Connect with us

Five Ways The Boy Scout Ban On Gay And Bisexual Adults Hurts Everyone

Published

on

The Boy Scouts of America’s most unfair, unhealthy policy isolates gay and bisexual Scouts, vilifies them as criminals, teaches bigotry to all Scouts, and hurts society.

 

The Boy Scouts of America just re-adopted the most unhealthy policy of their 103-year history, a rule which isolates gay and bisexual Scouts, vilifies them in their teens as eventual criminals, teaches bigotry to all Scouts, and hurts society in five specific ways.

During its annual meeting on May 23, 2013, 61 percent of the 1232 National Council members who were present voted for a resolution that revised the 22-year old rule about how gay and bisexual Scouts start, continue, and end their memberships. Whereas the former policy denied or expelled all members who were gay or bisexual (but ignored all who were heterosexual or asexual), the new policy admits all members equally, without regard to sexual orientation — but only until age 18.

At age 18, heterosexual and asexual Scouts can opt to become adult leaders (volunteers or employees), but gay and bisexual Scouts are banned for the rest of their lives.

This lifetime ban hurts younger boys, teens, all of Scouting, and society in five ways.

1.  BSA unfairly dooms all gay and bisexual Scouts.  The moment that any gay or bisexual Scout reaches age 18, BSA bans him for life from any participation, both as a volunteer and as an employee. There are no exceptions; even the highest-ranked achievers get banned. BSA President Wayne Perry admits that there’s no scientific evidence to justify the rule. In a 62-page brief recently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, this abject absence of scientific evidence was documented by the overwhelming majority of U.S. health professionals. The rule arises only out of a vile prejudice based on ignorance, fear, and a superstition that LGBT people are defective, sick, incurable, and evil.

2.  BSA policy hurts the very Scouts it aims to help.  Most children become aware of their sexual orientation at some point, so most gay or bisexual Scouts make that discovery during their Scouting years (ages 7 through 21). But from that moment forward, they face the endless, dark knowledge that in their late teens, regardless of their achievements, the BSA bans them for the rest of their lives. Of the 2.6 million current Scouts, roughly 200,000 boys are — or will be — gay or bisexual.  Each one of those boys will spend much of his youth years knowing that his own troop, along with 1,600 other troops, have pre-labeled him — and every other gay or bisexual Scout — as an inevitable, incurable monster. There’s no basis for this false presumption, and it is psychologically damaging for these kids to grow up knowing that they are the only Scouts who are always expelled, are never readmitted, and are assumed to be dangerous.

3.  BSA teaches prejudice to all Scouts.  BSA’s policy teaches every Scout that all LGBT people aged 18 and over should be feared and avoided, and considered lower than criminals (BSA accepts even convicts who served prison time, but it bans gays, bisexuals, and lesbians). BSA officials have never found any justification for their policy, and they excuse it only with vague mumbling about “standards” and “beliefs” and “religion” — the very same words once used to defend slavery and racial segregation.

4.  BSA’s ban ignores medical science.  About 70 percent of Scout troop sponsors are faith-based organizations.  Most of those sponsors (37 percent are Mormon, 10 percent Methodist, 8 percent Catholic) still teach the religious superstition that among the five sexual orientations (heterosexual, asexual, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual) the first two are holy virtues, while the last three are curable illnesses. Most also preach that people can switch sexual orientations through a better mix of hobbies, sports, attire, grooming, and prayer. But this is junk science, for which there is no peer-reviewed, scientific proof. This “ex-gay” therapy is unaccredited, the treatments aren’t government regulated, the salesmen have no medical degrees, the practitioners aren’t licensed, the clinics can’t get medical malpractice insurance, the products are consumer frauds, and every mainstream professional health organization warns that such efforts are harmful, dangerous, and too often lead to suicide. For children and teens, such products are already being outlawed in three states (California, New Jersey, New York). Nevertheless, many of Scouting’s religious sponsors still sell these cures, and BSA’s ban on LGBT adults is part of their sales pitch.

5.  BSA prejudice floods into society at large. The BSA mission is to turn youth into responsible citizens; however, by teaching institutionalized prejudice toward LGBT people, BSA defeats its own goal. A prime example of how prejudice degrades citizenship is that when GOP officials re-wrote their 2012-2015 Republican Party Platform, they vowed to keep banning gay and bisexual youth from Scouting, and to keep banning LGBT adults from volunteering and employment.  All such prejudice, even when excused, euphemized, or institutionalized, is still raw bigotry.  BSA is still teaching that bigotry to future generations.

It harms gay and bisexual Scouts to teach them that they all will become evil monsters. It hurts other Scouts to remind them of the bigoted policy based on ignorance, superstition, fear, and hatred. It hurts kids outside of Scouting to learn that BSA bans all LGBT adults for no scientific reason. It hurts families when parents are banned from contributing to their own children’s activities. And all of Scouting and society are hurt when each one million volunteers recruited requires rejecting 77,000 qualified applicants — including Eagle Scouts — just because they were banned for life.

One amazing bright spot does emerge from a stark division within the Scouting community: most older adults want to discriminate against LGBT people, but most Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, Sea Scouts, and Venturers oppose such discrimination. So, it looks like the Boy Scouts themselves will have to teach their adult leaders why the kind of discrimination which is increasingly unlawful in much of civil society also violates the principles of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  For starters, they can point to the Girl Scouts, whose enlightened membership policies are years ahead of the Boy Scouts.

The BSA’s homophobia is unhealthy for everyone, inside and outside of Scouting. It benefits no one.  It teaches irrational bias toward all LGBT people, of all ages, everywhere.  It is in effect right now.  BSA officials have vowed not to change it.

In living up to the Scout Law, gay and bisexual Boy Scouts must be far more “loyal, helpful, kind, and brave” than everyone else, because — for them — fairness in Scouting ends at age 18.

Image via Facebook

skitched-20130320-084004Ned Flaherty is an LGBT activist currently focused on civil marriage equality, and previously on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. He writes from Boston, Massachusetts, where America’s first same-gender civil marriages began in 2004. He suffered a childhood exposure to Roman Catholic pomp and circumstance, but the spell never took, and he recovered.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

33 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.