“The policy of the Boy Scouts of America does not allow open or avowed homosexuals to serve as volunteer adult leaders,” read a letter from the Boy Scouts of America’s counsel to an attorney representing Rainier Beach United Methodist Church. The Church had sponsored a Boy Scout troop with Geoff McGrath as its volunteer leader. McGrath is openly gay.
Yes, a major organization in America in 2014 still uses the odious phrase, “avowed homosexuals.” What is that vow, exactly? McGrath had pledged himself to his partner of twenty years, in a marriage recognized by his state and federal government, but that wasn’t the vow they meant. The Scouts still imagines he swears to some secretive gay pledge, presumably, to proselytize boys to the “homosexual agenda.”
The United Methodist Church, on the other hand, has a welcoming, tolerant, inclusive philosophy of being “open to all people.” When the Boy Scouts demanded that it sack Geoff McGrath, church officials refused on the grounds that doing so would violate its religious principles. The Boy Scouts then punitively revoked its charter, prohibiting the church troop from using Boy Scout patches or insignia.
This case is a reminder that:
- The Boy Scouts still openly, proudly discriminates against LGBT folks.
- The Boy Scouts aggressively enforces its policy.
- It pays lawyers to attack churches for their nondiscrimination rules.
- The Boy Scouts’ policy is based on the oldest, most toxic and insulting stereotypes about LGBT people: that they are all suspected child molesters, unfit in the presence of children.
- No matter who the gay Scout leader is – in this case, McGrath is an Eagle Scout – the Boy Scouts will push him out. No LGBT person is good enough. None.
This is precisely the reason I did not put my son in the Boy Scouts. Because I’m with the United Methodist Church (though we’re Jewish): I wanted to teach him to respect the diversity of all people. Except, perhaps, avowed haters.
Last Sunday President Obama read the children gathered for the White House Easter festivities one of the great children’s books of all time, Where the Wild Things Are. Its author, Maurice Sendak, who was with his male partner for over fifty years, could not have been a Scout leader. Neither could Senator Barney Frank, nor NBA star Jason Collins, nor CNN’s Anderson Cooper, nor millions of other talented gay men who would be excellent role models for children. To the Scouts they’re not “morally straight and clean,” as required by the Scout oath. This is the language they rely on in kicking out gay folks.
Statistically speaking, one or two of the boys in the McGrath’s fifteen-kid troop will grow up to be gay. Their need for positive role models is, I suppose, irrelevant to the Scouts. Worse, the Boy Scouts is inculcating children with this shameful, shaming “immoral and unclean” insult about LGBT people. All of the boys will have to make decisions in their lives about how they will treat their gay coworkers, neighbors or family members, and the Scouts is teaching them intolerance, making very clear its position that those “avowed homosexuals” are to be fired, sent away, shunned.
Two boys in the troop have gay fathers.
It is the Scouts’ homophobia that is the morally crooked, dirty business, as it witch-hunted McGrath, who’d been the subject of no complaints, a dad generous enough to donate his time to step up to help children in his community.
How is this legal? Disgustingly, it is.
I litigated a discrimination case against the Boy Scouts in the 1990’s. Before my case could be heard, the California Supreme Court held that it was a private organization and therefore had the right to exclude kids and leaders for any reasons it liked. Other courts have issued similar rulings. Thus if the Scouts wants to discriminate based on race (it used to, but doesn’t any more), it can. If it wants to ban gay scout leaders, it can, and does. If it wants to keep out girls – though every other developed country has co-ed scouting – it can, and does.
Obviously, this is all temporary. Eventually the Scouts will give up the fight, admit LGBT leaders, and feel ashamed of its past bigotry. Just this year it has given in to outcry and boycotts and accepted gay kids as scouts. The earth continued to rotate on its axis.
In a short period of time – I give this policy three years – there will no mainstream space left in America for avowed homophobes. They are the ones who will no longer be welcome in our youth organizations and churches. Calling gay folks immoral and unclean, spewing vitriol that they are not safe around children, will be seen for the hate speech that it is, contributing to high rates of LGBT teen suicides.
