Troops quietly defy Scout policy on gays

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - (KRT) - On a humid June night, at a church hall in Providence, R.I., Boy Scout Troop 28 welcomes a distinguished guest to its Eagle Court of Honor.

He is many things a young man could hope to be. Ivy League graduate. Accomplished trial lawyer. Respected politician. The guest, Providence's Mayor David N. Cicilline, is also openly gay.

What is remarkable about this event is that under the Boy Scout's national policy that bans gay Scouts and leaders, Cicilline, who leads a city of 173,000 people, could not lead a Boy Scout troop.

And what is remarkable is that the assistant scoutmaster introduces Cicilline as a "role model for all our boys."

No one gathered in the hall at Central Congregational Church seems startled. Not the boys, whose sashes are decorated with merit badges. Not the parents, the ones who brought the Eagle Scout sheet cake and the Boy Scout balloons and the orange toolbox with "Be prepared" written on it. They look on proudly as Cicilline says that "this troop's incredibly important stand to ensure that Scouting is available for all young men ... regardless of their sexual orientation" is "one small example of standing up to what's right and fair."

What is going on? The adult leaders of Troop 28 are part of a handful of Scout parents in the nation who are staying with an organization they love, while fighting from within to change a policy they don't.

Somewhere between Scouting highlights, they are quietly drafting antidiscrimination resolutions. They are on the Internet to track what happens to other defiant troops. One troop consulted a lawyer. They talk to the media, and then wonder if "national" is going to find out.

So far, the Rhode Island troops are safe, but there's always the fear that they've gone too far. At least two troops in other parts of the country have been kicked out.

Wasn't the challenging part of Scouting supposed to happen in the great outdoors? How did den dads and Webelos moms turn into renegades?

Some of the dissenting parents say they never knew about such a policy when they enrolled their sons in Scouting; the words gay or homosexual were not in the handouts.

But when a smattering of gay Scouts and leaders were kicked out, in cases that drew national publicity, the Boy Scouts of America announced from its Irving, Texas, headquarters that its stand on homosexuality is right there in the last line of The Scout Oath, written in 1910. A Scout promises to keep himself "morally straight."

The Boy Scouts defended its right to dismiss assistant scoutmaster James Dale all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in October 2000, ruled 5 to 4 that the Scouts are a private organization that can set its own membership standards.

The Boy Scouts argued - and still do - that the policy represented the values of its members. Who are those members? In a phone interview, Gregg Shields, the spokesman for the national Boy Scouts, said 65 percent of troops are sponsored by churches, with the Mormon church and the United Methodist church each sponsoring 10 percent of the nation's troops. The churches have a similar representation on the national policymaking board, Shields said.

He said that, "we have done some polling of Boy Scouts and parents, and parents of Boy Scout age. We hear overwhelming support for the policy."

"Boys would go door to door to sell tickets for the haunted house and had some doors slammed in their faces," recalled Dr. Allen M. Dennison, assistant scoutmaster of Troop 28. "People would say, this is a hate organization."

Dennison, 50, is a doctor who has four sons - two Eagle Scouts, and twins who are working toward their Eagles.

He is 6 feet 6 inches tall, with a Scout uniform to fit. He grew up in the Bronx, and was a Scout until he went to boarding school. He quotes Dickens, and ancient thinkers. When making a point about the importance of upholding principles, he asked, "Who drank the hemlock? Socrates."

He encourages some rowdiness, with an intellectual bent: on a recent canoe trip he invited a Brown University professor of geology, who, Dennison explained, "will tell us the composition of all the boulders we will strike in the middle of the river."

Dennison, like most Scout parents, believes he's shaping leaders. In his view, the ideal camping trip begins when a Boy Scout, not a parent, notices that there aren't enough lanterns and goes to get more. Out in the woods, it's the Scouts who prepare the freeze-dried food while the parents wait with tin plates.

So when the Troop 28 scouts who had been spurned during door-to-door sales came back to their leaders and asked what was going on, Dennison told them: "Well, guys, a lot of people in Rhode Island are very anxious about the exclusionary policy of the Boy Scouts. What do you think we should do about it?"

The Scouts said it's not right, Dennison said. Several of the boys in the troop knew gay individuals; in fact, Troop 28 had recently had an openly gay teenager as a member. The Scouts suggested the troop write a letter to The Providence Journal.

Troop 28 and Cub Scout Pack 88, both sponsored by Central Congregational Church, went further than that. One month after the Supreme Court ruling, both groups wrote a letter to Boy Scout officials, saying that, in one community in Rhode Island anyway, Scouts would not follow any such policy.

In Troop 28, 21 people signed the letter, including parents, an Eagle Scout, and troop leaders, such as Dennison, and Robert A. Shaw, an associate dean at Brown University, who is the troop's committee chairman.

