Subject: What really happened in Dallas ( was Re: Decision Delayed)
Date: 10:51, Feb 7 2013
These people are much more interested in money than Scouting's long-time values. – Calvin, a SM in TX
I'm sorry, Calvin, but I can't let this pass. I was in Dallas for the meetings the past Monday and Tuesday (I'm not on the National Board and was not in the Wednesday Board meeting.). I had personal discussions with many members of the National Board and the National Advisory council. NEVER ONCE DID I HEAR MONEY MENTIONED AS A PRIMARY DRIVER. I heard many, many discussions about the short and long term future of the organization and how the BSA can best be positioned for short and long term health and growth. I was personally present in the meeting where Wayne Perry, the National President who is a lifelong member of the LDS Church and a lifelong Scouter and the founder of a billion dollar company, was in tears about having to go to Salt Lake City and discuss with his Prophet why he believes that a change in the membership standards (gay policy) is essential to the health of the organization to protect, among other things, the right of the BSA to maintain the Duty to God standard. NEVER ONCE DID HE MENTION MONEY. He and Tico Perez, the National Commissioner, and Wayne Brock, the Chief Scout Executive, did mention the personal values and beliefs of todays youth and today's parents and the persons that we serve. There also was mention of the personal heartache caused by communication from parents and Scout leaders of older youth who realize they are gay. Wayne Brock too appeared close to tears when he discussed a phone call from a Scout leader who said that one of his older Scouts had been a member of the group of boys since they were 8. The boys all love each other in the best, Scoutlike, family-like sense. That boy is now 16 and has realized he is gay and so informed the Scoutmaster. The Scout leader asks "Am I supposed to tear this group of youth apart by expelling this one boy? His friends know about and don't care about his sexual orientation. What will it say to each of these older boys if we expel their highly respected friend. Should we not expect to lose all of them to Scouting and to the Scout Oath and Scout Law?" I heard a 78 year veteran Scouter who has received every honor the BSA has, in a public meeting, discuss the heartache caused when his Eagle Scout youngest son came to him and said he was gay. The heartache was not over the son's sexual orientation. Rather, when he asked his son "when did you know?" The son said, "I realized my feelings about this were different when I was about 10." Then when he asked his son "Why did you take so long to tell me?" and the son said "I know how important the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts are to you and I didn't want to cause trouble for you." There were a lot of us close to tears there. NEVER ONCE WAS MONEY MENTIONED. I'm not saying money is not a factor; just that it appeared there are many, many other factors just as compelling if not more so. The National Key 3 said that personally, they were probably the most conservative National Key 3 in 20 years and in their personal beliefs, none of them particularly wanted a change. However, they said they had concluded that the change was absolutely essential to the short and long term survival, health and growth of the BSA. I fully admit that I am not neutral in this and my council and I have a dog in this fight. I had a lot of discussions with persons from conservative religions about their beliefs and how they find homosexuality morally repugnant and do not want homosexual leaders around their youth. I get it and I understand how it is absolutely essential to have policies and procedures to protect the beliefs of those religions. At the same time, when I was discussing the problems that the policy causes for the more welcoming religions, more inclusive persons and many of today's youth and parents, I did not get the feeling that the reception by many rank and file members (and even in some cases leaders) of the conservative religions was particularly empathetic or that the effort was being made to find a working procedure which would enable all persons to have Scouting in line with their religious and personal beliefs. Either they do not get it or they do not want to get it or they believe their personal beliefs trump any consideration for the beliefs of others. I heard a lot about the Bible and Leviticus. I heard a lot about the "gay agenda" and concern about lawsuits to force sponsors to take gay leaders. I heard very little about "friendly" and "kind" and about respect for the customs and beliefs of others. And I certainly heard threats to leave if the policy is changed. To me the proposed change to local sponsor option on membership is the only possible policy to protect the rights of all sponsors and to honor our long standing Declaration of Religious Principles. The threats to leave and lack of empathy and understanding to me are exceedingly disappointing. I don't believe that anyone has suggested that individual sponsors and individual units who do not want gay or lesbian leaders should have them. I would only hope that, in the spirit of Scouting, the opposite prerogative would be given to sponsors and units which have different beliefs and theologies. There are concerns about multi-unit activities like camp and camporees. I believe those can be worked out by people of good faith, just as they were when woman were universally permitted to become BSA leaders at all levels in the late '70s. I do hope we can continue to have one BSA. It would be an incredible shame if this issue, which as a practical matter should probably be a very rare occurrence in a program primarily for 7 to 14 year olds, would tear apart the BSA.
Wow. That’s not very encouraging.
This message is a carefully constructed argument. Note that the opponents are painted as evil non-charitable Christians who hate homosexuals, and the homosexuals are painted as completely sympathetic people. It's all emotional and based on a few examples, not considering the real issue.
The response to this is that the message ignores two problems: the philosophical and the practical.
1. Philosophical. Are you going to change the accepted definition of "morally straight" to include discussion of sex as a Scout value? Not just homosexual, but any sex is inappropriate for discussion in BSA. That's why homosexuals are barred, because they self-identify and focus their lives around what they do with their genitals. Our troop expelled a scoutmaster who put some very inappropriate heterosexual posts on his FB page.
2. Practical. Not just leaders, but older Scouts, who self-identify as homosexual should not be in groups of boys on campouts and trips because it is an ongoing temptation to them and a source of scandal. That's why we don't let 20-something boys lead Girl Scout troops. Incoming lawsuits in 3, 2, 1 . . . .