Despite protests, Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

[longnecker]

NEW YORK (AP) - After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, angering critics who hoped that relentless protest campaigns might lead to change.

The Scouts cited support from parents as a key reason for keeping the policy and expressed hope that the prolonged debate over it might now subside. Bitter reactions from gay-rights activists suggested that result was unlikely.
The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 102-year-old organization.
Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion - preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.
As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a resolution submitted at its recent national conference asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.
The Scouts' chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, contended that most Scout families support the policy, which applies to both adult leaders and Scouts.
"The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said. "We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."
The president of the largest U.S. gay-rights group, Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, depicted the Scouts' decision as "a missed opportunity of colossal proportions."
Read full article
http://www.wmdt.com/story/19051421/d...rm-ban-on-gays

[Jessica]

I truly believe that this kind of thinking is not only antiquated but bigoted, but that discrimination through a policy of exclusion is the most dangerous form of discrimination there is.

That being said, if they were a strictly private organization I wouldn't give a flying fish about who they let in. It's their club, their rules, and my decision not to support them if I don't believe in their policies. They have the constitutionally protected right of freedom of association on their side. The Scouts also have a religious affirmation that embraces a large berth of affiliations, but does not accept atheism and agnosticism. Again- their group, their prerogative.

Here's where it gets tricky. As a private organization that chooses to limit its membership based on its standards of sexual and religious moral superiority, the Scouts still get preferential access to government resources that are paid for with our tax money. Under the Bush administration there were not one, but two acts that declared no local or national government agency can reduce or withdraw funding from the Scouts based on their membership policies. That crosses a line for me. No private group that passed bylaws stating that members of a certain race weren't allowed would have multiple acts of Congress passed supporting it.

I once saw a breakdown of the amount of government resources that the Scouts receive, and it was staggering. I found a similar one online, but it's from back in 1995, so I don't know how accurate it is. I know that at one point, and possibly still, the Scouts had access to a lot of military areas for gatherings and that millions of dollars in funding were given from the armed forces.

Now, I have no doubt that there are millions of boys and men who have benefited greatly from the Scouts over the years. I'm sure that the experience has been amazing for those who were lucky enough to fit the criteria for membership. And I'm sure that most of those boys and men didn't witness any kind of direct discrimination while a part of the program. But, for me, I have to make decisions for my kids and my charitable contributions based on a bigger picture, and just like I wouldn't contribute to a program that discriminated based on race, I won't do it for one that discriminates based on sexuality.

[Tracy]

My son is a cub scout....my ex takes him and he loves it...I have to say it bothers me though.

[longnecker]

Scouting can offer a lot to it"s members and their families. But if it's accepting public funds it should beheld to the same standards as everyone else.

[max1]

The supreme court says its ok

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699 (not that they cant be wrong)

What about gay groups who receive Grants from OUR money and use it to poke fun at religion? it goes on and on and on. Be careful how you demand the gov-ment spends our money because public money goes to places that everyone of us could find fault with.

[Jessica]

The supreme court says its ok

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699 (not that they cant be wrong)

What about gay groups who receive Grants from OUR money and use it to poke fun at religion? it goes on and on and on. Be careful how you demand the gov-ment spends our money because public money goes to places that everyone of us could find fault with.

Yep, the Supreme Court does say it's okay, and as I mentioned, it is okay - constitutionally. I don't like it, and I don't support it.

I'm not sure what gay groups get taxpayer money and poke fun at religion. Is there one, or was this just a hypothetical?

[max1]

Yep, the Supreme Court does say it's okay, and as I mentioned, it is okay - constitutionally. I don't like it, and I don't support it.

I'm not sure what gay groups get taxpayer money and poke fun at religion. Is there one, or was this just a hypothetical?

I was referring to Mapplethorpe (it was an art group I guess) and the crucifix in a jar crap sorry I was not more clear. Look I dont like the idea of discrimination or segregation any more then you do, but this is one of those things that becomes a decision you make at home as far as I'm concerned. I would not have my children in boy scouts or girl scouts but not for those reasons. What about when gays protest for more rights? They eat up some public funds then right?

[Jessica]

I was referring to Mapplethorpe (it was an art group I guess) and the crucifix in a jar crap sorry I was not more clear. Look I dont like the idea of discrimination or segregation any more then you do, but this is one of those things that becomes a decision you make at home as far as I'm concerned. I would not have my children in boy scouts or girl scouts but not for those reasons. What about when gays protest for more rights? They eat up some public funds then right?

I think you might be talking about Piss Christ? The crucifix submerged in a jar of urine that won an award sponsored by the National Endowment of the Arts? That wasn't Mapplethorpe, who was a photographer, but if you're saying that a controversial art piece shouldn't be given an award that is funded by a government endowment, that is a completely different issue than what we're talking about with the Scouts.

People can be offended by stuff all they'd like, and art and censorship and all that is a complicated issue. But - offending people and discriminating against them are two different things. The Scouts have a policy that is discriminatory, not just offensive.

But, as I've stated in my previous posts, they're allowed to be as discriminatory as they want. I choose not to support it or participate in it. I just don't think that two acts of Congress should have been enacted to prevent local governments from pulling support to the Scouts. I think that state and local governments should have the autonomy to make those decisions independently.

[max1]

I think you might be talking about Piss Christ? The crucifix submerged in a jar of urine that won an award sponsored by the National Endowment of the Arts? That wasn't Mapplethorpe, who was a photographer, but if you're saying that a controversial art piece shouldn't be given an award that is funded by a government endowment, that is a completely different issue than what we're talking about with the Scouts.

People can be offended by stuff all they'd like, and art and censorship and all that is a complicated issue. But - offending people and discriminating against them are two different things. The Scouts have a policy that is discriminatory, not just offensive.

But, as I've stated in my previous posts, they're allowed to be as discriminatory as they want. I choose not to support it or participate in it. I just don't think that two acts of Congress should have been enacted to prevent local governments from pulling support to the Scouts. I think that state and local governments should have the autonomy to make those decisions independently.

I agree, but a lot of folks are not offended by it.

[Jessica]

I agree, but a lot of folks are not offended by it.

True. Sad, but true. We haven't come to the point where our society universally accepts that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong and offensive.

[max1]

True. Sad, but true. We haven't come to the point where our society universally accepts that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong and offensive.

Religion..