Boy Scouts approve measure to allow openly gay youth

[YouAreTheFocus]

I was truly surprised was I saw this in the news (in a good way!). Beginning January 1st, "No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone." However, the ban remains in effect for adults involved with BSA.

NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/boy-scouts-to-admit-openly-gay-youths-as-members.html?_r=0

[ellies mom]

Well, it is a great start.

[maydaymommy]

Very positive step!

[anonomom]

I know I'm going to sound snarky, but ring-a-ding-ding. Children are allowed to be gay. Once they're adults, they're still subject to discrimination regardless of how they've served the organization in the past.

I'm puzzled as to why they'd take a "worst of both worlds" approach -- lift the ban enough to outrage some subset of conservatives, but leave significant discrimination in place so that people like me are dissatisfied. I still won't let DS join a discriminatory organization, even if they're not as horrible as they were yesterday.

[crl]

I know I'm going to sound snarky, but ring-a-ding-ding. Children are allowed to be gay. Once they're adults, they're still subject to discrimination regardless of how they've served the organization in the past.

I'm puzzled as to why they'd take a "worst of both worlds" approach -- lift the ban enough to outrage some subset of conservatives, but leave significant discrimination in place so that people like me are dissatisfied. I still won't let DS join a discriminatory organization, even if they're not as horrible as they were yesterday.

This pretty much captures my feelings.

Catherine

[Philly Mom]

I know I'm going to sound snarky, but ring-a-ding-ding. Children are allowed to be gay. Once they're adults, they're still subject to discrimination regardless of how they've served the organization in the past.

I'm puzzled as to why they'd take a "worst of both worlds" approach -- lift the ban enough to outrage some subset of conservatives, but leave significant discrimination in place so that people like me are dissatisfied. I still won't let DS join a discriminatory organization, even if they're not as horrible as they were yesterday.

Well stated.

[wellyes]

They didn't know how it would go. What they learned is that MOST families want to get rid of the discrimination. I predict the ban on gay scout leaders, which is incredibly offensive, will be lifted in the next 2-3 years. Glory halleluiah.

DH is an Eagle Scout, it was very important to him, so I'm glad it looks like we may be able to send our son to scouts.

[sntm]

I agree that it isn't enough but it's a very good start. Ds1 is in scouts because xh is an eagle scout and now I don't feel as awful about it, though I still won't buy their popcorn

[ssand23]

I still won't let DS join a discriminatory organization, even if they're not as horrible as they were yesterday.

I agree. I wish my son could just join the girl scouts like his sisters. :love-retry: He's still a little guy so I'm holding out hope the Boy Scouts will drop the discrimination by the time my son is school age to join.

[larig]

They didn't know how it would go. What they learned is that MOST families want to get rid of the discrimination. I predict the ban on gay scout leaders, which is incredibly offensive, will be lifted in the next 2-3 years. Glory halleluiah.

DH is an Eagle Scout, it was very important to him, so I'm glad it looks like we may be able to send our son to scouts.

:yeahthat: (DH is an Eagle too, and ditto on the DS to scouts, although I'm not sure still). I'm pleased they're making steps in the right direction.

[katydid1971]

DS is a scout because it has been very good for him socially and he has some problems socially.
I agree the new rule is not enough but it's a start and I think there needs to be people on the inside who want the changes if they are going to happen.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

The news is a bit better for Boy Scouts in Connecticut.

http://www.ctyankee.org/news/news

"Scouting in the Connecticut Yankee Council is open to all youth and adults who subscribe to the values of the Scout Oath and Law regardless of their personal sexual orientation. All our Scouts and leaders must display the highest levels of good conduct and any sexual conduct within Scouting is unacceptable. Our charter partners retain the responsibility to select the best possible leadership for their units consistent with their moral values.

Our Scouts and leaders repeatedly pledge to respect all people and defend the rights of others. Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination of any form are unacceptable within our membership. "

[queenmama]

I don't understand why it's okay for boys but not leaders. The only logic I can apply to their reasoning is that they're worried about leaders messing around with boys, which is patently ridiculous because (a) if a boy is young and a man assaults him it is because he is a pedophile, not because he is gay (we all know this; pedos aren't attracted to other men), and (b) there is a "two deep" rule for leaders being with boys so I can't fathom how such assault would occur anyway. DH isn't even allowed in DS' tent on campouts, for Pete's sake!

I'm glad they're making progress. It's a start.


Lara

[citymama]

Step in the right direction, definitely. Agree with anonomom. And I hope you're right, and they'll see the light before too long on Scout leaders as well.

[Mikey0709]

My son has been a scout for the past 2 years and I have to say its been the best experience for him.

