Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Boy Scouts propose pissing off everyone

Timothy Kincaid

April 19th, 2013

20130419-094032.jpg

There is something blind, something ignorant, something truly clueless in the way that some people approach crisis management.

Confronted with two opposing viewpoints, two cultures at war, they seek to mediate, to find a solution that is workable for all sides. That isn’t a bad approach; but you have to look at the underlying issues, the core concerns. And those who ‘just want it to all go away’ can often focus on negotiating the details, thinking this will resolve the issue.

It doesn’t.

A compromise that doesn’t address the base issues is unacceptable to both sides. “When you hit those you see as your enemy, you may only use sticks, not clubs” is a solution that makes happy neither the club wielders or those being beaten.

And yet that is the new “solution” to the problem that the Boy Scouts of America are proposing to their dilemma over gay scouts. ABC

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

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

This foolish proposal will likely please no one. Because it fails to recognize the issues at hand.

Conservative churches who host scout troops are primarily concerned that their teachings on morality will be undermined by the programs they sponsor. They do not want to be affiliated with an organization which expresses that a gay identity is a morally acceptable way to see oneself. So the Scouts saying that they welcome gay youth into the local scout troop is unlikely to please those who most object to policy change.

On the other hand, the proposed policy presumes that gay adults are predatory and a threat to youth. To those who believe that sexual orientation is merely an attribute of one’s being, such a message is more offensive than an outright ban. It concedes the morality issue and pivots to one of fear, stereotype, and bigotry. Gay groups and liberal churches can’t help but be horrified at the implication.

And to the youth in the Scouts, it’s particularly toxic. The message is now that you can be tolerated because you are young. But some day you will become a vile and horrible threat to those around you. And when you do, you will be shunned and feared and banished. The Scouts may be for life for other, but not for you.

This is an in working, untenable position.

The previous proposal – that each troop chose whether to welcome gay scouts and leaders – was not ideal. But it did recognize the problem and find a way to respect the concerns of both sides.

I would favor a policy that lets each troop decide locally but which demands that all troops respect the position and decision of each other when they come together. This is an approach that has worked well in a number of religious organization who are not in unity in the issue of pastoral care or marriage.

But I predict that this absurd accepting of gay youth until their 18th birthday will make no one happy. No one except those who foolishly think that this decision will ‘just make it all go away.’

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy-

You said:

“I would favor a policy that lets each troop decide locally but which demands that all troops respect the position and decision of each other when they come together.”

Can you please explain how allowing some troops to take gay boys and some troops rejsect gay boys is better than all troops accept gay people but limit the adult supervisors?

If we really want to protect young gay boys, and open scouting to them, how does a “states rights” approach do that? It does not.

If opening scouts to gay boys is the goal, then the compromise is the best all the way around. The kids get to join and participate. And then in the future, maybe they will address and alter the adult supervisor portion of their rules.

Acceptance for ALL of the boys is far more important than some adults being left out, at least at this time.

Your “states rights” approach will leave hundreds or thousands of gay boys out of the picture. Better to move incrementally on this issues as it allows boys access, not just some boys, but all gay boys.

Are you going to be the person to tell some gay boys they don’t get to join because gay men can’t be scout leaders?

Priya Lynn
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

“A compromise that doesn’t address the base issues is unacceptable to both sides. “When you hit those you see as your enemy, you may only use sticks, not clubs” is not a solution that makes happy neither the club wielders or those being beaten.”.

I’m pretty sure those being beaten prefer it be done with sticks rather than with clubs.

And I agree with Robert’s comment.

Jim Hlavac
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

As a gay guy who was out as a teen, and a Boy Scout, whose father, brothers, cousins, uncles and grandfather were all in the troop — and all knowing I was a well, a sissy — I find the whole thing strange — for it is really the refusal to recognize reality — there are gay Boy Scouts. And in the 1970s I was one. And everyone knew. Which is part and parcel of this whole argument nationwide — those against us argue some amorphous “homosexuals” and we as gay men don’t fit the mold. Then they are perplexed, and we go to round two, or three, or whatever round in the fight we’re up to.

