The Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) National Council meeting in
May will decide whether to abandon the BSA’s long-time ban on open
homosexuality. Early last month, the BSA executive board,
confronted by corporate threats to defund, had planned to proceed
with a new policy of allowing sponsors of local Boy Scout troops to
determine their own policy. Widespread protests, especially from
church sponsors, who host 70 percent of Boy Scout troops, persuaded
the BSA board, which includes several corporate CEOs pushing for a
more permissive policy, to defer to the 1,400 member National
Council.
Later in February, the leadership of United Methodist Men (UMM),
which is the second largest religious sponsor of Boy Scouts,
shifted from earlier statements indicating acceptance of a BSA
local option and instead asked the BSA not to proceed with a policy
change. The UMM noted having received “many phone calls and emails”
since the BSA’s proposed policy change became public. Many
threatened to quit BSA as leaders or donors if BSA adopted the
proposed new policy, and many were “angry” that churches were not
better consulted about the policy shift. The letter reports that a
“few” expressed support for the policy change, but overall the
response has been “overwhelmingly” negative.
“This potential shift from BSA places UMM’s primary goal, our
core value — expansion and retention — at risk,” the UMM
declared. “If approved, scouting programs would decrease, and new
programs would be harder to begin due to the uncertainty this
proposal has generated.” The UMM complained there had not been
adequate time for United Methodist Men and churches to consider the
“legal and spiritual consequences” of a BSA shift.
Unlike the Methodists, the Mormons, as the largest religious
sponsor of Boy Scouts, have remained publicly silent though
presumably privately disapproving of a policy change. Roman
Catholics are the third-largest religious sponsor, and the head of
their scouting ministries had carefully warned against a policy
change before the February board meeting. The Southern Baptists,
who are the sixth largest church host, have continued to be
outspoken against any change.
Other pro-family groups have been collecting petitions and
urging the BSA to stand firm. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF),
which litigates in defense of religious freedom, has recently
warned BSA that its proposed local option would potentially remove
protection that courts have given BSA’s national policy. Absent a
clear national standard, ADF warns, BSA would be vulnerable to
litigation. “It is not legally necessary for BSA to sacrifice its
history or its principles in the face of growing threats,” ADF told
BSA in its appeal.
Meanwhile, BSA has emailed 1.1 million adults involved with
Scouting a survey about the controversy, offering six theoretical
scenarios absent the ban on homosexuality, soliciting reactions.
First the survey asks respondents about their support for the
current requirements that “prohibit open homosexuals” membership or
leadership. And it asks if this policy is a “core value” of
scouting as found in the Scout Oath and Law.
The survey’s first suggested scenario asks if a 15-year-old
“openly gay Scout” should be permitted to share a tent with a
heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip. The second scenario
asks about a “gay male troop leader, along with another adult
leader” taking “adolescent boys on an overnight camping trip.” The
third scenario asks whether a 16-year-old should receive his Eagle
Scout award after revealing his homosexuality. The fourth scenario
asks whether a gay youth minister at a gay friendly church hosting
a Scout troop should serve as a Scoutmaster. The fifth scenario
asks whether an “openly gay youth” should be refused membership in
a Scout troop hosted by a church that “believes that homosexuality
is wrong.” The final scenario asks about the propriety of a first
grade Tiger Cub’s lesbian mother serving as den mother of a troop
hosted by a church fine with homosexuality.
After the scenarios, the survey again asks the same questions
about support for the BSA’s current policy. It also notes that
“different organizations that charter Boy Scout troops have
different positions on the morality of homosexuality,” and asks
whether charter groups should be allowed to follow their own
beliefs “when selecting Boy Scout members and adult leaders, if
that means there will be different standards from one organization
to the next.”
The survey concludes by asking: “What is your greatest concern
if the policy remains in place and openly gay youth and adults are
prohibited from joining Scouting?” And: “What is your greatest
concern if the policy is changed to allow charter organizations to
make their own decisions to admit openly gay Scouts and
leaders?”
Is the survey biased towards pushing respondents against the
BSA’s current policy, or does it accurately reflect the conflict?
It’s debatable. But probably most respondents, as current or former
participants in Scouting, either way will oppose a policy change.
Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, in publicly defending the
policy, has asked whether heterosexual men should be allowed to
escort teenage girls on overnight camping trips. He cites frail
human nature as constantly vulnerable to moral failure, hence
protections are constantly needed against temptation, such as
permitting homosexual men to lead Scout troops. Probably most BSA
supporters, even in the current cultural climate of hyper
tolerance, understand the core argument for the BSA’s current
standard.
Beyond the Boy Scouts, at stake is whether any private
organization beyond religious institutions shall be permitted by
the current culture to uphold traditional sexual ethics. And
ultimately are churches themselves, even if legally protected by
the First Amendment, safe from hostility and growing intolerance
against traditionalism? A lot may depend on whether the BSA in May
and beyond is willing to forego some corporation donations and
endure adversity in defense of not just its members but also all
Americans standing against the increasingly oppressive sexual
zeitgeist.
Photo: UPI
