Last week, the Boy Scouts of America's National Council voted to change the organization's membership policy to lift restrictions based on sexual orientation. It reads as follows:
"Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone. Additionally, the resolution maintained the Boy Scouts of America’s current membership policy for all adult leaders."
This is a huge step; I won't discount the fact that a change has been long overdue. However, it's important to realize that this change in policy is not yet a change in the organization's fundamental values; they still have a ways to go. At first glance this change seems like just what advocates wanted. However, when you consider the ramifications of this new policy, there's just as much ignorance and intolerance as ever. For their membership policy to be truly changed, it needs to apply to all members, not just youth.
In their FAQs published along with the announcement of the policy, the BSA states "when members are no longer a youth participant, they must meet the requirements of our adult standards." The message they send with that statement is that they'll no longer exclude "out" youth from the start, but that they'll get the boot on their eighteenth birthday. The BSA is supposed to be an organization that builds character and develops hard-working, good citizens who contribute positively to society, so how, if the character built is intended to be sustainable for life, can they justify abandoning these youth at possibly one of the most difficult times of their life (realizing who they are and making the transition from childhood to adulthood). The BSA goes on to say "Scouting has always worked to ensure that it is a supportive and safe environment for young people, both physically and emotionally." That statement is obviously untrue from a historical stance, but as they move forward, how can they say they're actually supportive and safe when they throw you under the bus at age 18?
A big implication of this policy applies to Eagle Scouts. The "most attractive scenario" according to their survey was that "it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation." Most people seem to push their requirements until the last minute, getting their award within a year of turning 18, so what's the message they send when saying they won't deny your award, yet they'll revoke your membership within a few months? It's always been known that once you're an Eagle Scout, you're always an Eagle Scout. This policy gives scouts the false impression that they can be comfortable and supported as an out gay teen, yet if they do make their sexuality known, that dashes any chance of their being able to support their troop as an adult leader one day.
One thing that I completely agree with is their statement that "Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting." This has always been the case and I'm glad they included it. Any sort of inappropriate behavior in a scouting setting will (and should) have appropriate consequences, regardless of who it is. Two gay scouts getting physical or overly flirtatious on an outing should be thought of as just as inappropriate as a married couple (parents of a scout) doing the same thing or an older scout talking to his patrol about which "base" he and his girlfriend got to.
The thing I am most disappointed in with this change is that it was a compromise from the original proposal (not differentiating between adults and youth). The BSA says "As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter."
That's what they think...
I was reassured to hear an interview on KJR last week with Rob McKenna, who is part of the Seattle Council Executive Board subgroup that really pushed this issue to the forefront on the national level. He explained some of the reasoning behind the compromise. They felt that it was unlikely an all-inclusive policy would pass a vote. As the issue of youth is somewhat simpler than that of adults (not for logical reasons, but you do eliminate some of the 'gay=pedophile' believers' issues) and that the survey showed much more consensus in regards to gay youth, they were confident that this would have higher odds of success. Then, once some of the naysayers realize that the world isn't going to end on Jan 1, 2014, more people will be open about a policy that doesn't exclude gay leaders. Some are concerned that supportive organizations will pull out, which I'm sure will happen, but the financial support from the Fortune 500 companies holding back because of this issue alone will more than make up for it. It might just take some time to actually show the good in this change for the skeptics to do a little more batting for both teams (and for the social and financial best interests of the organization).
So, National Council, you may have no plans for further consideration, but those working so hard recently aren't done yet. McKenna said that they aren't nearly done pushing for what's right and that this is only one step in the process. Those of us that disagree with the BSA's longstanding discrimination owe a lot to McKenna, Brad Tilden of Alaska Air Group, and the countless other Seattle Scouters who put a lot of effort in already and aren't giving up until the policy is fully changed. (Goes to show you that staying involved to do what's right can have a greater impact than a fleeting, dramatic gesture of turning in your Eagle award and quitting, like many have done.)
I've been surprised at the lack of religious group pushback. The Mormon Church (major population in scouting) released a new opinion on homosexuality a couple months ago, which isn't one of approval by a long shot, but did introduce some level of acceptance. A statement of the baptist church was recently brought to my attention as well; it's also not one of acceptance but is a sliver more open than before. You can google these to read what they actually say, but my personal conclusion is that the opposing religious groups are seeing that the whole country (as well as the BSA, though at a much slower rate) is changing with or without 100% support and because they see the great value in scouting, they're starting to accept the new status quo, regardless of their disapproval. I've only heard of one case of complete disassociation, a Bremerton chartered organization (i.e. the church sponsoring the troop) that dropped their troop. I'm sure this is happening more, but the ones we lose will be replaced 100-fold by those we'll gain or get back.
There's a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at that for now. Scouting is the best youth organization to build character and develop boys into productive, valuable members of society. I'm glad that they have finally taken the first step towards non-discrimination so that all boys can benefit from all that scouting has to offer. It does really suck that they had to make this compromise for the time being, but one step is significant and it's reassuring to see that the driving force and support will not slow or stop until the job is done. When it comes down to the methods and ideals of scouting, sexuality shouldn't even be an issue whatsoever, but the fact that there are people being actively excluded means that the issue needs to be addressed. Any distraction from the program is unfortunate and I can't wait for the day we can say it's settled so all focus can be put on the program itself, but we're not yet there.
---------------------------
"Many...have commented that they are 'sick' of people talking about gay issues, or simply 'don't care' if someone is gay and would rather they would keep it to themselves. I find this disheartening.
There may come a day when we need not come out of the closet, and need not remind others of the terrible violence, inequity, and ostracism that LGBT people face daily because of who we are and who we love. But that day is not here, and more importantly will never get here, unless people continue to step forward and offer themselves as examples, often at great personal cost. I am called 'faggot,' 'degenerate,' 'queer,' and 'homo' by misguided people every day of my life...but this does not discourage me. It only reminds me of how far we have to go.
Once upon a time I was called a 'Jap' and put into a prison for four years with my entire family, for no other reason than who we were and who we looked like. It is my life's mission to fight against the dark forces of fear and intolerance that could ever lead again to such an injustice.
Thank you for taking the time to listen. The next time you feel fatigue from hearing about LGBT issues, ask yourself this: Do we live yet in the kind of society where violence, hate and prejudice is not an issue? Until we do, be part of the solution, and stand always for justice and equality for all people." - George Takei
No comments:
Post a Comment