BSA to Accept Gay Youth, but Not Adults
On May 23, the Boy Scouts of America voted to end their policy excluding gay youth from the organization, a decision which officially takes effect on January 1, 2014. They did not vote on their policy excluding gay adults from accepting leadership positions, nor did they change their policies on atheist and transgender individuals.
The Boy Scouts were an important part of my life growing up. I eventually quit the organization in part due to their bigotry and discrimination. When my son was six and wanted to join Cub Scouts, my wife and I were torn. We eventually let him join, and at the end of the year, we had a long talk about scouts and what it was about, the positives and the negatives, and our own conflicts. The three of us decided together not to sign back up.
I’ve already watched one of my Facebook friends quit the organization in protest, complaining about how a “vocal minority” had “bullied” a private organization into this decision. She also explained that she’s sick and tired of people accusing her of bigotry, and that she doesn’t care about sexual orientation; her concern is for the boys. She wrote a long post about the Scout Law, talking about how openly gay youth violated the ideals of that law.
Bullshit.
This person is so concerned about the safety of the boys. Which makes me wonder, would she support allowing lesbians to serve as den leaders? Because right now, that’s forbidden by the BSA’s discriminatory policies. My mother, a straight woman, was a den leader for many years. If the “logic” of excluding gay men is because they could be potential predators (as a result of being attracted to men), how is that any different from straight women, who are also attracted to men?
Unless you’re buying into the bullshit belief that gay=pedophile/rapist, in which case you are not only a bigot, but an idiot.
She went on to talk about her fear that the boys might go off alone, and who knows what might happen? What if an older gay scout pressures a younger one into something he doesn’t want? Once again it’s not consensual sexual activity she’s afraid of; it’s the “gays as predators” boogeyman.
The Girl Scouts of America have been open and welcoming of all girls, regardless of sexual orientation. Oddly enough, I’m having a really hard time finding stories about the rampant same-sex assaults that presumably permeate the organization as a result of their decision. Weird…
According to the Scout Law, a scout is:
- Trustworthy – I would love to trust this organization with my child. That means trusting them to welcome and accept him as he grows up, trusting them to help him become a better person. A policy of discrimination and bigotry is a violation of that trust.
- Loyal – Many boys have no concept of sexual identity when they first join Tiger Scouts. As they grow older and continue in scouting, some of those boys will discover that they are not, in fact, heterosexual. Should the BSA show loyalty to their own members, or should they kick them to the curb?
- Helpful – Yet when gay and lesbian adults offer their help, scouting rejects them. In my personal experience, scouting was tremendously helpful to me in many ways. Why would the organization want to refuse that help to certain boys?
- Friendly – What’s so friendly about rejection and discrimination, about teaching kids that it’s okay to exclude “those people”?
- Courteous – How is it courteous to tell someone they’re not welcome here, simply because of who he or she loves?
- Kind – See “Friendly.”
- Obedient – I’ll admit, this is one I’ve struggled with over the years. There are times for obedience, and there are times for disobedience. To me, it’s important to obey one’s conscience, as hundreds of Eagle Scouts have done when they returned their medals in protest of the organization’s discriminatory policies. One could argue that the youth and leaders trying to ban homosexuals from scouting are following their consciences, and that’s probably true. It’s also sad and depressing as hell.
- Cheerful – I mean, come on. Gay means cheerful and happy and merry, for crying out loud 😉
- Thrifty – Um … okay, I got nothing for this one. Except maybe that an organization looking for a stable and solid budget, one which relies in part on donations and popcorn sales, shouldn’t enact a broad policy of exclusion?
- Brave – People keep talking about how the vocal minority bullied the BSA into this decision. I think this is a ridiculous abuse of the word “bully,” but setting that aside, it takes tremendous courage to be in the minority and to speak up for what’s right.
- Clean – If you buy into stereotypes about homosexuals, doesn’t that include the one about gays being exceptionally clean and hygienic and well-dressed? After living through those week-long summer camps, the BSA could use an influx of gay men and boys! (Note: I don’t actually believe this, but for those who discriminate based on stereotypes, shouldn’t this be a point in favor of admitting gay youths and leaders?)
- Reverent – This ties into the BSA’s discrimination against atheists, but in terms of homosexuality, do you want to hear something shocking? Not all religions condemn homosexuality! For some devotedly religious individuals, duty to God means loving and welcoming all people.