Sandhorse
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Robert,

I think Timothy is referring to the original solution that BSA put forth a month or so ago.

That each troop would be allowed to decide for themselves what non-discriminatory avenue they would take.

Those avenues being (at that time):

1) Full non-discrimination

2) Full discrimination

The ‘gay youth’ proposal is entirely independent of the previous proposal.

So I don’t think any of us would be ok with ‘intermittent’ discrimination of youth.

Unless I am reading somebody wrong.

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Sandhorse,

I prefer to take Timothy at his word, and he wrote this:

“I would favor a policy that lets each troop decide locally but which demands that all troops respect the position and decision of each other when they come together.”

Which does not exactly square with your take on it. He said explicitly that he would prefer a troop by troop choice on the matter. That is exactly the same as a “states rights” approach. His approach means a kid in one city of Texas can join, but a kid on the other side of the city can’t join his local group. That isn’t acceptting all gay kids, it’s selective choice. What happens to the por gay boy in a very religous area? He doesn’t get to join.

Because to not accept this means we don’t really care about the kids being able to join, but the adults who might not get to be Scout Master. I say let the kids join, and deal with the adult participation later after the hub bub has blown over.

Priya Lynn-

Thanks for the agreement.

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Sandhorse-

Timothy also stated outright:

“The previous proposal – that each troop chose whether to welcome gay scouts and leaders – was not ideal. But it did recognize the problem and find a way to respect the concerns of both sides.”

He finds that a better alternative to a rule allowing ALL gay boys everywhere be allowed in, with only a ban on adults participating. This makes no logical sense. It’s saying it’s okay to discriminate against these kids in this area, and not those kids in that area, because your community is accepting and your community is discriminatory. Pretty messed up view in my opinion.

ALL gay kids should be able to join, not just the ones in areas that “aprove”. This is a better compromise than what Timothy promotes.

(I still wish we had an edit feature on the site, it would mean far less posts if one forgets a point…hint hint hint) lol

Cass
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

I agree with Timothy, because this is distressing for me: “The message is now that you can be tolerated because you are young. But some day you will become a vile and horrible threat to those around you. And when you do, you will be shunned and feared and banished. The Scouts may be for life for other, but not for you.”

And:
“The proposed policy presumes that gay adults are predatory and a threat to youth.”

Why do the Boy Scouts ban gay adults if they do not think gay men are child molesters? Any idea? (serious question, no sarcasm)

Kathy
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Cass, one reason they ban gay adults is to pacify the Roman and LDS churches. They sponsor lots of troops and they’ll drop the BSA if they open up to gay men and lesbians. I imagine they’ll even quit if they actually accept gay Scouts. So I’m surprised they are even taking this baby step.

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Cass-

They made a huge compromise, from their view. Is it perfect as it is laid out? NO. Is it better to allow boys to join and participate now? YES.

There used to be a day that we accepted the compromises, and then worked to change the parts we didn’t care for. Refusal to accept this compromise would keep a lot of gay kids out of the scouts. We can work on the adult participation aspects once the kids have a right to join.

You, and Timothy would appear to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is not perfect, but it’s a huge step forward for gay kids everywhere, not just gay kids in gay friendly areas.

This “ALL OR NOTHING” sentiment is quite disturbing.

Hunter
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

I’m in agreement with Timothy on this one — this new policy proposal is a step backward, as far as I see it. It perpetuates a particularly vicious lie about adult gay men in a manner worthy of Tony Perkins, and that necessarily makes every gay boy or youth accepted for membership a “temp” — they’re essentially being told that they’re not good enough for the Boy Scouts once they grow up — they’re on permanent probation.

The “state’s rights” approach has its faults — sure, we’d all like to see a blanket policy of full acceptance, but that’s not going to happen right now — but it offers the possibility of peer pressure from those groups that do accept gay Scouts and leaders. It might very well also provide a little bit of a “marketplace” for potential Scouts. Just from the way things are going in this country, I’d offer the suggestion that given a choice, a lot of potential Scouts would opt for an inclusive troop.

