Even the NY Times Doesn’t Like the BSA Proposal

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/opinion/the-boy-scouts-fall-short-in-policy-on-gays.html?_r=0

This article states clearly that even if the current proposal is approved, the battles are far from over…

From the article —

“Sadly, though, the change the organization is contemplating falls far short of the clear and strong renunciation of antigay bigotry that is called for. It said it would no longer “dictate” an antigay policy to local scouting groups, but would let them decide whether to permit participation by openly gay people. In other words, whether to persist in barring gay youngsters and their families would become a local option: an unprincipled position that would continue to send a message that discrimination is perfectly acceptable even if it is no longer mandatory under national Boy Scouts rules.”

…therefore, the NY Times thinks that the activists job will necessarily continue until ALL units subscribe to an open/inclusive policy or get out of the program…

From the article…

“Such a partial move should hardly satisfy former donors who have been repelled by the Scouts’ discriminatory ways. And such a stance will not resolve the quandary faced by parents who want the positive experiences that scouting offers but are appalled by antigay bigotry.”

…therefore, even if the policy change is approved, the greenmail will continue and the lost funding will not likely be restored. the choke hold will remain.  However, with 2 million eagles and 4 million registered youth and adults, if each gave only $10 per year on average, National would have $60,000,000 per year to run the program and the greenmail would be ineffectual…

From the article…

“The new policy would, however, undermine the rationale the Supreme Court voiced in 2000 when it affirmed the right of the Scouts to discriminate against gay people. The 5-to-4 ruling turned on the court’s acceptance of the Scouts’ claim that being antigay was a “core” part of its mission and that its freedom of association right trumped any state nondiscrimination rules. Of course, much has changed since that decision — including the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and the ability of gay people to serve openly in the military. Now that the group is on the verge of making discrimination optional, it can no longer claim that discrimination is a “core” purpose — and therefore state nondiscrimination rules should apply to the Scouts. The halfway policy change would inevitably invite litigation.”

….in short, the “expressive message” of the organization will have changed and eliminated the protections that were initially validated in the Dale decision in 2000. A CO will either need to specify that leaders be members of the CO to be covered by it’s own expressive message, or be open to litigation for flawed membership policy. If a CO won’t allow non-CO members to serve as leaders, then the leader shortage will be greater since parents of youth who do not become members of the CO will be barred from leadership positions….

The NY Time’s summary opinion is clear:

“Board members should reject the idea of allowing local chapters to continue to exclude gay scouts and troop leaders. Instead, the board should establish a firm anti-discrimination policy and make clear its determination to see that the principle is followed at the local level. If the Boy Scouts of America is serious about repairing its bigoted image and serving all boys and their families, further discrimination cannot be an option.”

After all, the only thing at stake isn’t really eliminating what some call bigotry — it’s the minds, character and souls of each boy enrolled in the program — the opportunity to redefine moral character virtues so that they match a social conformity rather than any other source, including religious faith.  I agree with the NY Times that this is an all or nothing crossroads — either we turn our backs on God to conform to bully-activists (freeing them to turn their attention on churches, youth groups, et.al.)  or we turn our backs on society’s cruel daggers and threats while risking our public reputations as crank-pot lunatic dinosaurs.  This isn’t a time to be silent – you need to choose and make peace with God about your choice.  Who will you serve?