This continues to be frustrating and painful to me. Boy Scouts did so much for me as a kid, and I believe they do a lot of good. And this week’s decision was a good first step. But it’s only one step. The organization still has work to do if it means to live up to its own stated ideals.
Michael M Jones
May 25, 2013 @ 6:52 pm
Amen, Jim. I saw that brief exchange you had on FB, and even that was enough to make me grimace in frustration. Apparently, even though these people aren’t bigots or homophobes, they’re damned quick to assume that a gay Scout is going to immediately start preying on their fellows. And… where does one even begin.
I was never really a full-fledged Boy Scout. I was a Cub Scout for a year, way back in my distant youth, and sadly I don’t really recall much of that beyond making a wooden race car and earning some badges. Not enough to solidify me as part of the Boy Scout family. But still.
It frustrates and angers me that an organization like the Boy Scouts, which is -supposed- to be morally upright, virtuous, the sort of people who grow into leaders, the sort of people we should look up to, the sort of people we all want to be, has this amazing blind spot, where they have trouble seeing how excluding people kinda goes against their very principles.
You put things a lot more eloquently than I do. All I can really say is that if they were smart, the Boy Scouts would accept everyone regardless of sexual preference, in the hopes of, well, turning out even more of the fine, upstanding, etc etc people that they do. Why shun anyone who genuinely wants to embrace that path?
I just hope that this small bit of progress shows people that opening their ranks to gay kids won’t somehow destroy the world.
Erika
May 25, 2013 @ 7:05 pm
My family has had a long relationship with the Boy Scouts and I’ve always been proud of this but as I’ve become more and more aware of their engrained policy of discrimination and their pathetic reasons for why, never mind their hiding of and protection of actual pedophiles in their midst that weren’t, gasp GAY at all!it’s harder and harder to look upon them with the same respect and pride.
It’s like they don’t see their own hypocrisy.
Jim C. Hines
May 25, 2013 @ 7:21 pm
I hope so too, Michael…
Moira
May 25, 2013 @ 7:42 pm
Given the timing of their original decision to re-evaluate their policy, I believe the Boy Scouts are hoping to hold on to their sponsors and as many money-paying members as possible by letting the “harmless” kids in while still keeping the “dangerous” adults out. Their understanding of human nature appears surprisingly shaky.
As to that woman who doesn’t like being called a bigot, well, if you don’t like being called a bigot, don’t treat other people like sub-human trash.
Jeff Linder
May 25, 2013 @ 8:45 pm
It took a little while for my thoughts about this to crystallize, but what I think is that this is the only possible way this could have worked positively. Institutions change slowly, the older the institution, often the more resistance to change. Add in the fact that you have about 90 percent of troops being sponsored by various religious organizations and all of the baggage that brings and you have a recipe for molasses.
Trying to push too ‘radical’ a change would cause upheaval that may in fact destroy the organization, as much as we would wish otherwise there are a lot of bigots out there. This is a change the majority (and it was not a huge majority) could live with.
Additional change WILL come however. As more and more scouts see their openly gay friends denied leadership positions after years of serving and working together they will become agents for the next evolution. It may take years, maybe even decades, but it will happen.
The gay rights movement is currently undergoing a sea change not unlike that of civil rights in the 60s. But its important to note that the civil rights movement by no means eliminated racism, it just started the path that will take years/decades to travel before true equality is a reality.
The key to acceptance is to establish a new normal. Gay marriage is approaching that status, and maybe 20 years from now people will wonder what the fuss is about, just as many people do about interracial marriage now (of course there are and always will be some people who can’t accept it). Gay kids in scouting will become the new normal at some point as well, though it will not be easy. I fully expect to hear stories of troops discriminating, fights, bullying, etc. Lasting change is hard.
This is a very important and positive first step to lasting change…
Mal
May 25, 2013 @ 8:55 pm
Well said. That whole Christian thing … as I recall, BSA was not nearly as overtly religious 30 years ago as it is now, at least not in the Midwest, where I lived. (It may have been there on paper, but no one cared.)
It seems to me that this reliance on biblical definitions of what is decent or moral is a fairly recent thing–and is another example of a kind of false-memory that conservatives have been touting for a while now. It goes like this: Ah, we remember when good Christian values permeated society, and everything was better.
Not only did that time never exist(certainly not in my lifetime), but it arises now purely in the context of new efforts to impose Christianity on secular institutions–schools, for example. And it gets mentioned only in terms of exclusions: excluding Muslims/gays/atheists from some activity or other. (Back in those “good old days,” it was Jews and blacks.)
