While advocates for gay equality feel, with justification, that the Boy Scouts of America’s vote to end the ban on gay scouts up to age 18 while maintaining its prohibition on gay scoutmasters is an unacceptable halfway step, the socially conservative Washington Times reports that accepting openly gay scouts at all is a major defeat for Christian Right evangelicals:
Signs of waning evangelical power in the nation’s culture wars and in Republican policy—and some unexpected challenges for GOP candidates—loom as the 103-year-old Boy Scouts of America gears up for a definitive vote this week on whether to welcome openly gay youths into the organization’s ranks.
If the BSA delegates gathering just outside Dallas vote to admit gays, it will reinforce the growing notion that evangelical Protestants and their conservative Catholic allies no longer can muster their troops as they once did, in such battles as state referendums over same-sex marriage and the 1996 enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Interestingly, the article also points out that the Mormon church, which sponsors more than a third of all scout troops in America, “has moved on to other battles in the cultural wars rather than take on the gay-rights activists.” This is similar to what we previously noted about the Mormons’ absence of late from the religious right’s political fight against marriage equality. It’s a good sign, as neutrality in practice is far better for us than engaged opposition, and if it lasts it will leave the evangelicals and the Catholic church down a major ally.
30 Comments for “Religious Right’s Losing Battle of the BSA”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
While advocates for gay equality feel, with justification, that the Boy Scouts of America’s likely vote to end the ban on gay scouts while maintaining its prohibition on gay scoutmasters is an unacceptable halfway step …
I have to admit that the compromise is so illogical and ridiculous that is almost funny, in the way that anything absurd is funny. I think that Pam’s House Blend got the inanity of the “compromise” just right: “Boy Scouts leaders vote this week on whether gays magically become pedophiles at age 18”
But in another sense it is tragic, because it will send the message, loud and clear, to gay Scouts that they are not acceptable human beings. The fact that Eagle Scouts will be severed from Scouting at age 18 makes mockery of the motto “Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle”, a motto reflecting the BSA policy that the title “Eagle Scout” is held for life. Scouting will continue to teach, in blunt and inescapable terms, that gays are outside the boundaries of honor and decency. BSA is doing its best to eradicate the message “It Gets Better” that gays of Scouting age so desperately need to hear.
This is similar to what we previously noted about the Mormons’ absence of late from the religious right’s political fight against marriage equality.
The LDS began disengagement from the anti-marriage political movement (NOM, MassResistance and so on) in 2009/2010. It isn’t a “recent” development.
The LDS moved out of the anti-marriage political movement with the same stealth that it moved into the movement, so those who didn’t pay much attention to the signals coming out of the hierarchy are just waking up to it.
It is a welcome development, of course, but it is important to remember that Mormon teaching vis a vis homosexuality and marriage equality have not changed.
posted by Houndentenor on
“…but it is important to remember that Mormon teaching vis a vis homosexuality and marriage equality have not changed.”
It is also important to remember that as morally reprehensible as those teachings are, they have a Constitutional right to teach them. It’s hardly the most ridiculous thing that Mormons believe. (Or Catholics or Evangelicals either while we’re at it.)
posted by Jorge on
Yes, I’ve heard that the Mormon church supported the compromise
…and that the Catholic Church didn’t.
