makes no sense.”

    Has it ever occurred to you that those who voted for change may just have thought that the existing policy was wrong and should be corrected?”

    —–

    Of course it has! That’s what happened! The delegates who voted, voted THEIR personal opinion on the policy! NOT the members’ opinion who they were SUPPOSED to represent! THAT Mike IS the issue!!!!! You get it!!!!

  24. Here is the Rainbow Badge Merit Requirement:

    Scouting for All
    Inclusive Rainbow Merit Badge Requirements
    Please read disclaimer at bottom before beginning this merit badge.
    After you complete these merit badge requirements, send to:
    Scouting for All
    PO Box 600841
    San Diego, CA 92120-0841
    National Office Phone
    Tel: 619-229-1612
    Email: info@scoutingforall.org
    Remember to send a copy of the pre and post value clarification exercises you completed.
    Scouting for All will send you our Inclusive Rainbow Merit Badge, which you can wear with
    pride. Thanks for participating!
    Steven Cozza, Cofounder
    Howard Menzer, President
    Scouting for All
    _____ 1. Complete the Values Clarification Exercise before you complete the rest of this merit
    badge. Your merit badge counselor, den leader, scout leader, or parent should administer the
    Scouting for All values clarification excercise.
    _____ 2. Look up the words inclusiveness and diversity in the dictionary. Write a paragraph
    on how they relate to the Scout Law points of helpful, friendly, courteous and kind.
    _____ 3. Look up the dictionary definitions for prejudice, stereotype, and discrimination.
    Write a paragraph on how these concepts relate to inclusiveness and diversity.
    _____ 4. Do TWO of the following and follow up with a question and answer session:
    A. Invite a speaker from PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) to speak at
    your troop or den meeting. Ask them to speak about what it means to be gay
    (homosexual). Ask them to explain the following:
    1. What a hate crime is.
    2. How prejudice and discrimination affect gay people individually and the
    community as a whole.
    3. Ask them if gays have family values and if they can be parents.
    4. Ask them how they feel about gay people not being allowed in the Boy Scouts of
    America.
    B. Invite a group of speakers from an atheist group such as American Atheists. You can
    look these up on the Internet or in your phone book. Ask them the following:
    1. What it means to be an atheist in American society.
    2. If they have the same rights as believers.
    3. If they feel included or excluded in American society.
    4. How they feel about not being allowed in the Boy Scouts of America.C. With your parents permission, attend a PFLAG or GSA (Gay / Straight Alliance), an
    American Atheist meeting, or a similar type of meeting. You can find a local chapter on
    the Internet or in your phone book.
    ____ 5. Write a short essay on what you learned from the speaker or speakers and/or attending
    one of the meetings.
    ____ 6. Explain to your scout leader, den leader, or parent why you believe your troop or den
    should or should not be open to diversity.
    ____ 7. Ask your scout leader, den leader, or parent to give you the values clarification excercise
    again.
    ____ 8. With your scout leader, den leader, merit badge counselor, or parent, compare the
    answers of the firs values clarification exercise you completed with the second one you
    competed. Discuss if your values or beliefs changed or did not change and why.
    Disclaimer:
    The Scouting for All Inclusive Rainbow Merit Badge is not sanctioned by the Boy Scouts of America.
    You may be prohibited from wearing it on your uniform. Merely completing the requirements may cause
    problems with scout leaders or parents who are not open minded, so be aware of what you are doing. You
    may be prohibited from wearing the badge on your uniform. If you choose to wear it as a symbol of the
    BSA requirement to respect and defend the rights of all people, you risk expulsion from the Boy Scouts of
    America. Scouting for All suggests that you wear the merit badge, and if you receive a warning from
    your local Scout Council, then just take it off your shirt, but you should be aware of the risk. There are
    troops and dens in America and Internationally that are wearing the Scouting for All Inclusive Rainbow
    Merit Badge.

  25. Advocating for breaking the rules. They will become more violent and disruptive until homosexual adults are on the trail. Time to get out.

  26. “I wouldn’t waste time arguing the obvious with the people who support this policy change…”

    But apparently you do.