On the bright side, I think this obsession with some fictional whitebread 1950s America where no one is an atheist is purely a visceral response to the fact that conservatives are losing on nearly all cultural fronts. The tide is slowly, painfully progressive.
Jessi
May 25, 2013 @ 9:21 pm
I believe I saw the facebook post you are referring to (courtesy of Facebook’s annoying “Person-With-Whom-You-Are-Friended” commented on “This-Post-By-Someone-You-Do-Not-Know” feature). If I recall correctly the same person who pointed out that openly gay members violate Scout Law also pointed out that gay members who are *not* open are equally in violation because it’s dishonest.
In other words, it doesn’t matter if they’re *openly* gay or not, they’re icky and don’t belong in Boy Scouts.
Those kinds of conflicting arguments come from someone who insists they “don’t have a problem with gays” tell me that the person really doesn’t believe they are homophobic, or really doesn’t want to believe it. They grasp at whatever justifications they can so they don’t have to admit “This weirds me out and I don’t really know why”. Unfortunately, it’s near impossible to have a constructive dialogue until that happens.
KatG
May 25, 2013 @ 10:27 pm
The Boy Scouts were way less religious up until the 1990’s, when apparently a minority of very conservative religious folk took over and went on a rampage about atheists, gays, feminists, etc. That’s not an organization being slow to change and we just have to be patient for twenty years. It’s an organization that’s been co-opted and deliberately warped to be used as a propaganda weapon.
When there was enough bad publicity that it started hurting them more and more, with rightful accusations that kids were being bullied and shamed by the organization, they came up with this half-way measure where they treat gay kids and teenagers as misguided and so can stay, but they can continue to propagandize against adult homosexuals, including parents, atheists and others the people calling the shots don’t like. Consequently, they are going to lose more and more kids. Membership in the Boy Scouts has dropped substantially each year.
An alternative is Navigators USA, which has had its membership (both girls and boys are included) doubled. http://navigatorsusa.org/ And of course the Girl Scouts are great for girls (and constantly under attack from conservatives — save the cookies!) I was a Girl Scout, my school also had Boy Scouts, and except for a few brief historic passages in the manuals, both organizations were entirely secular and took kids of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics.
Kids do not have twenty years to wait, and gay parents should not be attacked any more than gay kids. The Boy Scouts was turned from a positive camping and life skills organization into a tent revival and political football. It would be nice to revamp it, but aggressive protesting has already created more change — not throwing out gay students — than sitting around waiting for these people to give up their death grip on the organization. And inclusive, secular organizations like Navigators are a better bet for the future.
Amy
May 26, 2013 @ 12:47 am
Exactly — they’re trying to play both sides in the optimal position to try and keep as many members/sponsors as possible. Instead of just doing the right thing and ending the ingrained discrimination.
Amy
May 26, 2013 @ 12:48 am
Hell’s Bells, the Boy Scouts don’t let atheists in? I didn’t know that. I guess they’re worried that evil atheists will try to corner their good Christian Boy Scouts in tents and try to convert them?!
MadGastronomer
May 26, 2013 @ 5:23 am
This is called incrementalism, and it’s crap. You get social acceptance by being there, by being visible, exactly by challenging preconceptions. The churches and groups that sponsor scout troops that want to keep gay adults out also keep gay people out of their lives as much as possible. They avoid seeing us as much as possible. The national council allowing gay adults would mean that even scouts and leaders in groups that didn’t allow gay adults would at least encounter gay leaders at jamborees and things. That brings about change. When people meet the people they’re prejudiced against, as human beings, and get to know us, as human beings, that is what challenges prejudice. Slowly, sure. But it does. Trying to take it even more slowly than that? It’s just an excuse not to treat us as equals right now.
We’ve been here. We’ve done this. Telling us we have to wait, we have to be patient, we’ll get there eventually, we have to wait for public opinion to catch up? It’s bull. It’s still discrimination.
Jeff Linder
May 26, 2013 @ 1:58 pm
You are right, incrementalism is like Democracy. It’s the worst form of government out there, except compared to everything else.
It would be great if suddenly everyone saw the error of their ways , but unfortunately slow change is the only way to evoke lasting change.
Let’s just say that the scouts put allowing gay leaders up for a vote in conjunction with this (and voting was the right way to go, executive fiat would have unleashed a major backlash that might have destroyed the organization) – based on pretty much every poll out there, it would have gone down to a major defeat and taken the acceptance of gay youth with it. Even if they voted separately, there is a very real chance of a carry over effect.