The troop sent its letter to Rhode Island's Narragansett Council of Boy Scouts, which said they passed the letter along to the Boy Scouts of America in Texas.

"We said we would not consider (sexual orientation) as reason to exclude someone," Dennison said, "and we're willing to take the consequences up to and including disqualification."

"Morally straight means doing what is right, and what is right is clearly not to peddle hate," he said.

A few other troops followed a similar trail after the Supreme Court ruling; they felt the weight of their own values, and of communities where excluding gays was not acceptable.

"The majority of parents in my community view homosexuality as a civil rights issue," recalled Jim D'Acosta, a high school history teacher, and the former leader of Cub Scout Pack 197 in Fairfield, Conn.

"There was pressure in the local community for the pack to take a stand," he said in a phone interview. "We did lose Scouts."

So the parents of Cub Scout Pack 197 spent nine months doing research and producing multiple drafts of a letter. A den leader consulted a lawyer. The pack, D'Acosta said, wanted to word its letter carefully, so as to make a statement condemning the Boy Scout position "without forcing national to kick us out."

Pack 197's letter ultimately said that in their interpretation, "the Scout oath and law requires Scouts and leaders to take nondiscriminatory stands."

The parents of Pack 197 sent a letter to national Boy Scout headquarters, to the regional council and to the local press. They placed copies in the elementary school, for parents who were picking up information about Pack 197.

The position, he said, "helped us retain our sponsorship at the local school and made parents happy." The troop was never penalized by Scout officials for its stance, he said. A troop in West Hartford, Conn., that passed an antidiscrimination resolution also was not punished for going against the national policy.

D'Acosta would rather think about projects such as building pushcarts for the Memorial Day parade. Still, he's occasionally reminded that he's part of an organization that, in one area, clashes with his own values.

He recalled a Scouting trip to Washington, D.C., to see the site of the World War II monument. D'Acosta was in a hotel lobby in his Boy Scout uniform when a couple approached him. They were from Oklahoma, and in town lobbying on some issue. The woman "reached out her hand and wanted to thank me for the position that Boy Scouts had taken on homosexuality."

D'Acosta sat her down, and told her that not everyone in Scouting agrees with that position.

Such experiences raise a question - are these parents being intellectually honest if they are still paying, uniform-wearing members?

Former Scout supporters such as John Archer, a Massachusetts businessman, don't think so.

Archer owns an insurance business in Danvers, Mass. He sits on the boards of his local United Way and Salvation Army. And for years, he lent his name to the local Boy Scouts' fundraising letter. No more.

"By going along with it a little bit, you're going along with it a lot," Archer said by phone.

The troops in his area, "there's not one problem. But still, they are governed by this organization in Texas ... Their basic premise is that gay people are no good. It's pretty bad, and I'm not saying this lightly, it's disgusting. (The Boy Scout headquarters in) Irving, Texas, is a bad place, bad. They foster into a young man the idea that discrimination is OK. Take that with a young mind, a six-pack of beer and a gun, and someone is dead."

Scouting for All, a national campaign of Scouts, former Scouts and others who are working to change the Boy Scouts of America's stand on gay members, said parents who complain from within the ranks have the best chance of changing the policy.

"We are really pushing that," said Wil Fisher, the group's Northeast coordinator. "We don't want our move to change this policy to seem like an outside group of radical lobbyists pushing something onto a private organization."

The Scouting parents are also influential, Fisher believes, because the national Boy Scout organization does not want to lose members and funding. The United Way of Southeastern New England, for one, eliminated its $200,000 annual award to the Narragansett Boy Scouts three years ago when the Scouts refused to sign an antidiscrimination statement, which included sexual orientation, according to Hank Sennott, spokesman for the local United Way. The statement had been given to all agencies funded by the United Way.

Said Fisher, of Scouting for All, "With the small troops, they seem to brush it under the table. A lot of that comes from pressure the different troops are getting from funding and the United Way."

"It's when larger councils go directly against the policy that national feels obligated to go and take action," he said, referring to a dispute in Philadelphia, where the Boy Scout council passed an antidiscrimination resolution in May and was promptly ordered to rescind it. They did.

As for parents who formally object to the scout's policy, Shields, the spokesman for the national Boy Scouts, said, "certainly we don't revoke membership of people for having divergent opinions.

However, he said, "taking action directly contrary to the national policy would draw a little different" response.

Even last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision supporting homosexual rights is not swaying the Boy Scouts.

Just recently, Venture Crew 488 of Sebastopol, in the redwoods of northern California, learned how strongly the Scouts believe in their policy.

The crew, a Boy Scout high-adventure unit for teens and young adults, was sponsored by the Kiwanis and led by Bev Buswell, a true Scout mom.