  27. Fred Cooper
    June 6, 2013 @ 11:03 pm
    “You’re a good Christian Kathy. I am compelled to speak the Gospel whether folks like it or not. They can choose to ignore, just as I ignore the raft of profanity and sexuality in common culture. Ain’t nobody worrying about offending me and so far no one has been offended by me I deal with daily.”

    I don’t know what I am to be honest Fred, other than an American who values the right of people to Pursue happiness as they see fit. I hope I’m good at that. It’s obvious that I’m not worried about offending anyone either LOL And God know’s no one is worried about offending me.

    In fact, people are SO easily offended. Why does the homosexual person hate it so much that the Christian thinks their lifestyle is sinful and hellbound anyway? I know people who tell me because I drink alcohol socially that I’m sinful and hellbound too! I just laugh. I also made my kitchen into a vineyard and made a homemade picture with the scripture of the first Miracle that Jesus did….turning water into wine. Let people believe what they will. We are ALL free to choose!

    I just wish the homosexual would come to tolerate the Christian views of homosexuality and just accept them as not going anywhere. Instead, unfortunately, they are proselytizing actively to promote Christian values as somehow hateful when in fact, from what I understand of the Christian person, they just are worried about people’s eternal life. Just say “thanks for caring” and move on. Be strong to be who you are and embrace the differences in our melting pot culture. I do believe in God and it’s to Him we will all answer to, not another human being.

    • Kathy – you drink alcohol? I’m sorry, but I just don’t feel you belong in Scouting and I will no longer support your positions…

      Funny, this is a lot like the morally straight rules. If you don’t show up drunk or drinking, I don’t really need to know about it. Note that both drinking and smoking are called out in Scouting as less than appropriate.

      So my question, do those of you who smoke or drink feel offended at the BSA and feel the need to protest for the right to drink and smoke in Scouting?

      • So, drinking and smoking are prohibiting from discussion or exercise at every Scouting event I have attended in 16 years but you equate that with opne homosexuality of a Scout and the potential for exercise of that sexual orientation/ I think that’s a reach.

        • Fred, based on your previous comments, I have no doubt that you feel that way. As a matter of fact, based on your participation thus far, anything I’d say that didn’t support the policy change you would find a reach or invalid.
          Obviously it was an analogy – and all analogies by their nature are imperfect.
          In any case, if you’ll actually read for understanding, I was not equating open homosexuality with drinking and smoking. I was suggesting that under the previous policy, the BSA made statements essentially stating that homosexuality was not morally straight, and that being offended by that in and of itself was not substantially different than the BSA teachings on alcohol and tobacco use. The practices are identified clearly that they are inappropriate with Scouting ideals and I’ve even seen it labeled in the literature as not morally straight or clean.. With that, I don’t see smokers and drinkers offended by the teachings – or at least enough to protest BSA change their stance. I don’t see why then the teaching of homosexuality as not morally straight or clean as somehow more offensive. In both cases we’re talking about a specific action that someone can choose to participate in or not.

        • I think we’re on the same side. I’m firmly against the policy and think homosexuality is a sin and morally corrupt. I just don’t think we should soft pedal what is sinful behavior including drinking and smoking at Scout events..

        • Fred – kind of. You’re right. As I look at my comment, I see I worded that different than I was thinking.
          The kind of is on the side. Yes, on the side of the proposal – not so much on why. I do agree with you on the sins aspect, I’m not in agreement on the affect it has on this decision. I mean, if you left it up to me, there’s a few additional sins I wouldn’t mind banning. I just don’t think that’s how it works. Regardless of the sin, all I have a right to control is myself (and my family) – “as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” I think it’s a bit tough to ban sinners outright when the sin doesn’t have a direct affect on others. Ultimately, we’d have few left in Scouting. I would not be particularly happy if Jewish law dictated morality in Scouting. So, if a person is practicing his beliefs – that include God, then it’s hard to argue with that per the “duty to God.”
          I do think open homosexuality on the leaders part is specifically a problem for several reasons, and the example aspect is one of the bigger ones (I suggest that unmarried couples living together are unsuitable for Scouting leaders as well).
          My real contention here is Youth Protection. That is specific, and goes beyond religious belief to direct effects on others. I have tried very hard to come up with an effective Youth Protection that provides the levels of protection under the previous policy. I can’t come up with one. I don’t see how homosexuality is compatible with the program and still be an outdoor program. I have yet to hear anyone make a reasonable attempt. My feeling is that BSA making any policy change that weakens YP is a horrible mistake, and a future target for litigation. Making this kind of a policy change that was obviously driven by an active, aggressive special interest without having addressed this very key principle is irresponsible.