My husband is also an Eagle Scout, and about 8 years ago it came out in the news that a leader he had for quite a few years (1980's)was arrested for pedophia, child porn, abuse). He said even as a kid he knew something was up with the guy and even told his mom back then.

That didnt scare my husband and he still talks of wanting the same experiences he got from scouts for our boys. We will still participate because of the "family" aspect in our pack. My husband and I are active members and always plan to be.

I'm glad to see the positive change.

[ladysoapmaker]

As a parent of two boys who are in Boy Scouts (DS#1 has one more rank before his Eagle project), I am very happy they are starting to change their policy. I do wish it would go further however I know there are some hardliners in the upper echelons and so this will take time. I also know for all that for how open the boys' troop is we will still lose a few scouts. I'm disappointed in those scouts and families in that they can't see past their own fear and hatred to not discriminate.

I use to be asked why we would let our boys in such an organization that allowed such discrimination and my reply always was, "You can change something from the inside better then you can from the outside."

I hope my family can help continue this positive trend of openness in the Boy Scouts of America.

Jen

[mommylamb]

I don't understand why it's okay for boys but not leaders. The only logic I can apply to their reasoning is that they're worried about leaders messing around with boys, which is patently ridiculous because (a) if a boy is young and a man assaults him it is because he is a pedophile, not because he is gay (we all know this; pedos aren't attracted to other men), and (b) there is a "two deep" rule for leaders being with boys so I can't fathom how such assault would occur anyway. DH isn't even allowed in DS' tent on campouts, for Pete's sake!

I'm glad they're making progress. It's a start.


Lara
:yeahthat: I think the fact that they lifted this for kids, but not adults suggests that they are perpetuating the terrible misconception that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. While this might be a step in the right direction, it isn't nearly enough to get me to consider boy scouts for my DSs. Of course, as an agnostic, the organization's homophobia isn't the only thing I object to, so it would take a whole sea change for me to support them.

[brittone2]

:yeahthat: I think the fact that they lifted this for kids, but not adults suggests that they are perpetuating the terrible misconception that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. While this might be a step in the right direction, it isn't nearly enough to get me to consider boy scouts for my DSs. Of course, as an agnostic, the organization's homophobia isn't the only thing I object to, so it would take a whole sea change for me to support them.
Agree. I am having trouble feeling like this is "enough" to have us agree to DS1 joining. My major concern is that there continues to be the suggestion that gay=pedophile, and that gay leaders are going to corrupt the morals of youth. I can't stand by that POV or view this as progress, unfortunately.

The suggestion that gay people are morally corrupt or pedophiles makes my blood boil to be honest, particularly in light of BSA sitting on all that data they had (aka the "perversion files") about suspected pedophiles for years! How many of those in authority should have been mandated reporters? How many of those suspected of molesting boys were in hetero relationships?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/01/boy-scouts-to-report-pedophiles-missed-previously/1605653/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/08/local/la-me-boy-scouts-release-20121009

The hypocrisy on morals here is just more than I can bear.

[Gracemom]

I was wonderfully hopeful when I heard the news yesterday. We are heavily involved in girl scouts, and my son wants to start boy scouts next year. Now we are going to be supportive of it, but of course we still want more change.

I am very sad about the local discussions I have heard about the change. A poll on the local news station said only 25% of people are in favor of allowing homosexual boys in the boy scouts, and 75% were against. A good friend of mine who is involved in boy scouts said she did not want to see gay leaders. She made a joke about them teaching the boys to be flamboyant. WTF???!???

[arivecchi]

I think the fact that they lifted this for kids, but not adults suggests that they are perpetuating the terrible misconception that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. While this might be a step in the right direction, it isn't nearly enough to get me to consider boy scouts for my DSs. Of course, as an agnostic, the organization's homophobia isn't the only thing I object to, so it would take a whole sea change for me to support them.:yeahthat:

We'll pass.

[123LuckyMom]

I know I'm going to sound snarky, but ring-a-ding-ding. Children are allowed to be gay. Once they're adults, they're still subject to discrimination regardless of how they've served the organization in the past.

I'm puzzled as to why they'd take a "worst of both worlds" approach -- lift the ban enough to outrage some subset of conservatives, but leave significant discrimination in place so that people like me are dissatisfied. I still won't let DS join a discriminatory organization, even if they're not as horrible as they were yesterday.

This captures it exactly for me. IMO, what made scouting so great was their focus on morals and character as well as scouting skills. As far as I'm concerned they still fail to teach or embody the values I want my son to have. I hope they will see the error of their ways sooner rather than later. I would really like my son to have the scouting experience. He's such an outdoorsy kid, I think he would love it!

