Connect with us

Spilled Milk: Scouting for My Son’s America

Published

on

This post is part of a series of Spilled Milk columns by Emmy Award-winning writer and producer William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood. Spilled Milk, which originates in The Huffington Post, appears on these pages on Saturdays.

  Sometimes it’s tricky explaining America to an 8-year-old.

When our daughter was that age, the trick was explaining marriage. Why even though she and fifty guests had gotten all dressed up one hot June day and witnessed her parents’ very real, very legal wedding, just a few months later voters saw fit to ban marriages like ours in California. Just as they had in 48 other states. She found this upsetting. We did too.

It took five years, but all that finally got sorted out by the Supreme Court, and now marriage for all is once again safe and legal in California, as well as 16 other states and counting. Not that Elizabeth is paying much attention lately. She’s 13 now. The only marriage she cares about these days is her fantasy wedding to hunktastic Chris Hemsworth, star of Thor.

Now it’s our son James who’s turned 8. This time the America I find myself having to explain is the Boy Scouts of America.

Since he was first able to toddle into our home office, James has had lots of questions about a framed black-and-white photograph that hangs next to the door. Because in it I’m a kid, like him. A prepubescent 13, smiling up at my mom as she pins an Eagle Scout award to my uniform as my Scoutmaster looks on. My dad, who rarely takes a bad picture, stands behind me wearing an expression that can only be described as… puckered.

 bw

“Dude, what is Pop doing with his face?” asked James a few months ago. “He looks like he’s about to lean over and kiss the back of your head.”

“There’s a lesson in this for you,” I tell my son. “He’s telling me to stand up straight. Never talk when someone’s taking your picture. It’s always a bad idea. You end up spending the next forty years in a frame looking like a fish.”

He laughs and moves on. “Did it hurt when Mimi pinned that thing on your chest?”

“Nope. It felt great.”

“Do you still have it?” I do.

I lead my son over to a bookcase in our office where my Eagle Scout pin now resides. He asks if he can hold it. I open the glass door, carefully lift it out and place it in his moist, eager palm.

 eagle

“Wowww….”

The Eagle Award is the highest in scouting. Like most medals, it inspires awe in young boys. One of my first Scout outings was to a tiny church in Mountville, South Carolina, where I watched Monty Crisp receive his. Following tradition it was pinned on by his mother as his dad looked on, fishlike. I knew in an instant I wanted a moment just like that with my parents one day, whatever it took.

The Eagle Scout Award is a beautiful thing to behold, a majestic silver replica of our national bird suspended from a ribbon striped in red, white and blue underneath a silver scroll emblazoned with the Boy Scout motto, “Be Prepared.” Whenever I touch it, I half expect the eagle to start singing “God Bless America.”

I had no idea how much work, sweat, discipline and dedication, and how many years it would take to earn that thing. There’s a reason only 5 percent of all Scouts make Eagle. Sticking with it was the hardest thing I’d ever done. There were a hundred times I wanted to quit, to chuck it all and sleep in on Saturday mornings. My parents made sure I didn’t.

Family is key in scouting; my mom kept my uniform clean, sewed on my merit badges and hauled me and my pals to countless remote locations for camping trips. Then made sure I knew how to clean my pots and pans and launder my filthy clothes when I got home. My dad’s unpredictable hours as a doctor kept him from playing a regular role at our weekly meetings, but he volunteered every spring by giving free physicals to all the boys going away to Scout camp.

“Can you pin it on me,” James is asking now, holding out the medal. “The way your mom pinned it on you?”

“I can’t, buddy. The pin is broken.” But I have something else in mind.

Soon we’re upstairs, in the back of my closet, the section I call the archives. Buried in the shadows, it’s a timeline of my life, on hangers. I pull out the burgundy shirt I wore when James and his sister were born, and the black jacket with the giant red”R” on the front, awarded to writers who managed to survive the sitcom Roseanne. There’s the ACT UP t-shirt I wore to protest the AIDS crisis in New York, the Honey Bun costume from my high school production of South Pacific, and finally, at the very back, I spot what’s left of my Boy Scout uniform, the familiar khaki green shirt and matching merit badge sash.

They’re in pretty much mint condition, thanks to my mom. They were lovingly folded in tissue by her and sent back to California with me a few years ago, after one of her ruthless purges of the family attic.

In about three seconds James is in the shirt, asking what the numbers on the sleeve mean. “That was my troop number. 111.Your uncles and I were all in Troop 111.”

 sash

James wants to know what it was like in the Boy Scouts. I tell him about the camping trips, show him the three-fingered Scout salute, recall what I can of the Scout Law and explain how to make apple turnovers outdoors, in tin foil. As my son cradles my merit badge sash I explain how the embroidered fabric circles represent some of the skills I learned in scouting: how to paddle a canoe, sail a boat, save a swimmer from drowning, make a tourniquet from a tuxedo, tie knots. I even demonstrate two I still remember, the square knot and the bowline.