While advocates for gay equality feel, with justification, that the Boy Scouts of America’s likely vote to end the ban on gay scouts while maintaining its prohibition on gay scoutmasters is an unacceptable halfway step
I don’t. And I don’t agree with Tom, either. It is not about fears of gay sex abuse. It is about the fact that these religions do not consider a self-affirming homosexuality to be morally acceptable. Nor do they consider it acceptable for an organizaion to make public statements affirming or expressing neutrality toward homosexuality. Allowing gays under 18 means one thing in that continuum and allowing gays over 18 means another. Come 18, that is when the Boy Scouts expects any self-identifying gay person to use their legal maturity status to declare himself an ex-gay.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. No one really thinks that having out gay men as scout leaders is going to lead to more sexual abuse. It’s ridiculous to think that a man intending to do such things wouldn’t be more likely to stay in the closet. That’s just the hot-button certain people realized they could push to make people afraid of gay people. (And it’s been working for decades.) “The gays are coming after your kids!” (see: 700 Club, almost any episode)
What the religious right is most afraid of is that they will be shown to be wrong and that Americans will see gay people as they really are: just people who have boring jobs and live mostly boring jobs except for the same-sex partners thing. *yawn* They fear this because it reveals yet another one of their core values as a big lie. They know this at some level and it scares the crap out of them. That’s exactly what’s been happening, and it’s why support for gay marriage has increased so quickly.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are probably right about the underlying motivations of religious conservatives, Jorge, but the stated reasons are that allowing gay Scoutmasters would (a) increase the risk of child sexual abuse, and (b) increase the risk that Scouts would be encouraged to adopt the “homosexual lifestyle”.
Whatever the reason, my point is that the “compromise” will send a message to gay Scouts that their sexual orientation makes it impossible for them to live the Scout code, and although they will be “tolerated”, they are not acceptable human beings. Gay kids hear too much of that already from too many directions, and the BSA “compromise” adds another voice. With the gay teen suicide rate as high as it is, we should object loudly and relentlessly.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oops, I forgot something very important. All of this threatens to undermine the big lie that people choose to be gay. It’s an important lie and the religious right is well aware of how important it is. If it is true that some people are just gay, then discrimination and criminalization of that natural tendency would indeed be morally reprehensible. That’s why they will hand on to this big lie regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll take your word for it, Tom.
I think most gay youth will take this half-measure as a step in the right direction. The most recent gay news from the Boy Scouts has been the petition by the family of a gay Boy Scout for him to receive his Eagle Badge after it was denied. I believe this lends the current news to the interpretation that BSA is taking that last event very seriously and sees the need for change. It’s a good thing. I think interpretations that it is an unacceptable half-measure that actually does an affirmative harm to people is something that reflects the shadows of the past more than reality.
…and although they will be “tolerated”, they are not acceptable human beings.
I hardly think the Boy Scouts is the first line of attack against most gay youth on that score and I really do not think it is the most relevant one. That comes directly from specific religions, and it’s certainly not one that comes from the Catholic Church (in which there is a very long tradition of people disobeying the Church; which has become so ingrained, in fact, that the Church is disciplining its own nuns for encouraging it). So the only way a gay person is reasonably going to interpret the message you state is if they’ve already gotten it from religion. I do not think it is fair to invent a nefarious explanation onto a neutral or positive action such as this.
Because the Catholic Church does not accept the lie that Houndentenor mentioned, I think it would be very good if the lie were eliminated, but I am a little naive as to the probability that religions actually want to knowingly maintain it. Some of these are religions that outright reject the notion that the Earth is millions of years old… I literally don’t comprehend such nonsense.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I hardly think the Boy Scouts is the first line of attack against most gay youth on that score and I really do not think it is the most relevant one. That comes directly from specific religions … So the only way a gay person is reasonably going to interpret the message you state is if they’ve already gotten it from religion.
Jorge, I hear you, and I agree with these statements, mostly.
I do not accuse the BSA of spewing forth the kind of hateful rhetoric that anti-gay “religious” organizations (e.g. the AFA, ATAH, CWA, FRCl, the FRI and its affiliates, the Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, NOM (that horrible “Gathering Storm” ad and more recently the garbage put out by Brian Brown and his cohorts), and I don’t think that BSA will ever engage in such rhetoric.
But the message from the BSA “compromise” is what? What is a gay Scout — age 12-18, an age when gay teens are particularly vulnerable, as evidenced by the gay teen suicide rate — to take from the message that he can be a Scout until he is 18, and then he cannot because he is too dangerous to allow in Scouting? What does that message tell him about himself?
It is all cumulative, like water torture. The “you aren’t worth shit” messaging often starts in the home, is reinforced in by the other kids in school, reinforced in church in many cases, and reinforced by anti-gay politicians like “homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God” Virginia LG candidate E.W. Jackson.