Priya Lynn
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

“There used to be a day that we accepted the compromises, and then worked to change the parts we didn’t care for.”.

That’s the best approach.

Andrew
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Honestly, I can tell you what the issue is, and it’s an unfortunate truth.

There are ignorant parents who are convinced that their children will either be unduly influenced, or outright molested, by gay leadership, and Scouting is desperately trying to protect their bottom line. At this point, the majority of Scouting families tend more toward the conservative end of the spectrum – if that weren’t already true, 15 years of highlighting their discriminatory policies has made it more so. Thus, they risk seeing a massive flight of parents from the organization because these are the very conservative people who aren’t getting the message that gays aren’t necessarily pedophiles and that gayness isn’t taught, and who aren’t really open to that message.

At the end of the day, Scouting is a business, and they have huge dollars at stake. They are extremely mindful of this reality, and it’s one of the tensions that is keeping them from doing what they know is right.

If you’re faced with the decision of doing what’s right and overseeing the bankruptcy of your organization because of the narrowmindedness of a large proportion of your customers, or hedging and trying to squirm into some position that at least takes some of the worst of the publicity off (and nothing is more sympathetic than a 16 year old lad who has done everything asked to become an Eagle, and who is a virgin, but who intends to date boys).

The smarter approach would be to say “we are enacting a policy of stringent background checks, and we have a suite of policies designed to ensure that Scouts and Scoutleaders are safe, but, frankly, we don’t care about your orientation – just about whether you do things you shouldn’t… oh, and by the way, that’s going to include substance abuse, criminal background checks, domestic violence, DUIs, or membership in radical organizations, etc.”

Because, and here’s what’s fun, I’m not sure there’s anything preventing you from having a DUI and beating your wife and being a Scoutmaster, and I am absolutely certain they don’t do any form of drug screening, and I personally knew a Scoutmaster who was a member of the John Birch Society – and somehow that’s all just peachy.

Cass
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Robert: “You, and Timothy would appear to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is not perfect, but it’s a huge step forward for gay kids everywhere, not just gay kids in gay friendly areas.
This “ALL OR NOTHING” sentiment is quite disturbing.”

I am really sorry for the confusion. I agree “all or nothing” sentiment is horrible and I dont agree with this sentiment. My point is that poor gay boy gets the impression that some day he will become despicable and dangerous person. Possibility being in Boy Scouts is great but this message by Boy Scouts is depressive.

Timothy Kincaid
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Nothing in my commentary demands an all or nothing approach.

Hyhybt
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Great article.

Moving from “this is immoral” to “this is a danger to your children” is far worse than letting different groups decide when to move from “this is immoral” to “this is irrelevant.”

Argo
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

For the sake of those boys in small towns and areas where there is only one troop to choose from, this forced integration is the better compromise. Yes, in an ideal world gay boys would have supportive parents/families who would let them join the queers’ troop across town, but that’s not today’s reality.
I believe that these gay Scouts will see the boldface hypocrisy that disallows gay Scouters for what it is (and grow all the stronger for it). And as months go on and the BSA sees itself evicting some of its own best and brightest young leaders just because they’ve turned 18, this compromise will be revisited.

Sandhorse
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

I think the premise of each troop deciding for itself is the best approach. That is, allow gay scouts AND leaders, or not. We have to keep in mind that this is still a private organization; with, for better or for worse, the full right to discriminate. The fact they are even considering opening the organization to gays is a huge step. This of course is due to the recent financial pressure from losing contributors with non-discrimination policies.

Letting each troop decide on its own allows for the most flexibility and choice for all involved; from troops to individual scouts and their families.

Is this the perfect solution? No, but there IS no ‘perfect solution’.

Another benefit to this strategy is that it allows for examples to be made regarding integration of gays into the scouts. Troops presently against integration would get to see how integration is truly a non-issue. Between that and the eventual and obvious disparity in funded troops, more discretionary troops will become inclusive.

Those that want to throw the proverbial frog into the boiling water; good luck with that. They are not only dooming gay children and leaders to a longer wait; they are also risking the opportunities for children of less then supportive parents.