Buswell, who sells real estate as her regular job, was assistant scoutmaster, merit badge counselor, activity chair and high-adventure chair.

Her son is an Eagle Scout, and Scouting, Buswell said, is the second-most important influence on her son. Family is first.

After the Supreme Court decision upholding the Boy Scouts, she decided that "this is a good organization" that she was going to stay with, but make some noise.

She wrote to the executives of the Boy Scouts of America, suggesting that they choose their Scout leaders based on strengths. She'd had a unimpressive assistant scoutmaster, and it had nothing to do with his sexual preference.

He had to "leave the meeting about five times for a cigarette, reeked of smoke, carried the same never-cleaned coffee cup for years," she wrote. "Apparently, he was morally straight."

Scouting for All posted her letter on its Web site, with all the others from like-minded parents. Contacted to inquire how Venture Crew 488 is doing, Buswell said she had bad news.

She said publicly for the first time, to The Providence Journal, that her Venture crew had lost its charter.

In December, she had "upped the ante." When she sent her annual charter application to the Redwood Empire Council, she attached a resolution saying she would not follow the Boy Scouts' rule on gay scouts and leaders. She was told if she wanted to keep her venture crew, she would need to take back her statement. She wouldn't.

In a recent phone interview, Mike Randolph, a district executive for the Redwood Council, confirmed that Buswell's charter had been revoked. The council had enforced the national policy. "There's no other option," he said.

Randolph said he did give Buswell an option to be part of a separate Boy Scout program that offers after-school programs and career training. It's not "traditional Scouting," he said.

Asked if it was hard to lose a longtime Scout like Buswell, whose father was the scoutmaster of her brother's troop, Randolph said: "We're comforted by a number of surveys indicating that the majority of American parents support our position, which of course has been upheld by the Supreme Court."

Buswell is disappointed. She had hoped to be the "inner movement, the change from within. Or are we slowly getting thrown out one by one?"

The Narragansett Council has made no moves to revoke the charters of its two dissenting troops in Providence. Asked to comment on the troops, a spokesman for the council provided a statement, which said that the organization is "disheartened" by the Boy Scout of America's refusal to "thoroughly and completely review" its rule concerning gays. The council has also formally requested a review.

Dennison, the assistant scoutmaster of Troop 28, said that behind the scenes, the Narragansett Council is protecting his troop and Pack 88 - and would rather they keep quiet.

"They are uncomfortable. They don't really want to us to talk to the press," he said. "They believe that if we talk to the press ... they are going to get pilloried by national." Dennison, however, does not believe the national organization will bother with troops in more liberal places such as Providence.

"They're basically trying to submerge the issue, because they realize they're not going to win."

But civil rights and ideological debates seem far away on a June night at the Central Congregational Church.

During the Eagle Scout ceremony, the boys walk up toward a stage decorated in red, white and blue, put three fingers up, and recite the Scout Law in unison.

The "troop historian" recaps the year, dryly explaining how he learned, the messy way, with a can of ravioli and a big fire, a physics law about how heated things tend to expand.

Cicilline, on the stage next to an American flag, tells the Scouts what has worked for him: finding a passion, being conscious of his responsibility to society, and fighting for what he believes in, even if it's difficult.

As the night ends, and two boys are fooling around on an old Steinway in the church hall, there are three new Eagle Scouts heading into the world.

After all, he said, there's a good chance they'll go to work for a big organization that's been "led awry" by its leaders.

"Do you stay and fight or do you drop out? Do you just go along and get your Eagle and be quiet?" he said. "What is your stance?"

"Your submission is accepted. Your proof?"

There's a lot of anecdotal and empirical support for this statement. I meet quite a few people in my profession, and I've known only two people who are significantly attracted to both sexes. The data show that the vast majority of post-pubertal individuals across cultures are heterosexual, that there is a minority that is homosexual (1-5%, depending on how you count them), and there are very few people who have significant bisexual attraction (generally less than 1%). I think that if you truly do not feel that you have a sexual orientation (e.g. you look at very attractive men and very attractive women in the same way), that would be very rare indeed.

"there is much evidence that little boys don't really like little girls as much as other little boys and it takes quite a bit of time for them to change"

Yes. However, when they change, their feelings toward girls are a lot different than their old feelings about boys.

Your perspective on sexual motivation sounds virtually Freudian. Freud's perspective was problematic in a whole lot of ways.

But there is much evidence that little boys don't really like little girls as much as other little boys and it takes quite a bit of time for them to change.