That night, James wears my merit badge sash to bed. Ever since, it’s been hanging on his bedpost.

Like his cousins — my brothers’ boys, who followed their dads into scouting– James can’t wait to become a Boy Scout. Unlike his cousins, James has not one dad but two. Which is where things get tricky.

Especially after what happened in Seattle last week. Though the Boy Scouts of America would be lucky to have James, I’m not so sure anymore that after he finds out James will have the Scouts.

I’m referring to the troop that had its Boy Scout charter revoked by the national office after refusing to fire its Scoutmaster, Geoffrey McGrath. An Eagle Scout himself, McGrath, 49, had founded the troop at the request of his church, Rainier Beach United Methodist. He accepted the challenge, he said, because he loves scouting and because the low-income and immigrant children in his area of south Seattle had few after-school activities.

After discovering that McGrath is openly gay and married, the Boy Scouts of America demanded that the sponsoring church fire him. When the church refused, the troop’s Scout charter was revoked.

The Boy Scouts of America has always had a problem with the gays. Not that they haven’t made progress. The Scouts and the gays. The B.S.A. allows gay Scouts now, having last year discontinued their delightful practice of kicking them out and stripping them of their awards. Gay Scoutmasters though? That’s still a big no-no. Sending a clear red, white and blue message that being gay is somehow inconsistent with Boy Scout values.

What happened in Seattle might never have occurred had the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America located their nuts and decided to adopt the policy they themselves drafted themselves a year ago. A policy that would have addressed a changing America that has finally begun to acknowledge the fact that “openly gay” does not equal “Scout molestor.”

According to a draft option on the table as late as January 2013, “the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with their organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” according to Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts’ national organization. Individual sponsors and parents “would be able to choose a local unit which best meets the needs of their families.”

Meaning that the many Scout troops that have no problem with gay leaders — like that Methodist church in Seattle — could hire a motivated, experienced, compassionate leader like Geoffrey McGrath.

A discrimination opt-out, if you will.

For a brief moment, this gave me heart. Though not an ideal solution, I had hope that when the time came, that policy might allow our family might find a troop for our son that would welcome us all.

That hasn’t happened.Pressure from the huge block of religious organizations that sponsor so many individual Scout troops prevailed. So the ban on adult Scout leaders of the homosexual persuasion continues to be the law of the scouting land.

Meaning that when James, looking at that photo in my office and dreaming his big dream of becoming an Eagle Scout, asked his final question — “So when I’m a Scout, could you be my Scoutmaster, Daddy? Like Uncle George is part of Dawson’s troop?” There was only one way I could answer, with every parent’s universal code for no.

“We’ll see.”

James has always had a rock-solid moral compass, adhering fiercely to one particular tenet of the Boy Scout Law: “A Scout is true to his family.”

All this makes me fairly certain that when the day arrives that I have to explain to James why I could never be his Scoutmaster, he would turn his back on the whole thing. In a heartbeat.

Back in February, when he heard me discussing Arizona Senate Bill 1062 — the one that almost became law, the one that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs to deny service to gay and lesbian customers, James asked what that meant. I told him that it would mean that if we ever visited Arizona — which we never would because that place is a furnace — there would be some restaurants that would allow him and his sister to come inside and eat their food, but not his dads.

“Are you kidding me?!” I’d never eat at a place like that!”

We haven’t had a discussion about what happened in Seattle. It’s not an issue for us yet and besides, I’m not big on crushing the dreams of my kid.

Things could change. When James is eligible to join the Scouts in two-and-a-half years… we’ll see. 

James2

* * * * *

Beach

 * * * * *

William Lucas Walker is an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer whose television credits include Frasier, Will & Grace and Roseanne. He co-created the critically-acclaimed Showtime comedy The Chris Isaak Show. Bill and his husband Kelly are the parents of Elizabeth and James, born in 2001 and 2005. The children were gratified by the legal marriage of their parents in 2008, an event that rescued them from a life of ruinous bastardry. 

Spilled Milk chronicles Bill’s misadventures in Daddyland. The first recurring humor column by a gay parent to appear in a mainstream American publication, Spilled Milk has regularly landed on the front page of The Huffington Post. 

Follow William Lucas Walker on Twitter: @WmLucasWalker, @SpilledMilkWLW or Facebook: “Spilled Milk” by William Lucas Walker.       

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

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

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

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

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

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

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

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

on

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

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.