Originally appeared May 3, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.
I WANTED TO BE A BOY SCOUT when I was a girl. I was a sash-wearing Girl Scout for years, but despite my love of its campfire camaraderie, there was something about the Boy Scouts that always seemed cooler.
Maybe it was those balsa wood cars they raced in the pinewood derby. Or the national parks they hiked in winter. Or the white water rafting, or bottle-rocket projects, or focus on service that actually meant something.
Whatever it was, boy scouting seemed to open up a world of adventure and possibilities. Girl Scouts was kinder, gentler and boring. Activities vary from troop to troop of course, but the only camping I did was in a plush site in the Catskills, where the tents had hardwood floors and beds. And my troop's annual service project entailed planting tulips in front of our suburban branch of the U.S. Post Office.
Times have changed, perhaps (a friend of mine is leading her Girl Scout troop on a trip to Hawaii), but Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were not equivalent then, and I doubt they are today. It is in response to this, after all, that the Boy Scouts started Venturing, a co-ed subdivision of the scouts for 14- to 20-year olds.
But the Boy Scouts keeps girls out and they keep gay boys and men out, too. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this, hearing arguments in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.
Most likely you've heard of the case. James Dale was an Eagle Scout assistant scoutmaster when a newspaper article profiled him as co-president of the gay organization at Rutgers University. When the Boy Scouts responded by kicking him out, Dale sued under New Jersey's anti-discrimination law, which includes sexual orientation.
Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled for Dale, saying that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation like the Rotary Club and the JayCees, and therefore not covered by the First Amendment's right of free association.
Now the High Court must decide what sorts of organizations can choose who can belong and what sorts can't. Does merely being gay connote political advocacy? If so, then the Boy Scouts may have the right to exclude gays, because Dale's membership would send a political message that is directly opposite to the message the Boy Scouts want to send.
But Evan Wolfson, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund attorney representing Dale, told The New York Times, "A human being is not speech, other than 'I am who I am.'"
Yet, I'm not sure it really matters if we win this one. Of course it would be wonderful if gays were allowed to openly lead Boy Scout troops. They would introduce generations of boys to the idea that being gay is not a moral failure. They would become role models for manhood.
After all, isn't it better to have men leading the troop, no matter what their sexual orientation, than women, since the boys are supposed to strive to emulate their leaders? I can't imagine a man leading a Girl Scout troop, but because of the shortage of volunteers, I know many women who have taken on leadership of their son's pack.
If the Boy Scouts recognized this on their own, more power to them. But I worry about the ramifications should they be forced to admit gay men and boys. Would they then also need to admit girls to full membership? (After all, as I've said, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts really aren't equivalent organizations). Would the Girl Scouts need to admit men? Would gay and lesbian organizations be forced to accept straight folks in leadership roles? There is a place for the supportive atmosphere of homogeneous organizations. A place for all-girl groups. A place for all-boy groups. A place for all-gay groups.
And, yes, even a place for all-straight groups.
The government shouldn't have the right to decide the membership of private organizations.
The Boy Scouts, however, should do its part, and take responsibility for its homophobia by explicitly saying in its rules that the Boy Scouts is limited to straight boys (right now they just say members must be "clean" and "morally straight." That language is offensive if used to exclude gays).
Perhaps the BSA should have the boys sign an agreement, like the military once required. If parents are made uncomfortable by such a thing, maybe the Boy Scouts will make an accommodation, as they did with girls, and start a special mixed troop.
Or maybe it won't. But then we must do our part. If gay boys and gay men aren't let into the Boy Scouts of America, then we must start our own troops. We must teach leadership to our own children, gay and straight, in our own way. Many minority groups have such a thing on large and small scales. We don't, but we should.
This issue is not simply one of discrimination, but of raising children of character, courage and spirit. Why would we want to hand this important job over to a right-wing organization? Far better for us to step in and do the job ourselves.