So here’s the possible scenarios:
1> No change, no vote – everyone loses.
2> Combined vote – everyone loses.
3> Vote on kids only – kids win, adults lose
4> Executive fiat – kids win with massive disruption, adults still lose as there is no way the management would have gone this far.
That’s it. There is no realistic scenario, regardless of how we might wish otherwise, that was going to see gay scout leaders. Yet. Waiting for change is horrid, and in a perfect world wouldn’t happen, but we live in a far from perfect world. You take the victories you can get and hope those pave the way for more victories down the road as things settle. It’s an ugly, ugly way to live, but history has shown that other than civil war its the ONLY way to make lasting social change.
A side note. I’ve seen (not necessarily here) people excoriating the executive council for not just making the call to let everyone in on moral grounds. The thing is, although the BSA is a social organization with a strong moral component, that is not their job. As the board of a non-profit org, they are legally bound to make decisions in what they believe is the best long term decision for their organization, regardless of moral judgements (ethical yes, but that’s a different kettle of fish). I am sure that some of the committee would have voted in favor of a full lifting of the ban, and some would have voted against the current state, as they are a reflection of our country as a whole.
The scouts are a national organization that has to address the needs, wants and concerns of many different constituent bodies. While they may not have gotten the results that people on both sides of the issue might want, they did it the right way and let their members speak on a core issue and abided by that decision. And once the dust settles, they will evaluate and revise. And that’s how it should work.
Jim C. Hines
May 26, 2013 @ 2:42 pm
Yes… said person has just informed me that it’s completely unfair of me to twist her words to make her look like a gay-hating bigot, that she’s unfriended me and lost all respect for me, and that my books will always be tainted with the memory of my cruel words.
I find it strange that people will shout so loudly to protest others “twisting” their words to make them look hateful, but never seem willing to look at their own words to see where that hate really originated…
Joe B.
May 26, 2013 @ 3:58 pm
Mr. Hines,
I will preface my comment in this message that I agree with your stance on the BSA ruling, for all that I am uninformed about much of the BSA practices. I have never been a scout, so my opinion is based purely on a desire for general societal change.
However the person whom you used as a basis of this initial blog posting is a good and dear friend of mine. I have followed her stance on the issue, and seen the turmoil that the feedback from yourself, and your readers who have commented here, has had upon her. This morning I offered her some virtual hugs and support, and she shared with me her uncertainty about whether or not she should contact you. I advised her against it, my reasoning being that any communication with you was likely to be aired out here no matter if she made it a private comment. My precise wording was: “any private response will quite potentially be slapped out in public”
Private messages, especially when associated with a contentious issue like this has been, are labelled as private for a reason. She resorted to a private message in order to express herself without being exposed to further vitriol. In the tolerant and respectful society which we all profess to desire, messages issued in a private medium should be left there.
Jim C. Hines
May 26, 2013 @ 4:12 pm
Joe,
Well, that’s certainly one of the gentler smackdowns I’ve received over the years, and I do appreciate your restraint.
I could certainly choose to air her communication, the various criticisms and attacks she tossed my way, the rationalizations and excuses, and so on. The vast majority of what she said to me remains private, mostly out of a sense of protectiveness and futility.
On the other hand, I also see a value for exposing bigotry. While I know this is someone you care about, someone you presumably consider to be a good person, I see no way in which her words and actions on this particular matter are anything but bigoted, hurtful, and prejudiced.
When someone says hateful things in private, should we act to protect and shield them from the consequences of their own words?
Should I have permission to write vile, hateful things back to her, using the presumption of “privacy” to assure that I never face any consequences for my own bile? (In her defense, her message to me was–at least on the surface–fairly civilized.)
I understand your desire to protect your friend, and I had mixed feelings about the comment above. I’ll continue to think about it, and about your words. But I have very little sympathy for people who use their free speech to spread bigotry, then play the victim when others respond with their own free speech to challenge that bigotry.
Best,
Jim
MadGastronomer
May 26, 2013 @ 9:25 pm
When you get progress in increments, that’s natural, and you put up with it. But you don’t work for progress in increments, and say that it’s good that you got so much and no more. No. You work for whole hog, and when you only get a ham, you say, great, that’s a ham, let’s work for the rest now.