Which children are the most important? I tend to think they all deserve a chance to be a part of the scouts.

Priya Lynn
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

I think its pretty clear far fewer gays will be discriminated against by this proposal than would be if each troup was allowed to set their own policy. By that standard this is the better policy.

Sandhorse
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

I agree a blanket approach would be the best policy. However, the collateral damage from its implementation would be severe.

Ryan
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

@Robert, you appear to be easily disturbed.

Tell me, “we no longer think being gay is morally incompatible with being a Scout, but gay adults are just too dangerous to be left alone with children” an improvement over the current policy?
Do you realize this policy means lifelong Eagle Scouts will be stripped of memberships on their 18th birthday and declared unfit to lead? This is not a “compromise”. This is a travesty.

A compromise is what Timothy suggested and what most of us thought the BSA were going to do, the “state’s rights’ version. That idea is definitely far from ideal, but it does allow actual states like California to decide which troops they’ll give tax breaks and rent breaks on public spaces to and which they won’t. There’s no pressure like economic pressure.

Priya Lynn
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

“I agree a blanket approach would be the best policy. However, the collateral damage from its implementation would be severe.”.

A policy that greatly reduces discrimination would have collateral damage? That’s nonsense, it could only be an improvement.

In situations like this you have to ask yourself which action benefits the most people? The clear choice is a policy that allows gay scouts while banning gay scout leaders. Letting each troop set its own policy will result in far greater numbers of gays being discriminated against and its a lot more devastating for a child to be told their not acceptable because they’re gay than it is for an adult to be told the same thing. Adults are better equipped to handle unjust rejection than children who may be scarred for life.

Further, if each troop sets its own policy there’s going to be large swaths of conservative U.S. where gay scouts are not allowed and all those bigots in their own echo chamber aren’t going to change their anti-gay policy for a very long time. If each troop has to allow gay scouts it gets the bigots used to equality far, far quicker because they are exposed to it and can see its not a problem.

Argo
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Saying that every troop must accept gay Scouts now (even those in rural Utah that are sponsored by the LDS) is a better immediate step than a system of “separate but equal”.

And as an intermediate step, this proposal allows more gay Scouts to serve as junior leaders openly, making the next step easier (if not self-evident).

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Ryan, yes, I think this policy is better than the last, and nowhere do they state they will strip scouts of their membership at age 18. They simply won’t allow adults to be scout leaders. I think inclusion of all children, which IS what scouts are for, is beeter than just the voluntary inclusion of gay kids into the scouts here and there.

I believe taking this advancement for the children, and then working on the issue of adults and scout leaders once this is settled. Accepting this option, rather than the one that will leave out a lot of gay kids, is better now than letting the policy stand as it is. We have NO assurance that if this policy is rejected that a better offer will be put forth.

A lot of people seem willing to let some kids suffer, because of the exclusion of adults.

And I saw NO proposal that included gay adults being allowed to be leaders, not even in the last proposal. If I;m wrong, someone please provide proof to the contrary.

And I take great caution when the argument put forth by LGBT Rights activists mirrors the logic of Tony Perkins:

“The policy is incoherent,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 — then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.”

I’m so glad some of you can see eye to eye with Tony Perkins. Must be lovely.

Robert
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

AND, as I stated many times, I don’t care for this policy having exclusions, but half is better than none, especially if getting half will eventually lead to getting it all. Which, most likely it will.

Which one of YOU wants to tell the gay kid down the street that he can’t join the boy scouts because even though they offered to allow them to join, YOU said no, because you got left out.

Take what you can get and then move the ball forward.

matt
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

Fortunately, there’s another answer to the issue that may be getting overlooked.

There are several other “scouting” groups that aren’t affiliated with BSA that are much more tolerant and open-minded. One of these is called Navigators USA. It was started around 2003 or so in response to BSA’s discriminatory practices. It’s open to youths of all backgrounds, including glbt youths, and is co-ed (and also allows glbt leaders). There are about 40 or 50 chapters across the country (I’m a leader for a recently-chartered chapter in Palatine IL)- a small but growing movement at this point. Navigators may not have the prestige and “window-dressing” that the Boy Scouts do, but it does teach the fundamental values of scouting while being a much more welcoming environment.

