Rick, well said. Unfortunately, while you're saying, "I just want them [opponents of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive," they are also saying "I just want them [advocates of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive." Both sides see themselves as injured parties. The anti-discrimination side sees this as a matter of justice and equality for a minority group denied rights based on a physical characteristic. The anti-gay side sees this as matter of decades-old, well-established, private rights of association and conscience being attacked simply out of dislike for their moral code. This is not a matter where either side can be persuaded to change its views. Any solution, to be effective, has to affirmatively respect both sides. It can't be formula in which one side is the winner but agrees to tolerate the loser (at least for a little while).

Dan Kurtenbach
Fairfax, VA

"Any solution, to be effective, has to affirmatively respect both sides."

I would say the opposite. Any solution has to affirmatively reject one of the two sides for once and for all. The fence sitting is what perpetuates the conflict. One side has to be told they are never going to get their way, and that they were wrong. That is how human differences are resolved. A court, an executive office, or a legislature or committee of some kind rules and says, "This is now where the line between right and wrong is. Everyone on that side, you are now wrong. The end. Too bad."

There is a big difference between (a) living in the world that you have to live in and you don't have any choice about who else is there, and (b) voluntarily joining and participating in an organization because you want to associate with certain kinds of people. A lot of the wistful comments from progressives express a desire to have the conservatives be exposed to people they don't want to be exposed to, because it will be good for them -- they will learn that their conservative views are, well, wrong. And that is the sort of thing that gets the conservatives upset. And the progressives can't understand why.

Dan Kurtenbach
Fairfax, VA

dkurtenbach,

I did not join scouts to associate with certain kinds of people. I joined scouts to do scouting activities and to earn the eagle badge. I got used to the people who were in it, the same way I get used to the people on the company softball team that I otherwise would not associate with.

We are not free on the company softball team to tell people they are not welcome to join it. Legally, we could. But the company feels it is mean to treat people that way. So we let anyone join it who wants to.

Freedom of association is the same excuse used for racism in the past. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now.

I think the problem is more along these lines: The conservatives feel that BSA has been going along just fine as it is. They can feel comfortable using Scouting as a character-building tool for their children, with character-building expressly including faith and morals. Everyone who joins Scouting -- the millions of youth and adult in Scouting now and everyone who has participated in Scouting over at least the last few decades -- understands this and has agreed to it. Now there are forces that want to come in and significantly change that environment by allowing members whose beliefs contradict the views of faith and morality -- character -- that Scouting has been living by and promoting for a long, long, time. That is, the "liberals" are trying to come into their house (Scouting) and force their values on the conservatives; but the values the conservatives espouse have been Scouting's values -- that is, the conservatives were there first. And their rights were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. What right do the liberals have to come in and change things? What right do the liberals have to come in and force us to either associate with people who do not share our values OR retreat into our own units and no longer participate in all of the broader and multi-unit events and activities that Scouting offers. What right do the liberals have to -- against our will -- make us members of an organization that promotes practices that we believe to be immoral and an evil influence on children?

And that is a good point. By what right is this being done when the rights and expectations of members and the nature of the program have been settled for decades? Now of course we know all the arguments about why this change would be a good thing. But we also need to be clear in our minds that we have some justification for coming in and making these changes, something more than "right of conquest," that is, something more than "we can do it because we have the raw power to force our will on Scouting." After all, America is built on BOTH majority rule AND protecting the rights of the minority -- that is what the Bill of Rights is all about. So even if the conservatives are in the minority right now, we can't just kick down the door, march in, and start ordering them around. The local option does preserve some of their rights, but not all of them. As suggested above, the local option either forces conservatives to associate with gays and lesbians at broader or multi-unit events, such as camporees and Roundtable, OR if they don't want to associate, then they have to retreat into their own units or a collection of conservative units. And that only deals with the units, not with the individual conservatives found in every unit, who don't have a local option. If their unit decides to admit gays, they either have to cooperate or leave the unit. That is a big change being forced on them by liberals. Their rights as a minority are not being protected at all. And that is being done all in the interest of promoting the rights of another minority. See the problem here?

Dan Kurtenbach
Fairfax, VA

It's the BSA: we are stuck in the past. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The BSA receives all the downsides (bad publicity, vitriol, controversy) and none of the benefits of discrimination.

The article is not clear about who (or what) is the CO. Anyone know? It is illegal for public schools to charter BSA units. On the other hand, if this is merely an issue of access to the use of the property, then that seems to be a local matter to be settled at the state/school system level.

Now, I would not have any problem with your approach, even if you stated you were an atheist directly. You are not promulgating scouts to believe as you do; rather you are referring it to its proper place, the family. You seem to respect the religious' right to have their religion. Just like the other G so discussed, you do not make it a major item for discussion or suggest that others do as you do or act. That is the way it was for years, and things went fine. And they still will if people just keep their PERSONAL lives to themselves and refuse to be drawn in by someone that wants to somehow demonize them. JMHO of course.

"That is the way it was for years, and things went fine. And they still will if people just keep their PERSONAL lives to themselves"

Skeptic, you keep ignoring facts that contradict you. James Dale kept his personal life away from his troop, yet when a newspaper story identified him as gay, he was kicked out. That's not "fine" in my book. Your way only works "fine" if atheists and gays never, ever reveal this fact to anyone on earth, ever.

Merlyn; Maybe I look at things too simplistically. For me, the Dale decision by the local council and National was wrong. His life away at college had no real effect on the unit to which he was still registered. Most likely, few if any members of his actual unit cared, as it had never been an issue when he was there. But, once the whole thing became public and a part of a political agenda, it was not possible to re-bottle. Just the way I have seen it from the beginning. National tried to make it less controversial by using "avowed" in the ban; but that term has pretty much been either ignored or terribly twisted by both sides of the debate. It was also meant to be related to "leaders" only; again it was extended to youth by a few illogical and extreme individuals and became just another skewed attack point. That is why I have always favored the so called local option, as only the unit really understands how something has become or is becoming a problem, no matter if it is these two political points or something else such as abuse of some sort or alcohol or drugs. Just the way I view things and what has worked in our unit for a very long time.