[brittone2]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/17/local/la-me-scouts-patterns-20121017

I'm asking this in all seriousness because I am not involved in scouts currently.

From the LA Times piece above, it says: at least 47% of the men expelled from the Scouts for suspected abuse were single, and at least the same portion did not have a child in the program. Those numbers could both be higher, because in many files this information was not recorded.

Are single parents currently allowed to lead? Are non-parents permitted to be leaders?

[o_mom]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/17/local/la-me-scouts-patterns-20121017

I'm asking this in all seriousness because I am not involved in scouts currently.

From the LA Times piece above, it says at least 47% of the men expelled from the Scouts for suspected abuse were single, and at least the same portion did not have a child in the program. Those numbers could both be higher, because in many files this information was not recorded.

Are single parents currently allowed to lead? Are non-parents permitted to be leaders?


I'm not familiar with how Boy Scouts vs. Cub Scouts is. In cub scouts, typically it is a parent who is a den leader and also the Cubmaster position is a parent. We do have a pack head person (not sure the title) who is not a parent, but appointed by the council. They are more of a coordinator, though, and while at some events, not all and not usually working directly with the boys. That person leads the leaders and provides continuity from year to year, oversees finances, interacts with the district council, etc. Our person in that position actually runs 2 cub scout packs and one boy scout troop - it may be a paid position, not 100% on that.

However, our pack is chartered through a public school and the school is not really involved beyond providing space. I think some that are chartered through churches, etc. put church leaders in some of the positions, so more likely that they would not always have a child in the pack.

[brittone2]

I'm not familiar with how Boy Scouts vs. Cub Scouts is. In cub scouts, typically it is a parent who is a den leader and also the Cubmaster position is a parent. We do have a pack head person (not sure the title) who is not a parent, but appointed by the council. They are more of a coordinator, though, and while at some events, not all and not usually working directly with the boys. That person leads the leaders and provides continuity from year to year, oversees finances, interacts with the district council, etc. Our person in that position actually runs 2 cub scout packs and one boy scout troop - it may be a paid position, not 100% on that.

However, our pack is chartered through a public school and the school is not really involved beyond providing space. I think some that are chartered through churches, etc. put church leaders in some of the positions, so more likely that they would not always have a child in the pack.

Thank you, Omom. I was curious if they had ever established a formal policy after looking at their own files.

[hellokitty]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/17/local/la-me-scouts-patterns-20121017

I'm asking this in all seriousness because I am not involved in scouts currently.

From the LA Times piece above, it says at least 47% of the men expelled from the Scouts for suspected abuse were single, and at least the same portion did not have a child in the program. Those numbers could both be higher, because in many files this information was not recorded.

Are single parents currently allowed to lead? Are non-parents permitted to be leaders?

There are men without kids involved in scouts at all levels. Like I remember a few men in their 20's helping out with daycamp and they were really gung ho scouts to begin with, so just thought that they were giving back to the organization. Out pack leader for several yrs was a woman, but her husband is heavily involved on our regional BSA and i can see this couple continuing to be involved, even after their children are grown. She is also a girl scout leader, so the family is just very involved in scouts. I see many whose kids are grown up, but are still involved in the organization, usually in a higher level position.

[jenstring95]

I don't understand why it's okay for boys but not leaders. The only logic I can apply to their reasoning is that they're worried about leaders messing around with boys, which is patently ridiculous because (a) if a boy is young and a man assaults him it is because he is a pedophile, not because he is gay (we all know this; pedos aren't attracted to other men), and (b) there is a "two deep" rule for leaders being with boys so I can't fathom how such assault would occur anyway. DH isn't even allowed in DS' tent on campouts, for Pete's sake!

I'm glad they're making progress. It's a start.


Lara

Agreed. I pretty much think if they won't allow gay male leaders then they shouldn't allow straight women leaders either. Same idea, right? However, even though I have never agreed with BSA policy on gays, we chose to put our son in. His friends joined, and I didn't want to have a discussion with him about why I didn't want him to join. In my opinion, BSA is forcing a discussion on sex and sexual preference before it is necessary. I don't mind answering any questions that my 7yo has, but he is not in a place where he is asking yet, and I don't feel like I should have to have a discussion about sex when sex isn't (and obviously shouldn't be) relative to the activities and purposes of letting boys enjoy being boys. However, if the policy excluding gay leaders is unchanged by the time he can understand the intricacies of it, I hope he chooses to leave scouts on his own.

[wellyes]

I assume some of the single male scout leaders are guys in their 20s who graduated through the Eagle Scout program and are giving back to the community. It's not necessarily a creepy or bad thing for a man to be involved without kids.