Marcus
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

@matt: You mention “glbt.” Is the Boy Scouts anti-trans, too?

MCB
April 19th, 2013 | LINK

As somebody whose church adopted the kind of policy Tim supports (the ELCA), let me give you an idea of how that policy plays out:
The pro-equality faction, while not thrilled, is generally okay with the decision, because they firmly believe that once people start seeing that things are just fine in the inclusive troops/churches, they’ll change their minds.

Meanwhile, the extreme anti-equality faction decides that they can’t be a member of an organization when some of their contributions might wind up going to other troops/churches that “support sin.” So they schism off to make their own organization.

All that’s left of the original organization are the pro-equality supporters and people who might not be ready to throw their support behind full equality, but don’t feel strongly enough against it to want to break away.

Now, that works in the ELCA, because it turned out that the hardline anti-equality faction was relatively small, and most churches were willing to accept the compromise. It’s been tough, but we’re weathering the schism.

I don’t think that would happen in the Boy Scouts – not when the LDS basically uses them as its youth program. The Boy Scouts are terrified that their membership would be absolutely gutted by a schism.

So hey, they think, why not just let boys join even if they’re gay? They’ll still be getting a constant anti-quality message from the explicit message that when they grow up, they’ll be pedophiles (the announcement literally said that the decision to not allow adult gay leaders was to “protect children”), nor would any troop that was anti-equality make life easy for them. You get to be anti-equality under the veneer of equality!

Really, at some point the pro-equality troops need to be the ones to get sick of this baloney. Barring a sudden revelation to the Prophet/President in Salt Lake City, the Boy Scouts aren’t likely to change any time in the near future.

Matt
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Marcus- I can’t recall any specific anti-trans stories from the boy scouts, but I would imagine they would object just as much to transgendered scouts or leaders as they would to gay or lesbian ones.

Cass
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

No one answered my question(except Kathy, thank you) “Why do the Boy Scouts ban gay adults if they do not think gay men are child molesters?” They consulted this issue with experts and despite the experts telling them there’s no correlation they’ve decided to keep gay adults out anyway.

BSA Executive sumary of Study Findings:

“Youth safety and role modeling are two of the biggest concerns mentioned by members who oppose a change in the policy. In addressing issues related to youth protection for the membership standards study, the Boy Scouts of America tasked its director of Youth Protection, Michael V. Johnson, to consult with leading experts in the field of youth protection and child sexual abuse prevention that the BSA has consulted in the past in formulating the BSA’s Youth Protection policies and curriculum:

David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
W. Walter Menninger, M.D., psychiatry
Charol Shakeshaft, Ph.D.
Victor Vieth, J.D.

All four experts were consistent in their findings and recommendations, including:

“The nearly universal opinion among sexual abuse authorities is that same-sex sexual interest or same-sex sexual experience, either in adults or youth, is NOT a risk factor for sexually abusing children.”

In regard to role modeling: “Most of the research on the effect on children of associating with self-idetified homosexual adults has been done about homosexual parents. The clear conclusion from this research is that there appear to be no effects on children’s adjustment, mental health or sexual orientation.”

Cass
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Robert: “And I take great caution when the argument put forth by LGBT Rights activists mirrors the logic of Tony Perkins:“The policy is incoherent,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 — then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.”

Well, BSA documents clearly state that gay scouts will not be able to continue as leaders once they reach adulthood.
“What will you do when a youth member becomes an adult?
When members are no longer a youth participant, they must meet the requirements of our adult standards”

I dont agree with “all or nothing”, but
I am just concerned about the message Boy Scouts are sending to gay children. “We’ll tolerate you as a kid but when you are an adult you are not to be trusted with kids.”