        • I think you’re right.

          I have always said BSA is not a Christian organization and homosexuality has been considered immoral and incompatible with Scouting until May 23rd. I don’t think you can turn that light off and on like that.

          I absolutely agree it weakens YP and puts a Scoutmaster on the front lines of affirming homosexual behavior in front of boys.

          The moral code of BSA is compromised. I foresee they will be co-habitating adult leaders (homosexual adults in state that does not accept homosexual marriage) with a year or two. Once morality is compromised, many more adults who are questionable in moral character will come on in.

        • You are truly certain that Fred would only support statements in favor of the policy change? I would think Fred’s position has been pretty clear; it has been to me, at any rate. This is something that worries me about the way people try to characterize each other in conversations like this. Based on a few printed words, we paint with a broad brush — and then we sometimes get the brush wrong as well.

        • No – as I said in my follow up comment, I mistyped what I tried to say.

      • LOL Concerned about Youth. You crack me up. I never promoted drinking alcohol at a scouting event. From my understanding, alcohol and tobacco used are not allowed at any scouting event in the BSA which I support and obey. And yes, I drink alcohol socially and enjoy it very much. I support your choice to reject me for my actions and my choice. See! There are all sorts of people telling other people they are going to hell or should be rejected based on their behavior! I just laugh. Don’t take it personally at all. I don’t try to make it a hate crime for CAY to dislike me and reject me based on my alcohol consumption like the homosexual groups are trying to do. I in fact appreciate him telling me how he feels although he did so in a rejecting way and without love :) Now I know who I can get along with and who I can’t. See…we can all just be nice when people reject us for our differing values.

        • Kathy – I would not have known you drank alcohol if you hadn’t volunteered the information. And no worries, I love everyone I reject and judge for not believing the way I do…

  28. I loved my experience in scouting. I believe that it still has a place in society for young men. That said, this is long overdue. As long as no one is being harmed, people should be free to enjoy their lives as they see fit. I’m straight, but it would be ridiculous for me to tell a gay guy that he’s wrong and I know better than he does. What do I know about it? Let’s just accept people and move forward while holding onto what we really value as well.

    • Kevin,
      Obviously you haven’t invested in the discussion and haven’t tried to understand the issue. It’s not about whether it’s right or wrong, it’s about essentially ignoring youth protection and how it applies in this situation. It’s about BSA taking a survey of the membership, and then encouraging leader to ignore that survey.

      • The more I read the more it becomes apparent that the potential for sexual activity between Scouts or coercion of a young Scout by an older Scout is not that great a concern if it happens with pro-policy people. The Asst Scoutmaster concerned about YP should just rollover and go back to sleep.

        As far as the vote is concerned, the pro-policy folks take the Democrat line on policy positions. “Nothing to see here, move along.” They think it was fair, honest and upright and are offended that you would bring such a ridiculous idea up at all.

        • I do think YP is of concern. I also think the decision was just made a couple of weeks ago and will activate in six months; that National has already engaged its YP experts on the question even before the vote and no doubt will have them working on needed adaptations of YP; and that appropriate solutions will be found.

      • Why assume that someone doesn’t understand the issue. All you know of this person is a 7 sentence statement he has made on a blog post. For many people, this issue absolutely is about right and wrong. I believe it is about right and wrong. I think we are all good people in Scouts, and I have confidence that we can work out the YP issues.

  29. To all those who believe that this new policy is going to be problematic, lets make a rod in our backs right now.

    Attention National,
    To enable our units to fully understand the differences between heterosexual and homosexual we request that you add the following line to the youth membership form
    Are you a homosexual (YES*) (NO)
    *if you answered YES, please note that your membership will be null and void and terminated on your 18th birthday.
    *if you answered YES, please be advised that you will not be allowed to share a tent, shower block, swimming pool or lake/pond when there are heterosexual youth members present. This will ensure that you will not be able to infect heterosexual youth members with your homosexual tendencies and that Youth Protection is at the highest possible accord.

