[KC_for_Freedom]

The BSA would be able to use their SCOTUS (I keep typing SCOUTS) victories to fight that off, but it would consume time, money, and resources at the local level for a while.

Actually, I believe once the wall comes down the Supreme Court (see how I avoid that problem?) may rule that the Scout Organization is no longer entitled to protection. I believe they won based in part on a fundamental policy not to allow the gay philosophy because it was fundamentally different from the heterosexual philosophy esposed by the BSA. There is a lot of potential for a slipery slope here and I would stand by the national council withdrawing the charters of each and every unit that does accept a gay leader.

[RonF]

I too support National's right to withdraw (refuse to renew is the usual mechanism) the charter of any unit, or any Council, that refuses to uphold National's standards. And I believe that it was absolutely esssential that the BSA won Dale. If BSA unit sponsors and parents couldn't choose their leaders according to any criteria they wished, without the government looking over their shoulder, then they couldn't exist. If the BSA opts for "local option", the individual units will still enjoy the right to select their leaders as they wish. This has already been adjudicated with regards to other protected classes such as religion. There was a Pack sponsored by a Catholic parish. The Pack Committee, with the support of the parents, selected one of the parents of the Cubs as the new Cubmaster. He was Moslem. The priest (in BSA parlance, the Institutional Head) overruled the Committtee, which he can do because the IH has to sign the charter application that has the list of all the leaders and all the Scouts on it. If he refuses to sign, there's no charter and no Pack. The parents took it to court! And the Church, with the full legal backing of National, won.