It’s the “But it’s GOOD to only get one small piece of it” crap I’m against.
Amy
May 27, 2013 @ 3:10 am
Not often I see an author posting something like this on your website, and I respect you greatly for your openness and “balls”. I say that because, more often than not, authors are too concerned with their book sales to express their disagreement over the matters you’ve addressed. In fact, not only authors, but people in general tend to avoid such topics in favor of sales. I’m very impressed though that you seem impartial to what people think, and will support your opinion at any cost. I admire that greatly.
Yes, just my two cents.
Katherine
May 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am
Watching all this from up here in Canada (where our scouting organizations happen to be more inclusive and less subject to scandal), I can only say that seeing the news about the outcome of this vote has been (very moderately) heartening. Though, I’m worried that this half-step forward may end up a precursor to the problematic “two steps back” reaction to forward momentum. Which happens with alarming frequency. I can hope for the best, and I sincerely do – as vocal acceptance from such an organization would be a big step toward recognition of equality. I’ve got my fingers crossed, I guess.
I do not know anything about the exchange you had on Facebook with the aforementioned woman who supports bigoted (and i think that’s an apt descriptor – as it’s policy based on illogical/hurtful/wilfully ignorant misunderstanding of what it means to be homosexual) scouting policy, but nothing of your response here is worded in a hurtful way. Pointing out discriminatory beliefs in the people we interact with is not a personal attack. Too often is pointing out such truths seen as just that – a personal attack. I guess being forced to confront our own prejudices can be uncomfortable, but if you believe in being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, and brave maybe you should look to identify and hopefully eliminate prejudice and bigotry from your worldview. Isn’t the point to become the best people we can be?
Sally
May 28, 2013 @ 2:57 pm
I’m so glad I was a girl and could thus join the Girl Scouts. I learned to tie knots and go camping and everything without any of this.
Of course, most troops back then were sponsored by other civic organizations or schools, and met on school grounds, so there wasn’t all this God Not Gays stuff. Also, if Thin Mints aren’t a sign of a benevolent God, what is?
The Boy/Girl Scout troops we met who WERE sponsored by any churches were regarded as second-class, oddly enough: “That’s the best you can do? Your mom and dad made you do it? You couldn’t get into a REAL troop?” Oh, the irony.
As to the woman on FB who is soooooo hurt about it: Yes, she’s probably a completely wonderful human being except for this one blind spot in which she is, absolutely, a bigot. Get that fixed and she’s good.
DawnD
June 1, 2013 @ 8:01 pm
My son is 8 and we have not let him join the scouts precisely because of this issue. I won’t allow my son to participate, despite all the other things they do right, because this is just flat out wrong.
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little
June 2, 2013 @ 5:03 am
There’s also the possibility that this particular incrementalism is worse than nothing at all.
Before, they wouldn’t allow gay kids. Pretty awful, but the resulting situation is a lot of families saying, “You know what? Not for us. Our kids will be over here instead learning that we’ll love them and support them no matter what they discover about their own sexuality.”
Now, they’ll allow gay kids as second-class members who cannot look forward to growing into leadership positions and serving the next generation of scouts. The resulting situation looks more welcoming, maybe, but what is it welcoming gay kids into? To essentially participate in, support, and become indoctrinated in their own marginalization? To make a huge part of their life an organization that tells them that, once they grow up, the people who supposedly welcomed them now will not trust them with the well-being of their future members? To be institutionally discouraged to pursue their aspirations as teachers, mentors, leaders?
That shit is toxic.
Brad Handley
June 4, 2013 @ 9:59 am
Jim,
While I like you as a person, while I think you do some great things, like the POSES, you are the one full of BS on this one. Check the jails, you will find that the pedophile rate is highest among gay men by an exponential factor! The women in jail for pedophilia is much lower then the rate of men. And I would have no problem with a lesbian scout leader. What I object is putting a group of Gay men that has an exponentially higher rate of pedophiles in charge of their target audience!
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2013 @ 10:10 am
Brad,
1. So would you agree that the BSA’s policy against lesbian leadership is bigoted, discriminatory, and stupid?
2. The “Gays are pedophiles” and “Gays are more likely to molest children” myth has been debunked many times.
“Pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children…” (Source)
“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.” (Source)
“Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons that include easier access to boys … pregnancy fears with female victims … homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes.” (Source)
“The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children.” (Source)
I could go on, but the short answer is that you’re buying into a particularly nasty, vicious, and hurtful myth.