[brittone2]

I assume some of the single male scout leaders are guys in their 20s who graduated through the Eagle Scout program and are giving back to the community. It's not necessarily a creepy or bad thing for a man to be involved without kids.
I'm not sure if you are responding to my statement. I agree completely! What I was suggesting is that if their internal data shows single men and men without children have likely been (eta: nearly half of the perpetrators) in the past, it seems questionable that they don't choose to ban adults in these categories with the gay men that they seem to be so worried about.

I absolutely don't have an issue with single male scout leaders, etc. being involved. My issue is their choice to single out gay men as a unique risk.

I don't know if the concern expressed nationally about gays is supposedly just broader "morals" (aka not biblical or what have you) or if they are specifically worried about molestation or the combination. I've heard enough quotes over the years from BSA leaders, etc. on TV saying they are concerned about pedophiles and molestation, but I'm not sure if that comes from the top or if that's just become rolled into their broader concern about allowing gays to serve in leadership roles.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

I'm not sure if you are responding to my statement. I agree completely! What I was suggesting is that if their internal data shows single men and men without children have likely been perpetrators in the past, it seems questionable that they don't choose to ban adults in these categories with the gay men that they seem to be so worried about.

I absolutely don't have an issue with single male scout leaders, etc. being involved. My issue is their choice to single out gay men as a unique risk.

I don't know if the concern expressed nationally about gays is supposedly just broader "morals" (aka not biblical or what have you) or if they are specifically worried about molestation or the combination. I've heard enough quotes over the years from BSA leaders, etc. on TV saying they are concerned about pedophiles and molestation, but I'm not sure if that comes from the top or if that's just become rolled into their broader concern about allowing gays to serve in leadership roles.

oh, i agree with you 1000% on this, and this is just proof that whole banning gays from leadership roles because they are afraid of molestation has no basis, whatsoever. i don't necessarily think that is the whole reason many do not want gays in the BSA, though even if you could scientifically prove w/o out a doubt that the rates of pervs of straight men was several times higher than that of gay men, people would STILL be against it.

i don't know if you saw my thread i posted a few months back about our governor (Rick Perry) who was very vocal in his opposition of allowing gays to participate in Boy Scouts, and he kept saying they should keep their anti-gay policy. According to him, if gays were allowed in the BSA, that would "invite discussion of sexuality" into the activities, and apparently all scouting activities would be derailed by the homosexual "agenda." Obviously hogwash, but some people actually believe that gay kids and adults have nothing else to talk about other than being gay. (insert rolleye smiley here).

eta: Rick Perry made another comment re: BSA & their decision the other day. a bit stomach-turning, just a warning (he referred to the decision as "tearing apart" an 100year old institution). am i the only one that is embarrassed to have this guy as our GOVERNOR? shaking my head here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/rick-perry-boy-scouts_n_3331182.html

[Multimama]

FWIW, I don't think banning gay men has much of anything to do with fears of molestation. I think the logic is that children are children and therefore may make bad choices (being gay), but it is not their fault because they are still kids and can still be positively influenced (by BSA, for example) to change their sexuality. On the other hand, gay men are adults fully capable of making adult choices and still choosing to be gay. That's wrong and therefore they are banned from participating in Boy Scouts of America.

Important disclaimer: I am not in any way agreeing with this stance. I do not think that homosexuality is a choice or should be treated as if it is a choice in this way. I am just stating what I think the logic is based on my experience with the justifications of people who are openly homophobic.

[brittone2]

FWIW, I don't think banning gay men has much of anything to do with fears of molestation. I think the logic is that children are children and therefore may make bad choices (being gay), but it is not their fault because they are still kids and can still be positively influenced (by BSA, for example) to change their sexuality. On the other hand, gay men are adults fully capable of making adult choices and still choosing to be gay. That's wrong and therefore they are banned from participating in Boy Scouts of America.

Important disclaimer: I am not in any way agreeing with this stance. I do not think that homosexuality is a choice or should be treated as if it is a choice in this way. I am just stating what I think the logic is based on my experience with the justifications of people who are openly homophobic.
In that case though, how can a bunch of people who chose to sit on these suspected pedophile documents single out the morality or immorality of being gay?

I am glad they brought forth the records, and I haven't followed to see if the leaders who knew about it all resigned or not. (eta: did it only happen with a changing of the guard in terms of leadership? I can't recall) I only remember the press stating that the secret files were released and the associated articles that were published.

eta: just commenting generally, not directing the above to you specifically, multimama.
I also admit I am hazy on how things were handled in the leadership and what the timeline was for the whole thing, as this has trickled out over the last few years and I am now fuzzy on the particulars of how this went down on a national level.