More from Nathaniel Batchelder on the Boy Scouts of America

The DatabasexOKC GLBT CalendarxPersonal Homepages of GLBT OklahomansxAIDS & Health InfoxSearchxGaywire Network News
		More from Nathaniel Batchelder on the Boy Scouts of America

(Posted 7-24-2000) The following editorial consists of Nathaniel Batchelder's responses to an e-mail he received from a friend, who was responding to Batchelder's editorial, 'Reacting to "Boy Scouts of America"' (7-20). Batchelder's comments are indented and in italics.

Dear Batch,

Your e-mail regarding the BSA's position on homosexuals was forwarded to me.

You may remember me. Although I've recently retired from professional Scouting, I spent 24 years working with volunteers at the grass roots level, and I think I have some pertinent thoughts regarding your opinion.

. . . I remember you well. . . Good to hear from you.

Realize that I am still a committed Unitarian, and a political liberal, so this issue has been an extremely difficult one for me.

To begin, there are some factors I don't think you've considered. For example, by forcing their way into Scouting, gays may very well destroy the organization they seek to join.

People were always telling Dr. King that blacks wanted "too much, too fast."   But that didn't make discrimination less wrong.

Although I believe that at some point the national Scouting leadership will in some way change its mind on this issue, it may be awhile in coming. When I say that gays may destroy the BSA by forcing themselves to be included, what I mean is this: The BSA's largest "chartered-partner" organization, the LDS (Mormon) Church, is on record as saying they will leave if gays are allowed to become leaders.

When the "Daughters of the American Revolution" (DAR) refused to allow acclaimed black contralto Marian Anderson to perform at their event, Eleanor Roosevelt resigned from the DAR and scheduled a solo performance for Anderson to sing from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Being a Unitarian, the Mormons are about 180 degrees from me, but I respect their beliefs and what they do in their families and community. They are extremely hard-working, clean-living people who give back a lot, and that's something not everyone does.

I once saw a wall-chart of the Mormons' national "Table of Organization." Each name on the chart was accompanied by a photo of the person, and the chart was a sea of some 200 head and shoulders photos of white men in coats and ties. I found the effect rather jarring.

The Mormons may practice their religion their own way in their own houses of worship.   In an organization which professes to serve "America" by building health and character in young men, I think the Mormons should bow to the will of society, which SHOULD include protecting minorities.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the BSA may continue discriminating against homosexuals, the Mormons should be satisfied.

Although societal mores do change, I can tell you at this point that the vast majority of currently-registered adult volunteers in Scouting are very much opposed to gays being granted membership privileges, at least openly. I don't deny that there are without question gays who are leaders, but they do not serve openly. Whether this is right or wrong isn't the point.

It is precisely the point. Gay teenagers are more likely to commit suicide than any other teenage group precisely because they are condemned by church, family, - - - and the BSA.

The volunteers I refer to are good people, people who care about their community and their country, and care about what happens to kids.

... so long as they are heterosexual, or pretend to be.

So I don't think you can say they are bigots or biased, because they really aren't. They're everyone's neighbors -- moms, dads, businessmen and women, teachers, engineers, retirees, and on and on. You just cannot look at everyone in a community and say they are homophobics or bigoted just because they don't agree with your point of view.

I am not saying anything of the sort. I am simply saying that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a sin, and that those who do so are sinning. That appears to include the Mormons and the Boy Scouts of America.

I do not agree with your statements supporting homosexuality among Catholic priests.

I did not say I support it or oppose it. I said it is a fact.

Although you didn't mention it, it is well documented that many priests have sexually molested kids, causing great embarassment and financial loss (through lawsuits) to the Catholic Church. For a priest to molest a child, after trust has been placed, is unconscionable.

The mythology that homosexuals molest kids in higher numbers than heterosexuals molest kids is part of the pervasive attitudes about homosexuals which lead people like Representative Bill Graves to introduce legislation every year saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in schools.

The mythologies about homosexuals molesting kids and being unable to form lasting relationships (repeated on national radio by "Dr. Laura") are as unfounded and unjustified as the mythologies about black men having large penises and always "wanting white women."

It is astonishing how typically - when society hates or fears a group which they know very little about - that their fears find expression in sexual imaginings, like, "They want our women,"   or, "They want our kids."

All of this said, I do agree with you that people should be judged on their character, and not their orientation. However, until the time comes that this is the case (and it can be a slow, frustrating process, I'll admit), the BSA should not be universally condemned for its values and contributions to the welfare of America.

What is the BSA's moral lesson for an outstanding Boy Scout, as he is receiving his awards, knowing full well that his homosexual friends may not belong to Boy Scouts, and that a man whom he admires very much - perhaps his father - was fired by the Boy Scouts when they discovered that he was gay?

The BSA has no axe to grind against gays. It has never said that gays should not be able to practice their lifestyle, just not in Scouting.

Homosexuals do not "practice a lifestyle" any more than heterosexuals do.   One simply "is" gay or straight or bisexual. Sexual orientation is as much a part of one's identity as being short or being tall.

Do heterosexual Scout leaders "practice their lifestyle" in Scouting?? What does it even mean to "practice your lifestyle??" Perhaps what you - and the BSA - mean is that homosexuals are welcome in the BSA so long as they keep their identity secret, and lie about it when the subject comes up.

For your information, I believe the BSA should actively seek a new kind of leadership at the national level, leadership which "thinks outside the box" and isn't afraid to at least consider change. The current reality, however, is that it's not going to happen immediately.

... which is why I encourage all Scouts to turn in their badges, and everyone who decries BSA policy to write to newspapers.

Since the fear you articulated is that BSA will lose funding - and Scouts - if they open to homosexuals, then the appropriate strategy for human rights and civil rights advocates is simply to make discrimination more expensive and embarrassing than doing the right thing.

Perhaps an intermediate step (if that's possible in such a charged atmosphere), is to follow the lead of Scouts Canada. Although Scouts Canada has nowhere near the total membership of the BSA (about 150K compared to 4.5 million), the Canadians have created a separate division for gay Scouts and leaders. This might never fly in the USA, but is apparently working very well in Canada. It might be a way to "calm the fears" that many have about gays associating with kids.

If we bring back "separate but equal" toilets and schools, then white kids won't have to fret about getting along with blacks and Hispanics either.

Finally, the BSA's "right of association" was upheld by the highest court in the land. Everyone has the right to disagree, but I think the court's decision must be respected.

I simply suggested that folks write letters decrying the Scouts' policy and publicly turn in their old Scout badges as a protest. I did not even suggest civil disobedience, such as practiced by Rosa Parks when she wouldn't get out of her bus seat for a white man. However, as I reflect upon it, perhaps civil disobedience isn't such a bad idea.

After all, the justices are learned people who have spent their lives studying the law. Can anyone not in their shoes claim to be more knowledgable than they are?

. . . tens of millions of teenagers don't understand what all the fuss is about. They know who their gay and lesbian friends are, and they care not a whit about their peers' sexual orientation.

When they see adults defending the "morality" of heterosexuality they see the social injustice that it truly is. Imagine, being "proud" that you are "straight" and not gay. Imagine believing that you are virtuous because you are "heterosexual," and virtuous because you support discrimination against homosexuals.   Shame on you.

I hope this gives you an additional perspective.

Social change is disruptive.

It was disruptive to abolish slavery ..... to extend the right to vote to women ..... and to abolish Jim Crow laws and end legal racial discdrimination.

The struggle forces people to ask themselves, as the old civil rights song asks, "Which Side Are You On?"

I hope this gives you an additional perspective.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO FRONT PAGE