    You know the above is crap. You join scouting for fun, camping, learning, mateship. Sex and sex education is the responsibility of the parents and the parents alone. If I don’t tell you I’m homosexual you will never know.

    Matthew 7:12 – 14
    7:12-14 Christ came to teach us, not only what we are to know and believe, but what we are to do; not only toward God, but toward men; not only toward those of our party and persuasion, but toward men in general, all with whom we have to do. We must do that to our neighbour which we ourselves acknowledge to be fit and reasonable. We must, in our dealings with men, suppose ourselves in the same case and circumstances with those we have to do with, and act accordingly. There are but two ways right and wrong, good and evil; the way to heaven and the way to hell; in the one or other of these all are walking: there is no middle place hereafter, no middle way now. All the children of men are saints or sinners, godly or ungodly. See concerning the way of sin and sinners, that the gate is wide, and stands open. You may go in at this gate with all your lusts about you; it gives no check to appetites or passions. It is a broad way; there are many paths in it; there is choice of sinful ways. There is a large company in this way. But what profit is there in being willing to go to hell with others, because they will not go to heaven with us? The way to eternal life is narrow. We are not in heaven as soon as we are got through the strait gate. Self must be denied, the body kept under, and corruptions mortified. Daily temptations must be resisted; duties must be done. We must watch in all things, and walk with care; and we must go through much tribulation. And yet this way should invite us all; it leads to life: to present comfort in the favour of God, which is the life of the soul; to eternal bliss, the hope of which at the end of our way, should make all the difficulties of the road easy to us. This plain declaration of Christ has been disregarded by many who have taken pains to explain it away; but in all ages the real disciple of Christ has been looked on as a singular, unfashionable character; and all that have sided with the greater number, have gone on in the broad road to destruction. If we would serve God, we must be firm in our religion. Can we often hear of the strait gate and the narrow way, and how few there are that find it, without being in pain for ourselves, or considering whether we are entered on the narrow way, and what progress we are making in it?

    • David posted: “Are you a homosexual (YES*) (NO).

      Fred posted: I think we’ll know because since it is accepted as normal now in BSA where it was not before. Homosexual boys will telling us whether we want to know or not I believe. Especially one that GLAAD has recommended to join Scouting. You really think that will not be the case?

      David posted: “*if you answered YES, please note that your membership will be null and void and terminated on your 18th birthday.”

      Fred posted: I definitely think they should be made aware of BSA policy. They’ll break it, like many on the pro-policy people on this list who are breaking it now but they need to know.

      David posted:*if you answered YES, please be advised that you will not be allowed to share a tent, shower block …(claims never heard on this list)..Youth Protection is at the highest possible accord.” Should not YP be of the highest accord at all times? Not sure what you are trying to say here but I can only remember one time on another thread seen anyone say what your are attributing to all of us about “infecting” heterosexual Scouts. That must be your opinion of others with no compelling evidence. I have never said that. There is no call for quarantine from me. Separate showers and tents for older boys I think would be prudent when you know a boy is sexually attracted to the same gender. I would hope that a Scoutmaster would never consider putting an older homosexual Scout with a younger Scout who may not even be thinking about sexual orientation. . Or is that part of the “fun” in Scouting you are speaking of?

      Fred posted: Is this scripture commentary on Matthew from a specific denomination book of faith or prayers? Its very close to Matthew Henry but deviates in some ways. As a Christian, the Bible is one body of work consisting of all scripture understood and interlinked as one. Your scripture quote comments on the the Golden Rule and the explanation of the wide gate and narrow road of following a obedient scriptural path in your walk of life.

      David posted: Matthew 7:12 – 14
      …7:12-14 Christ came to teach us, not only what we are to know and believe, but what we are to do; not only toward God, but toward men; not only toward those of our party and persuasion, but toward men in general, all with whom we have to do. We must do that to our neighbour which we ourselves acknowledge to be fit and reasonable. We must, in our dealings with men, suppose ourselves in the same case and circumstances with those we have to do with, and act accordingly.

      Fred posted: Very clear here. I have seen some post here that this scripture means that you accept the faults and failings of your neighbor with no discernment of correction. I totally disagree. I believe it to mean you are fair and reasonable in your dealings with others. This conversation on homosexual Scouts and the adults who enable than I believe is contained in the next scripture.