The messaging never stops in our culture, and it is insidious.
BSA is a constitutionally-protected private association. It can make whatever policies it wants to make, and I have no argument with that right. My point is exactly as I stated it, though: “Gay kids hear too much of that already from too many directions, and the BSA “compromise” adds another voice. With the gay teen suicide rate as high as it is, we should object loudly and relentlessly.” That’s our constitutionally protected right, and we should exercise it.
I think interpretations that it is an unacceptable half-measure that actually does an affirmative harm to people is something that reflects the shadows of the past more than reality.
Maybe so. My thinking is the product of my life experience, and I am 65 years old. I grew up in another time, and I live in a rural area in which gay kids don’t benefit from the proximity of gay-positive experiences as much as, say, a kid growing up in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, which is socially liberal and generally gay-supportive.
But I’ve seen too much over the years to close my eyes to the damage done by ant-gay messaging, and I continue to see it.
I hear from 20-something rural gays relatively frequently. I hear from them because I’ve been wide-out in the open because of my political activities.
I hear their stories. The stories are sometimes positive, but just as often they are ugly, like the story I heard a couple of weeks ago from a mid-20’s Eagle Scout, who told me about the night he stood on our bridge over the Wisconsin River and damn near jumped. He’s fine now, but he wasn’t that night.
I also hear from teachers in our local schools, the teachers who are known as “gay-supportive”, the teachers who the gay kids approach sometimes for help. I hear more of the same from them.
So it what I’m saying strikes you as “so five years ago”, you might want to consider that things are still bad for many kids in the sticks, and the BSA “compromise” isn’t helping.
I do not think it is fair to invent a nefarious explanation onto a neutral or positive action such as this.
I don’t know what “nefarious explanation” I am supposedly inventing — statements coming out of the folks with BSA arguing the issue are what they are — but if you let me know in more detail, we can discuss it.
posted by Jorge on
There are times when I’m sympathetic to the suicide angle. This is not one of them. An 18 year old is a legal adult and has the ability and authority to find ways to self-regulate. So I am not interested in how someone 18 or older reacts to news that is incidental to him or her.
Committing suicide after being outed after being videotaped having sex? Maybe that’ll get my attention. Committing suicide because of news that the Boy Scouts of America might be becoming more gay-inclusive? That’s straight mental illness to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There are times when I’m sympathetic to the suicide angle. This is not one of them. An 18 year old is a legal adult and has the ability and authority to find ways to self-regulate.
Sigh. Sometimes I wonder where your thinking cap is … left home alone?
I talk about kids Scouting age — 12-18 — and the remarkably high suicide rate among gay teenagers, and you start telling us how adults ought to man up.
I talk about the cumulative effect on gay teenagers of homophobic messages from their families, the kids at school, churches, politicians and — yes — BSA, and you come up with this: “Committing suicide because of news that the Boy Scouts of America might be becoming more gay-inclusive? That’s straight mental illness to me.”
Jorge, I’m talking about oranges and you argue against apples.
The high rate of suicide among gay teens is a fact, and the reasons for that high rate — bullying, depression, low self-worth, internalized homophobia and the rest — are well documented. Whether you are “sympathetic” to these kids or not is of no consequence.
The BSA message to gay kids — we’ll tolerate you, but you can’t be part of us after you become an adult because you will become too dangerous to have around other kids — is not going to help.
posted by Jorge on
I talk about kids Scouting age — 12-18 — and the remarkably high suicide rate among gay teenagers, and you start telling us how adults ought to man up.
Actually, I was responding to your statements about 20-somethings in the context of your beef with a policy decision maintaining a ban on gay adults in scouting.
I talk about the cumulative effect on gay teenagers of homophobic messages from their families, the kids at school, churches, politicians and — yes — BSA, and you come up with this: “Committing suicide because of news that the Boy Scouts of America might be becoming more gay-inclusive? That’s straight mental illness to me.”
