Dawn F. Harkness (dawn@harkness.net)
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:00:33 -0500
At the risk of getting too far off topic, I just have to weigh in on this
one and I promise, I'll try to connect the dots back to the SVM but this
malarkey has to be addressed.
John,
If you are going to raise subjects such as these you really ought to
demonstrate that you know something about the subject. Otherwise, someone
like me might take the time to dissent and shred your posts.
If you knew anything about the gay community, you would know that it is
comprised of hundreds of factions, none of which speak for the entire gay
community. Politically, there are gay republicans, gay libertarians, gay
democrats, gay communists, gay socialists, and green gays as well as many
other political organizations, I'm sure. There are more apolitical gays
than you can shake a stick at. The only thing gay folks have in common with
each other is their acceptance of the fact that they are sexually attracted
to adults of the same gender. There is no such monolithic gay political
organization as you speak of. Joining the Boy Scouts is a priority to a
select segment of the gay community, and barely rates a blip on the radar
screen of most gay folks.
The state of New Jersey (as well as other states including my home state of
Massachusetts) have democratically adopted non-discrimination laws to
protect people from being discriminated against in several different
categories including public accommodations. A young man living in NJ named
James Dale, who long before he had any idea that he himself would grow up to
be gay, joined the Cub Scouts and rose through the ranks of the Boy
Scouts all the way to be an Eagle Scout and assistant Scout leader after
being awarded badges for MERIT. He was, by all accounts, everything the
Scouts thought a young man should be. However, when they learned through a
newspaper interview that he was also gay, they threw him out of his position
as a Scout leader. Let's make this point perfectly clear, James Dale never
engaged in any misconduct of any kind with anyone's children. He was never
even accused of any such misconduct. He was simply thrown out for being
gay.
He thought because the Boy Scouts was such a huge national organization
which enjoyed a tremendous amount of PUBLIC (ie, governmental support) that
the N.J. state law against discrimination in public accommodations would
apply. He got the help of some smart lawyers, (some of which were not gay)
who agreed with him and filed a lawsuit on his behalf. And guess what; the
predominantly heterosexual NJ. Supreme Court agreed with him.
The Scouts appealed this decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for
their right to discriminate against homosexuals by claiming that they were a
PRIVATE organization and not subject to the laws protecting folks from
discrimination in PUBLIC accommodations. And the U.S. Supreme Court
said, in effect, this is America, and you have the right to freedom of
expression. If the Boy Scouts are a PRIVATE organization, then they can
have whatever policies they want. If a core policy of the Scouts is to
exclude homosexuals, then, it is free to kick out any kid or leader who they
discover is not a heterosexual. (There were many more legal issues
at stake in this case, but this is the boiled down version)
Now, personally, I agree with the U.S Supreme Court decision on this point
because I do believe that PRIVATE organizations should be able to make
whatever membership rules they want. I'm sure that there are PRIVATE groups
of which I have been a member that I am thankful don't allow dumb-ass bigots
in the club. For that reason, no gay political organization I know wants to
kill the right to freedom of association in PRIVATE organizations.
However, it sure came as a surprise to a lot of people that a core purpose
of the Boy Scouts of America was to exclude gay men and boys. As a result
there are several groups who are trying to politically advocate for the Boy
Scouts to change their newly stated national discriminatory policy by
applying political pressure to change their policy. How very democrat. How
very American!
They include people who are gay Scouts and gay Scout leaders who have been
involved in scouting for many years, well before the Scouts made it plain
in their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that the organization is bigoted
at its core. There are heterosexual Scouts and heterosexual Scout leaders
who have been shocked to find out that the organization they thought was
open to all boys and men of good character is not at all what they thought
it was, and they want the national leadership to change its discriminatory
policies as well. In fact, there are entire Boy Scout troops and chapters
which reject the bigoted policies of the national group and have pledged to
continue to be open to all men and boys regardless of their sexual
orientation in
defiance of the national's policy.
There are many people and funding organizations which have traditionally
financially supported the Boy Scouts who will no longer do so
because the Scouts' policy of discrimination is repugnant to everything
they thought it stood for; i.e. equal opportunities for all boys and men.
These include various chapters of the United Way, and several church
groups. There are also many PUBLIC schools and organizations who upon
learning for the first time that discriminating against homosexuals is a
core value of Scouting have also refused to continue to support them with
the use of their PUBLIC buildings. By law in many states, PUBLIC buildings
must be open to all citizens. Groups which exclude minority citizens can
not take advantage of those facilities. Bummer for them!
You see, gay citizens vote and pay taxes too, as do non-bigoted heterosexual
friends and family members who hate to see gay folks be unfairly
discriminated against. If the Boy Scouts want to be a bigoted organization
throwing out men and boys who are not heterosexual, then they can't expect
to get the same kind of support they have enjoyed over the years from the
PUBLIC and non-bigoted PRIVATE sectors. Ah the price of being jerks!
The only way I can think of to connect this entire off-topic post to the
Sudbury model is: I'm really glad SVS doesn't discriminate like the Boy
Scouts.
Dawn Harkness
John, you wrote:
>
>I just do not think you understand the purpose of the gay political
>organization. They have made it plain that they want people to stop
supporting
>the Boy Scouts simply because the Boy Scouts will not accept gay leaders in
>their organization. Why should we not discriminate against those who share
a
>value system different than ours. I do not wish to have my children
associate
>with drunkards or druggies why should I be forced to let them associate
with
>gays just because the gays want to associate with my children?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:15:07 EST