The courts have failed children in the Boy Scouts cases, but our evolving recognition of gay Americans as full citizens deserving of equal rights in all aspects of life will, in short order, do the job for them.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
5 comments
Gene
Well, I have to say...you're just missing the point entirely. BSA was formed in order to raise young boys and men to be good, moral leaders in whatever direction life took them. No one seems to want to confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room, .... so allow me. You may (and I'm certain you will) disagree, but being gay is not a characteristic that should be applauded. It's a weakness. If someone happens to be gay, that's their business. Being gay does not in any way contribute to a person developing into a better person or leader. It is not something to be lauded, promoted, or used as a good example. Yes, there are gay people who have good characteristics, but those are characteristics that they may have in any case, regardless of their sexual orientation. They would have those characteristics despite being gay or not.
Being gay detracts and distracts from the goal of the BSA, which is, again, to help form strong, moral leaders. BSA should concentrate on that. Doing so means that the organization has to decide which qualities in a person are in the "plus" column and which qualities are in the "minus" column. Gays can follow their lifestyle if they wish, but should have no part in influencing growing boys and young men. Society in general has enough of a negative effect on children as it is.
BSA once was an organization where parents could be assured that here, at least, their child would receive a good, unsullied shot at a proper and strong method of educating and raising their child through a variety of life lessons. It felt wholesome and clean. But now even that "safe harbor" in the storm has been snatched away.
Yes, gays are a reality of life. That's accepted. But being gay should be an adult decision. It should play absolutely no part in an organization that influences CHILDREN!! The negatives of inclusion of gays in a children's organization far out way any perceived positives. We want our kids to be safe, we want to give them the best chance to succeed in life, and we want a protected environment for them to prosper in. The BSA is not the proper place for social experimentation and left-leaning liberal policies.
Politics should be kept out of our children's lives. Unfortunately, that's very difficult to do when an organization such as BSA grows to their current size. At that point, sponsors begin to dictate policy. Because, by golly, they don't want to seen as "anti-gay". That would (long dramatic pause here..........hold your breath.....) possibly make them lose customers! So, OF COURSE, they're pro-gay. They don't discriminate against the almighty dollar. They welcome money regardless of orientation, color, creed, etc.
So, please understand....there are a number of factors in play here, none of them good or positive. Think about the big picture and put a little more thought into your decision-making process.
In the end, think about what's best for the children, not what's best for the gays themselves.
Ron Dolce
A private organization's right to restrict membership might be an unfortunate side effect of our right to free association. However, the way things have been progressing of late it appears that attitudes toward sexual orientation have been changing so fast that political and social institutions will struggle to catch up (Kind of the opposite pattern that racial civil rights too in the '60's). At some near point in time we'll be wondering why anyone ever thought homophobia was anything other than ignorant fear.
Steve
This seems more in the category of advocacy than "legal analysis". You pretty much lost me at "odious". Too bad. For a second there I thought AVVO might be a place for serious though unstarched discussion of the law and its intersection with 21st century America. Instead it's just another site for Progressive style moralizing and browbeating although not of the entirely frowny faced variety.
Stephanie Dreyer
Thank you so much for this article! I have been a Girl Scout leader for two troops (both of my daughters) for the past 5 years. My little guy starts Kindergarten next year and he wants to be a scout like his sisters. Because of past press on the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy, I have not wanted to sign him up for the registration. I was just wondering whether things have changed any, and here is your article! There is no way I would support an organization that discriminates against anyone. This is not the lesson we should be teaching our children. It disgusts and disappoints me, especially since The Girl Scouts welcomes everyone and was created from The Boy Scouts.
By chance, do you know of any other service/community organizations for boys that I could look at as an alternative to Boy Scouts?
Anika
Great article on an interesting topic! You mention that boys scouts are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals because they are a private organisation. So my question is: what makes a private organisation different to a public one, that it allows lawful discrimination?