I see your point, but I cannot agree with it. Regardless of one’s past, I believe that once you hit 18, you are rightly considered a mature agent who is making rational decisions toward your own best ends. That is not compatible with arguing about the detrimental effect on gay adults from the Boy Scouts maintaining their policy on adult gay scouts, with or without pointing to the cumulative effects.
I’ll let the rest of your post stand.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Actually, I was responding to your statements about 20-somethings in the context of your beef with a policy decision maintaining a ban on gay adults in scouting.
I thought it was plain from the context, in which I was discussing teen suicide, but the 20-somethings I hear from are talking about their experiences as children and teenagers, about how tough it was growing up gay in a hostile culture.
The young man’s contemplation of suicide on the bridge, for example, happened when he was a junior in high school, probably 16 years of age. He’s glad now that he didn’t take the leap, but the fact that almost did speaks volumes.
My apologies for being unclear.
posted by Don on
There is a huge aspect to this that is not well known outside Boy Scout circles. Pedophilia is a really, really huge problem for them. Having worked in their midst, I remember a case where a 20 year old former scout who was now an employee of the Council was admonished with the threat of termination for having a conversation with 16 year old boys in their tent with his legs outside but his torso inside. They have a less-than-zero tolerance because they have been hit so many times and the pedophiles have been so successful at penetrating their myriad defenses. And because every scandal is perceived as “clearly avoidable” had only they been watching more closely.
This doesn’t excuse the conflagration of gay with pedophile. But these people are paranoid beyond belief of any tiny thing that might let just one slip in. When you consider that fully half (if not more) of their adult leadership believes with all their hearts (wrongly) that gay is synonymous with pedophile, you get this weird 18+ ban.
I’m not excusing it. But you have to be inside this culture to believe who and what they really are. And they are this way because their very structure makes them a pedophile’s dream. Only adult on a camping trip several times a year with a gaggle of young boys? Ability to gain a child’s trust over weeks and months before striking? Sure! I’ll do it! While beleaguered parents are thrilled to have a weekend off.
Many don’t know this but they also fight the myth/fact that their founder was a pedophile and that is how he envisioned the organization. Professional scouts either completely accept or completely reject that.
Much like the catholic sex abuse scandals, the behavior seems bizarre and completely inexplicable until you understand the culture within that created such an insane outcome.
I’m just saying it’s not just fundamentalist nonsense. It mostly a pathological fear that one single pedophile sneak through their defenses – and one does from time to time no matter how hard they try.
posted by Houndentenor on
And yet as with the RCC, they repeatedly cover up for known pedophiles in their midst rather than face the bad publicity. They care more about potential lawsuits that children. It’s disgusting. That such monsters could pass judgment on gay people is beyond absurd.
posted by Don on
please nobody take away that i’m justifying their beliefs of gay=pedophile. or even placating them. I just think there’s a unique dynamic at play hear that most gay activists miss.
still, they should get their act together.
posted by Houndentenor on
Especially heinous since both the BSA and LDS church have a long history of covering up for pedophiles in their ranks. It would seem to be better to deal with the issue of keeping predators away from children but gays have been an easy scapegoat for far too long.
posted by Lori Heine on
Here’s the real problem: straight people can no longer be trusted around children.
Sad fact but true, the policy that must change is that of permitting one unsupervised adult to go out in the wilderness with kids. I can understand why straight people would find that troubling (I do, too) — but there it is.
Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with power. Most pedophiles are heterosexual men. For some reason, there has lately been a marked increase in the number of heterosexual women who are also guilty of this practice.
It would not, however, even make any difference if a scout leader was a pedophile if the BSA changed the custom — a sadly strange one in 2013 — if giving unsupervised adults free rein with kids. Those who would never harm a child need not worry, because all supervision will reveal is their own good behavior.
