No, it means that National thinks they can't (or in some Councils, as you point out, won't) do anything legally about gays who don't come out. The practical problem, then, is that you wind up waiting for tacitly gay Scouters to come out in a tent. You undermine both the BSA's position on "avowed" gay scouters generally and the Youth Protection program by winking at closeted gays and accepting the "there are always gays around" argument as a reason for acquiescing in their participation in Scouting, pace National's James Dale brief. That's called relaxation. Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York with de minimis policing, not with the relaxarian policies of his predecessors. "There's always a thief" -- yes, indeedy, and that's why you always chase him and collar him and never let him slide.
You also introduce cognitive dissonance, which countercultural advocates are perfectly happy with but which is damaging to the coherence of the "morally straight" message of Scouting, when you strongly imply -- or even explicitly state as the case you cited shows (with which I'm unfamiliar, sorry) -- that "avowed" gays who are honest about their orientation must be expelled, but that closeted gays who hide their orientation from National can be rewarded with continued participation. Not a very straight formulary.
Some other thoughts occurred to me when I read your post, but I'll save them for later, and more thought. Thanks for the reply.
That's what it means as far as you can tell. Neither you nor I have been in on the Relationships Committee discussions. And it's not a legal matter; the BSA has demonstrated quite well that it can toss anyone out if they wish.
The practical problem, then, is that you wind up waiting for tacitly gay Scouters to come out in a tent.
Meaning what? That somehow gay Scoutmasters are going to find a way to flout youth protection guidelines that other Scouters can't? Don't forget that there have been molesters with either wives or no adult attachments in Scouting. If you read the stories, molesting a child in a tent is never the way these things happen.
I keep seeing people thinking that gay child molesters are going to flood the BSA. They're not. Unit Committees are not going to sign up a bunch of strangers with no kids in their units as leaders. They're going to do what they do now and sign up parents. And if they're gay, they're going to watch them even more closely than usual (the usual being pretty closely to begin with). And then there's the fact that when you're out in the woods, most of the adult leaders are heterosexual males and have axes at hand. Every time we've gotten a new leader out with us it's been made clear in one way or another that a child molester will leave the campsite in an ambulance, not a squad car. I imagine it's the same in most units.
You undermine both the BSA's position on "avowed" gay scouters generally and the Youth Protection program by winking at closeted gays and accepting the "there are always gays around" argument as a reason for acquiescing in their participation in Scouting
I'm not acquiescing to their participation because I think it's inevitable. I'm accepting the fact that gays have been, are, and will continue to be positive contributors to the BSA, and that this can continue as long as present BSA policies are followed.
In fact, if you read the first sentence you wrote, it's you who are saying that it's the BSA that is taking the passive acquiescient approach. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that they are deliberately taking a positive approach to accepting homosexuals under certain conditions which ensure that their contributions to their children and their community will be positive within the BSA program.
You also introduce cognitive dissonance, which countercultural advocates are perfectly happy with but which is damaging to the coherence of the "morally straight" message of Scouting, when you strongly imply -- or even explicitly state as the case you cited shows (with which I'm unfamiliar, sorry) -- that "avowed" gays who are honest about their orientation must be expelled, but that closeted gays who hide their orientation from National can be rewarded with continued participation.
An argument that is often advanced by gays who want to be able to be "avowed" and still be in the BSA. The concept here is that discussions of sexual orientation belong in the church and the family, not in a Scouting unit. Since the vast majority of people believe that homosexuality is a poor exammple for their children, gays in Scouting must not set that example. Most people think that drinking is a poor example for their children, so drinkers can't drink in front of their children in Scouting (another stricture, by the way, that is limited in Scouting worldwide to the BSA and the Moslem countries). But that doesn't mean that you can't drink on your own time. Just don't do it, or talk about it, in front of the kids. If drinkers can't live with that, stay out of the BSA. If homosexuals can't live with that, stay out of the BSA. How often do we see people state here on FR and elsewhere, "Be gay if you want, but we really don't want to have to hear about it all the time." The BSA is taking the same attitude, specifically because it is a poor example.
Again, the BSA puts the word "avowed" in front of "homosexual" every time they use the word, there's got to be a reason. Obviously, we differ on the interpretation of why it's there and what it means. And so now anyone who's followed this thread this far sees two different interpretations. I've often wondered why National doesn't define what they mean by "avowed". I am convinced that in part you're right; the BSA wishes to leave wiggle room for the local Councils to interpret it. Thus, Chicago Area Council might (this is theoretical, I have no idea of the actual situations) not object to someone who is privately known to be gay but never brings it up in Scouting, doesn't have his boyfriend drop him off in the parking lot and give him a big kiss before campouts, etc. Whereas Salt Lake Council might suspend someone or request a Unit Committee to investigate on the basis of rumors.
N.B. The Camp Yawgoog case happened in 1998 or 1999. Camp Yawgoog is in Rhode Island, and is one of the larger and better run BSA camps in the U.S.A. There was a young man working there who was rumored to be gay (not on the basis of anything he did at the camp). The Camp Director asked him point-blank if he was gay, and the young man answered "Yes." The Camp Director fired him on the spot. He appealed to the local Council. Said local Council determined that "don't ask, don't tell" had been violated by the Camp Director, and reinstated the young man with back pay. National confirmed the judgement and the result. Unlike the military, the BSA actually follows "don't ask, don't tell". You can look this up on the net. While most of the references you'll see are on the usual suspects' sites, you will find it on www.tompaine.com as well. The actual link is up-thread in one of my postings I think.