      David posted: : “There are but two ways right and wrong, good and evil; the way to heaven and the way to hell; in the one or other of these all are walking: there is no middle place hereafter, no middle way now. All the children of men are saints or sinners, godly or ungodly. See concerning the way of sin and sinners, that the gate is wide, and stands open. You may go in at this gate with all your lusts about you; it gives no check to appetites or passions. It is a broad way; there are many paths in it; there is choice of sinful ways. There is a large company in this way. But what profit is there in being willing to go to hell with others, because they will not go to heaven with us?”

      Fred posted: Just so most of you will hopefully not freak out here, I an not pausing here to say all homosexuals are going to Hell, so please don’t post endlessly saying that I have. The main point is to avoid compromising your Christian faith to be part of a secular world. To a Christian, all people CAN go to Heaven but there is a narrow path you must live and walk. Celibate homosexuals who resist temptation and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will go to heaven. Te Bible says that acting on those temptations and living in it as adult practicing homosexuals do won’t get you there.

      David posted: The way to eternal life is narrow. We are not in heaven as soon as we are got through the strait gate. Self must be denied, the body kept under, and corruptions mortified. Daily temptations must be resisted; duties must be done. We must watch in all things, and walk with care; and we must go through much tribulation. And yet this way should invite us all; it leads to life: to present comfort in the favour of God, which is the life of the soul; to eternal bliss, the hope of which at the end of our way, should make all the difficulties of the road easy to us.

      Fred posted: As with Paul’s thorn, we will face difficulties and endless opportunities and temptations to fail the Word of God and each person will fail according to his or her spiritual strength but each person also repents and rededicates their life to live according to scripture. It is a temporary condition, not a permanent one of living in Sin and enabling others to live in Sin. If we are trues Christians, these trials and tribulations will be easy to avoid for us and easy for us to help others to avoid those same trials and tribulations.

      David posted: This plain declaration of Christ has been disregarded by many who have taken pains to explain it away; but in all ages the real disciple of Christ has been looked on as a singular, unfashionable character; and all that have sided with the greater number, have gone on in the broad road to destruction. If we would serve God, we must be firm in our religion. Can we often hear of the strait gate and the narrow way, and how few there are that find it, without being in pain for ourselves, or considering whether we are entered on the narrow way, and what progress we are making in it?

      Fred posted: The first sentence in this paragraph is illuminating for many of the homosexual advocates on this list. If you think homosexuality is now moral then just say so. I believe enabling a child to take that path without counseling is leading him on the road to destruction. Character is what its all about and we all have varying beliefs about what constitutes character but a young man should be of the highest character to be an Eagle Scout, not just any kid that does the work. Its not a merit badge or service project.

      People make a choice for going to Heaven or Hell if you are a Christian. if you are not, this scripture means nothing to you except the Golden rule which we should have all learned as children. In my opinion, many believe they are Christians on this list and can live and Sin and enable and accommodate homosexual children to live in Sin and be Christians. “Suffer not the little children to come to me” would differ with you as your are preventing them from hearing the Word and choosing the right path. “Good” people don’t get a pass on being obedient to scripture.

      That is not BSA’s mission as they have clearly pointed out. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. That was changed in may to accept homosexual, transgender, bisexual and lesbian behavior as moral. They must to adhere to the mission statement. I include lesbian because I am sure no lesbian will be denied membership in a Venture Crew under the new policy. Some of you may be accepting lesbians now. I am deducing from the vigorous defense by those of you on the Pro-policy side that you are in complete agreement with this statement. Just say you support these and get on with it so those who are unclear know where BSA is being taken.

      BSA National at best wanted it both ways. A Christian leader will not be able to counsel a young man (or woman even if asked on their sexual orientation. If by chance they become a practicing homosexual in Scouting but hide it which has been stated to be acceptable behavior they can get their Eagle and the rolls will swell they hope with new boys (and girls 14 and over) ad the numbers and money will be good. That Scout begins openly expressing his sexuality by bringing his partner to his Eagle ceremony. BSA holds it in and waits until 18 and the unacceptable behavior is gone. I don’t think anyone believes that model will las longer than a year or so until it the new more progressive Scouts and adults scream bloody murder at the injustice of it all.

Join the conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s