The BSA’s practices enable pedophiles. The organization is right to worry, but blaming gays is not going to solve their problem.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yikes. Not only do adults have nothing to fear from a policy that protects the children, that same policy actually protects the adults as well. It is horrible that children are abused. There have also been cases where it turned out that the adults had been falsely accused. Why take any chances either way. It benefits no one to put adults and children is such situations. Adults on the up and up should welcome policies that ensure the safety and welfare of children. In fact, I (obviously wrongly) assumed that such policies were virtually universal since all the adults I know who work with children (including church groups) have such policies in place.
posted by Jorge on
This conversation makes me glad because I see the machinery by which BSA might be moved lift the ban on gay adults. It is nice to see many paths that may lead toward a just end.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
The Boy Scouts of America is — largely a very good organization. If you live in the rural parts of the country — a.k.a the ‘sticks’ it may be one of the few clubs or organizations that you can be a part of.
In quite a few rural Minnesota towns (in the more conservative part of the state) you basically got (beyond the BSOA) the agricultural based clubs (i.e. 4H, FFA), the sports teams/athletic clubs, and maybe some clubs tied to a political party or a church.
Arts (visual/performing/etc) or historical societies are often rarely given much notice or funds. Their are NO gay-straight alliances or anything similar.
‘Diversity’ is largely restricted to racial/ethnic identity (with low comfort levels) and white-Christian people get all wide-eyed when a Muslim or a Jewish person walks among them.
So, this compromise might makes things a bit better for some gay/bisexual youth. Simply, because unless they are good at sports or planning on getting into agriculture or come from a well-to-do family or really want to get involved with an anti-gay church or political party, their options — in terms of clubs and activities — may be slim.
Although, it the short term it will probably make little difference because the vast majority of rural Minnesota and North Dakota gay/bisexual youth that I grew up with/met do not even think about coming out until after high school.
Openly gay/bisexual middle school or high school kids exist, but are almost all in the closet…at least that that is the general rule in rural North Dakota and west-central Minnesota.
As scary as it may be, the BSOA may be the most affordable and least homophobic option for many young people in rural ND/MN communities
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you live in the rural parts of the country — a.k.a the ‘sticks’ it may be one of the few clubs or organizations that you can be a part of.
Rural areas of the country — this is certainly true in Wisconsin — are more conservative socially than urban areas, generally, and are not gay-affirming environments.
I suspect that’s why I don’t share the view that the BSA’s “compromise” is a big step forward. Perhaps in the abstract — for those living in urban areas where BSA is more a theoretical presence than an actual presence — BSA’s policy change is a step in the direction of equality, and therefore something to cheer about, but I don’t share the view.
To me, BSA’s move from a largely unconsidered, traditional reflex that gay teens cannot be participants in the Scouting Code to a considered view that gay Scouts will be tolerated but that gay adults — including but not limited to gay parents — are too dangerous to allow anywhere near Scouting is a step backwards.
At least before, BSA could be viewed for what it is — a traditionalist quasi-religious organization closely allied with anti-gay Catholic, Mormon and Evangelical churches, a subsidiary of anti-gay religionists. The general ban on gays in Scouting didn’t add anything to the cultural anti-gay messages in conservative areas of the country.
On the other hand, a considered,/em> message that gay adults are too dangerous to allow to be in contact with children is not, in my view, a message that helps gay teens come to terms with themselves and accept themselves for who they are, Scouts or not.
Others don’t share my view on the change. I understand that, and maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell, I suppose.
posted by Jorge on
So, this compromise might makes things a bit better for some gay/bisexual youth. Simply, because unless they are good at sports or planning on getting into agriculture or come from a well-to-do family or really want to get involved with an anti-gay church or political party, their options — in terms of clubs and activities — may be slim.
…
To me, BSA’s move from a largely unconsidered, traditional reflex that gay teens cannot be participants in the Scouting Code to a considered view that gay Scouts will be tolerated but that gay adults — including but not limited to gay parents — are too dangerous to allow anywhere near Scouting is a step backwards.
One of my strong opinions is that any religious or moral organization that purports to be against homosexuality for an allegedly principled reason has an obligation to try to act in their best interests through its own moral character and values. I am being diplomatic. You claim homosexuality is a sin, yet you are telling young people to go away, condemning them to a life without guidance, with nothing but destruction, both in your own theology and often in reality.