Exactly right. It’s much easier to be with the same sex as they are more like you. There is a natural conflict between the sexes and often homosexuality begins with the avoidance this conflict. Heterosexuality is a learned behavior; children raised in a culture that promotes the traditional family unit adapt and emulate the same behaviors as their parents. Evidence of the opposite is seen with higher rates (as high as 20%) of homosexuality practiced by children raised in homosexual households, statistically and disproportionately out of the general homosexual population.

excuse the statement, which should have been "If you are straight and you are not promiscuous"

Not all boys in high school are promiscuous. a majority have sex by age age 18 but not all. And most of them only have sex on a few occassions or with their girlfriends.

Gay men have "one night stands".

It's the difference between six lovers by age 20 and 600....

Not all boys in high school are promiscuous. a majority have sex by age age 18 but not all.

Only because girls say no. Let's face it, the only thing that really keeps most straight guys' urges in check are women. If you give them the option to have sex as much as they want, most would choose to do so. Why? Because they're walking hormones.

There is no controlling factor in the homosexual "mating" (for lack of a better word) dance. They're both guys, and they want to get laid. It doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, just basic sociology.

Yes. However, when they change, their feelings toward girls are a lot different than their old feelings about boys.

We are discussing whether those feelings change because of a hardwired orientation, or because of societal influences.

Please note that neither reason supports accepting homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle. Shalom.

I would guess that you don't live here in California.

I suspect, although there won't be proof for a while, that we are moving toward a bisexual culture. When I was young, if a young man had homosexual urges he would have done anything he could to hide the fact, because it was generally known that this was sick.

However, today it is not believed that homosexual attraction is a sickness, so more boys are willing to "experiment" with it, with a reasonable outcome being "I wasn't really gay."

In 20 years or so, boys will sleep with whomever it pleases them to sleep with at the moment. Declaring a preferred gender will be passe.

Shalom.

"We are discussing whether those feelings change because of a hardwired orientation, or because of societal influences."

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that. I haven't suggested either possibility. I was just making the point that sexual orientation exists independently of sexual behavior (the original poster equated the two) and that it generally predates sexual behavior. We really don't know yet what causes sexual orientation.

"Please note that neither reason supports accepting homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle."

No -- I agree with you. That's obviously an orthogonal issue.

I was just making the point that sexual orientation exists independently of sexual behavior

If you are correct, and I still suggest that it is learned, then the valid orientation is heterosexual. A homosexual "orientation" is a sign of someone needing help, not encouragement.

Shalom.

"If you are correct, and I still suggest that it is learned..."

Okay. I'm not really ready to suggest either way yet, as the data aren't in. If sexual orientation is learned, it is likely as a result of something other than actual sexual experience with others. Virtually everyone (gay or straight) knows their sexual orientation before their first sexual experience with another person. Regardless of whether it's learned or not, it does exist independently of behavior.

"A homosexual "orientation" is a sign of someone needing help, not encouragement."

Feel free to help those that you believe need help. I do.

Virtually everyone (gay or straight) knows their sexual orientation before their first sexual experience with another person.

I'd be interested in seeing the data on that, and how it is determined. I am aware that most people who talk about their first homosexual encounter talk about being either seduced or molested by an older person.

That is anecdotal, of course, but I know of no one who disclaims it.

Shalom.

"I'd be interested in seeing the data on that"

You might check out Bell's 1981 book "Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women." A lot of things have changed since then, but it's a pretty good read for a layperson. Among the findings are that most gay people know their orientation before engaging in sex, and that most of them have their first sexual encounter with someone roughly their own age (although the rate of first sex with an older partner is higher among gay men than among straight men).

There are a great many forces influencing sexual orientation and its disclosure, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions in this area. For instance, while there is a trend toward greater disclosure of homosexuality (or perhaps even greater rates of homosexuality) recently, and kids are having sex at younger ages, there is an even greater tendency for gay people to acknowledge their sexual orientation before engaging in sex these days (perhaps because they understand the issue better).

Homosexuality:

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.

The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals shall not be confused with the deficiencies associated with the left wing democrat/socialist/marxist/ feminist/environmentalist minds, etc., which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

I'd have a hard time believing that the results are credible. If they were, such a conclusion from 1981 would have far more profound impact on the current debate. I did a quick Google search and could only find a few quotes from the book on some pro-gay Web sites, no serious discussion of what is done there. However, there are FReepers who keep up with the responses to various studies far better than I, so I am going to ask them for their opinions.

Guys - what's the consensus on Bell 1981? Feel free to ask others who might know.

Shalom.

Feel free to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Of course, but there are methodologies that I have not studied in the Social Sciences, other than to know that it is difficult to come up with a good methodology. I could read Kinsey, but it would be foolish to do so since Kinsey's methodologies are known to have been flawed.

As I said, a 1981 work that was actually of value would not be obscure - especially one that had the capacity to prove wrong what we all know to be right - that sexual preferences are learned.

Shalom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.