Zeldamina
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Interpretation: “Maybe if they aren’t getting the image of a bunch of rejected kids, and we just make sure the environment these kids are in is prohibitively unfriendly to a fundamental aspect of their identities without, like, actually formally barring those kids from membership, our sponsors will stop pulling the plug on us and let us carry on being the bigoted organization we always were.”

This policy is a dog whistle. They are doubling down on the homophobia while trying to get away with it in the public eye.

chiMaxx
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

The only advantage of this proposal over the previous one–the one that Timothy prefers–is that this one is less likely to hold for the long term. The “states rights” troop-by-troop approach could sustain itself for decades (hey, who wants to take away troops’ rights to self-determination as a group?). But this approach won’t last more than a decade. When there is not just one but a dozen or more charismatic, beloved, accomplished openly and proudly gay Eagle scouts who have to be turned away from leadership at the troops where they grew up, this rule will fold.

Ben in Oakland
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

To me, there’s a very obvious reason why they are proposing this policy, quite apart from the obvious obvious reason of still going along with the idea that gay men are molesters.

The number of kids who are going to come out in their early teens would probably be minuscule compared to the number of adults who will be available for scouting.

All they’re doing is kicking the problem down the road for quite a while while not stirring up the people who provide money and new scouts.

Richard Rush
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Could there be a dirty little secret that the BSA hasn’t revealed yet about the new policy? Maybe some of the sponsoring churches had an epiphany whereby they realized they could exploit a captive audience for some ex-gay ministry. And then the BSA could award Merit Badges for “successful” completion of an ex-gay program – which conveniently provides a way to allow a “formerly” gay boy’s transition from scout to leader. So, only those boys who choose to remain gay after turning age eighteen would be thrown out.

Charles
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

I would recommend anyone to avoid posting on HotAir about this subject or any other gay related subject on that website. It does no good to attempt to discuss this issue the posters on that site.

StraightGrandmother
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

This is the best paragraph so far,

“In situations like this you have to ask yourself which action benefits the most people? The clear choice is a policy that allows gay scouts while banning gay scout leaders. Letting each troop set its own policy will result in far greater numbers of gays being discriminated against and its a lot more devastating for a child to be told their not acceptable because they’re gay than it is for an adult to be told the same thing. Adults are better equipped to handle unjust rejection than children who may be scarred for life.”

Besides I predict what will happen is if the current proposal goes into effect that those boys who were loved in their troops and become Eagle Scouts, I think the Troops will change. After all they know the boy, or now young man, they know his character, these Gay Eagle Scouts will be a fine example and basically what will happen is that the young men Eagle Scouts will change hearts and minds.

They will be out and proud and like every other part of society when sexual minorities are out among their families, neighbors, and co-workers minds and hearts change. The change will come because of the change that happened today.

Priya Lynn
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Thanks Straightgrandmother and you made a great additional point.

Nathaniel
April 23rd, 2013 | LINK

I’m inclined to agree with Ben. There’s a lot of worry, under the “troop’s choice” proposal about boys in rural areas with only one, anti-gay troop. However, I seriously doubt teens in such areas are likely to come out under any conditions. When you are dependent on a homophobic community and family for your very existence, your survival could depend on staying closeted. I did not even consider the possibility of my being gay until adulthood. Therefore, with the current proposal, I don’t see much substantive change (except gay scouts serving more openly in accepting areas and troops). Indeed, the statement posted says nothing of forcing troops to accept gay scouts; wording of the “troop’s choice” option could similarly claim to “lift the ban” – i.e. they ban is no longer in force at the national level. Even if “lifting the ban” is meant as a “all troops must be willing to accept gay scouts,” there is no guarantee of compliance. So, now you can get accepting troops, banning troops, and troops that appear accepting under the pretense of ‘saving’ those poor gay children, none of which are permitted to have gay adult leaders (which, could itself have significant repercussions when one considers that many leaders at the troop level are committed parents, meaning gay families in otherwise accepting areas will continue to face stigmatization, along with single adults).

cowboy
April 25th, 2013 | LINK

Mormon church endorses Scout plan: let gay boys join, keep out gay leaders

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56217708-78/bsa-church-gay-leaders.html.csp

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.