If these organizations attempt to welcome their gay youth and lovingly tell them that homosexuality is wrong, instead of rejecting or cannibalizing them, they will sow the seeds of their own defeat. Some of their members will become ex-gays–it’s a movement that’s been growing more credible and sophisticated. But far more will benefit from the community, values, and empathy while eventually deciding to affirm their homosexuality. They will embody most traditional values while being self-affirming gays, challenging anti-gay traditional values. The consequence in the meantime, is that as they reach maturity and adulthood they will have to live with the cognitive dissonance, as Ann Couter once put it to GOProud. “Living with the cognitive dissonance” is something quite different than…
posted by Jorge on
“One of my strong opinions is that any religious or moral organization that purports to be against homosexuality for an allegedly principled reason has an obligation to try to act in their best interests…”
Didn’t come out right. I mean to say an obligation to try ot act in the best interests of the gay youth it claims ownership of, or something like that (I couldn’t figure out how to say it and I cut it out)
posted by Houndentenor on
“Some of their members will become ex-gays–it’s a movement that’s been growing more credible and sophisticated.”
What evidence or logic can you present to back that up? There has been a steady stream of leaders in ex-gay groups leaving because the whole thing is a sham. What’s been gaining credibility is the ex-ex-gay truth. There are any number of websites recounting the horror stories of people attempting to live the lie that they are straight. Yes, the ex-gay madness is well financed, but the success rate, as much as one can measure success for a quack therapy that refuses to allow any studies of it’s participants, is dismal. If by sophisticated you mean “better able to peddle lies to desperate people”, that may be true, but it’s certainly not gaining credibility with anyone who isn’t from a very extremist religious world view.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What evidence or logic can you present to back that up? There has been a steady stream of leaders in ex-gay groups leaving because the whole thing is a sham. What’s been gaining credibility is the ex-ex-gay truth. There are any number of websites recounting the horror stories of people attempting to live the lie that they are straight.
I’d characterize the ex-gay movement as a “scam” rather than a “sham”, but sham will suffice, I guess.
If conservative Christians had any interest in learning about the outcomes of the ex-gay movement, I would suggest to them that a longitudinal study is readily available to them — track the marital histories of, oh, 100,000 gay men my age who desperately wanted overcome our sexual orientation, married and had children, and lived “straight”.
The study wouldn’t have to include all of us — a sampling of 100,000 would probably suffice.
posted by Jorge on
What evidence or logic can you present to back that up?
The 2005 Time Magazine Article, “The Battle Over Gay Teens.”
The aftermath of one or two highly publicized internet campaigns to help a gay teen who was forced into an ex-gay camp. It was both anticlimatic in actual content, yet I think it led to some changes.
And now we have one such organization led by an ex-gay person. He did something different with the organization one or two years ago.
And what we have here with the Boy Scouts is, if anything, evidence that the ex-gay ideology has achieved even greater credibility than before within this country’s mainstream.
There is not much to say, and most of it is a little outdated, but it is all going in the same direction. There is a certain harmony in just about every story I’ve been hearing about ex-gay groups for the past 10 or so year: there is a trend that leads toward their continuation and minor mainstream acceptance. There is no evidence of any reversal. Hmm, except a decades-long reversal against conversion therapy. Which is why I speak of ex-gay therapy becoming more sophisticated–it’s survived by stepping away from conversion therapy.
By harmony I mean the absence of a narrative dischord that you can see very easily as you read stories about the direction of, for example, the Republican party, the gay rights movement (although less so), and maybe the union movement. A casual glance at any few news items on the subject and you either have no idea what direction things are going in, or you can see it being very likely the current trend will stop.
posted by Kosh III on
“vast majority of rural…gay/bisexual youth that I grew up with/met do not even think about coming out until after high school.”
And then they promptly move to some place less dangerous. I certainly did–a week after HS graduation.
It’s certainly true in places like Tennessee where the GOP/Fascist/Theocrats are in control.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t even imagine coming out in high school. But then high school for me was a couple of decades go. I don’t think attitudes have changed much in most of the country. People who live in very liberal areas don’t always seem to understand that.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
–And then they promptly move to some place less dangerous. I certainly did–a week after HS graduation.
Maybe. Yet, by that time they are probably 18 (thus kicking them out of the Scouts if they are gay). The general level of homophobia makes it all but impossible for 99% of gay youth (in these particular communities) to come out as well as any sort of public health effort made to deal with say, anti-gay bullying or try and prevent suicide.
Yes, if the youth somehow manage to survive (remain sober and get decent grades) until they graduate from high school, then they might have an opportunity to relocate to a larger city. Yet, the rising costs associated with even basic undergraduate level higher education, poor economy, etc. means that more and more will either be stuck in the rural communities or find themselves having to relocate to more rural communities.
Yes, these may be challenges to be addressed for another time, but (even if we limit it to prospective, pre-18 year old gay Boy Scouts) few troops in rural communities will have to deal with gay youth in general, much less within Scouting.
This is because while 4 – 10% of the youth in a given community are gay/bisexual, they simply CANNOT be open or even remotely honest about it.
This revised BSOA policy will probably help out (in some sense) closeted gay/bisexual youth — to the extent that they can benefit from the Scouting program/activities/training until they are 18.
Basically, I suspect it will be like going from the military ban on gays to something a bit more like ‘Don’t Ask youth about it, and hope that they don’t talk about it.’ Not great progress, but still might be able to help out some youth in these rural communities.
Yet, by excluding adults, the Scouts are basically ensuring that the handful of visible adult gay men and gay couples in rural communities remain — at least within the Scouting world — invisible.
As compromises go, this is something that rural Scouts could probably live with, even through they may dislike it and complain about it (non-stop).
They already generally do not believe that gay/bi kids exists (at least not in God-fearing, rural America) to begin with, so — from their perspective — letting gay kids be Scouts (until they are 18) is somewhat akin to letting the Hollywood sparkly vampires and werewolves in Twilight become Scouts. The rural Scouts do not expect too many ‘Edwards’ or ‘Jacobs’ to actually enroll in the Scouts, so they can live with lifting the ban.
Yet, their are a handful of adults in rural communities who are gay — even gay couples. For the rural Scouts, they know that adult gay men exist in their community, so they are not quite as unlikely/unbeliveable — from their perspective — as teen angst-ridden vampires and werewolves.
So, that is probably why (I suspect) the ban on gay Scout leaders or any gay adult being involved with the Scouts was kept in this revised position. Not only do rural Scouts know that gay adults exist in their community, but they also tend to believe that they are more like the vicious vampire of old Hollywood films and less like modern vampires more likely to overact and break into dance numbers then anything else.
The only way that the Scouts will seriously consider changing the policy again, is when their is more support among the adult, rural Scouts.
That will probably not happen until they grow up with more rural openly gay students, work with openly gay coworkers, etc. Yet, until its safer for kids or young adults to come out, this is not going to happen.
posted by Jorge on
Here’s something. A Washington Post blog about a statement a Bishop from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting before the vote:
“with regard to a possible BSA membership change, we will continue to uphold the truths of the Church’s teaching and strive to maintain our ties with the BSA,” Guglielmone wrote. “The Catholic Church in the United States has enjoyed a long and fruitful relationship with the BSA, and I hope that relationship can continue.”
Not sure if the site will let me post the link (it’s given me trouble with links in the past), but it’s the May 20th posting in washingtonpost.com’s “Under God” blog.
The committee wrote two responses, at least one in response to a writer from “Scouts for Equality”, asking for the Church to support the then-proposed BSA policy.
The committee seems inclined to sleep on it (I think there’s another article on the subject that says the Church will wait until some big meeting months from now to respond). Yes, this is a little closer to what I expected. The Church still maintains ties with the Girl Scouts, after all.
But the Catholic Church can’t win. To win it needed to adapt to changing events quickly enough to push through an acceptance of civil unions and then nothing more, but the Church does not do such things. It will, once again, be forced to maintain a stance that nobody but Catholics has ever even heard of.