Mormons In Utah Reverse Course, Follow The Brethren's Lead Re: Scouting

[Gray]

"Vituperous villains," "merry-making mutants"?

 

Sounds pretty apt to me.

 

There was even a ham-fisted attempt to compare mutant rights causes to gay rights causes in one of the X-Men movies.

[KevinG]

National changed a policy they had won the right to have in the courts because they were losing big money donors and sponsors over the gay leader issue.  They chose to change in a way that pushed the issue down to the local units.  At the time BSA lawyers claimed that the local units were not going to have to worry about litigation like national was.  While parents and volunteers were surveyed about the gay scout policy in 2013, they were not surveyed about the last change.  Gates just got up in Atlanta and announced it with no previous discussion or warning.

 

Now we're being told quietly by council executives to align our troops with a traditional church or social organization (Masons), in order to shield us from litigation.  They refuse to recharter nontraditional troops and crews chartered by parent groups, or businesses.

 

This tells me that national (highly paid executives) changed the policy for financial reasons, punted the liability to local units (unpaid volunteers), and is now leaving them (or the chartered organizations) to deal with the fallout.  "Hey kids we don't want to face another lawsuit or have another major corporation pull their support so you deal with it, and find a church with deep pockets and lawyers to cover your butt or we won't recharter your troop."

 

In the long run National is going to find volunteers and chartered organizations much less likely to invest or take risks.  We're already muttering about donating directly to chartered organizations and avoiding the Council and National campaigns.  This is among non-LDS troops as well as the Mormons.

Edited September 24, 2015 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

National changed a policy they had won the right to have in the courts because they were losing big money donors and sponsors over the gay leader issue.  They chose to change in a way that pushed the issue down to the local units.  At the time BSA lawyers claimed that the local units were not going to have to worry about litigation like national was.  While parents and volunteers were surveyed about the gay scout policy in 2013, they were not surveyed about the last change.  Gates just got up in Atlanta and announced it with no previous discussion or warning.

 

Now we're being told quietly by council executives to align our troops with a traditional church or social organization (Masons), in order to shield us from litigation.  They refuse to recharter nontraditional troops and crews chartered by parent groups, or businesses.

 

This tells me that national (highly paid executives) changed the policy for financial reasons, punted the liability to local units (unpaid volunteers), and is now leaving them (or the chartered organizations) to deal with the fallout.  "Hey kids we don't want to face another lawsuit or have another major corporation pull their support so you deal with it, and find a church with deep pockets and lawyers to cover your butt or we won't recharter your troop."

 

In the long run National is going to find volunteers and chartered organizations much less likely to invest or take risks.  We're already muttering about donating directly to chartered organizations and avoiding the Council and National campaigns.  This is among non-LDS troops as well as the Mormons.

Interesting. 

 

A very astute take on the matter.

 

Perhaps BSA -- if it survives at all --  is on the way to becoming a comparatively loose association of autonomous chartering organizations -- a kind of co-op, not unlike the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Who will pay the six-figure salaries of the national executives then?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Daniel,

You seem to be under the impression that I have bought into Nate Oman's analysis. I have not. I haven't looked into it with any real rigor (nor into the above "report").

I wasn't under the impression that you'd accepted Oman's theory as valid--I was simply answering the questions you posed in the thread. What I shared wasn't merely directed for you, but to those posting on this topic, as well (especially Scott and others, who seemed to have accepted Oman's "theory" as having some kind of legal weight). Given that you hadn't examined either of the sources, I hope you found those portions of Hughs, Hubbard's and Reed's report as enlightening as I did.

That said, I don't think it's fair to characterize Oman's post as "fearmongering," not when your compatriots (with whom you, as an individual, disagree) are promising an never-ending stream of litigation until they get their way.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on whether it counts as fearmongering, as reasonable minds can and do disagree on such things.

Let's keep in mind that the BSA capitulated not because it lost in the courts, but because it won,

I fully agree that the BSA won, which is one of several reasons why they chose to allow local units to select their own leaders. I wouldn't classify it as "capitulation," though.

and because your compatriots continued their lawfare tactics, thus forcing the BSA to shoulder "staggering" litigation costs.

While the BSA clearly considered the threats of litigation as one reason to effect the change, I think you're still painting an incomplete picture, and solely with the darkest of shades.

Thusfar, you've been silent on the likelihood that (in addition to those pressures you've mentioned) a significant enough population of the heterosexual membership of the BSA (or at a minimun, of the boardmemebers) evolved to become uncomfortable with discrimination against gays and lesbains, reflecting the trend of society today.

I'm not attempting to suggest that the threats of litigation didn't play a role (I think it's clear such were considered); however, I think it's a mistake to conclude that negative pressure was the only motivating force here, or in all of the advancements of LGBT equality today.

Gays and lesbians would not be enjoying the equality we have achieved it if weren't for our straight allies, who outnumber us in FAR greater numbers than we, ourselves, represent. And just like the failing arugments used in anti-gay marriage initiatives, the vast majority of people began to see that fear linking gay leaders to pedophilic predation within the BSA proved increasingly unconvincing. Zach Wahls and other children of gay parents began to stand up for themselves, their families, neighbors, friends, clergymembers, and ecclesiastical siblings. As they told their stories, America listened, and a majority became uncomfortable with the injustice of excluding gay family members from scouting.

This sea-change of opinion was both external and internal to the BSA, but it seems clear to me that if the BSA didn't see enough of their own membership wanting the ability to select gay leadership, threats of litigation alone wouldn't have been enough to cause them to implement the new policy. Afterall, the BSA already won on the merits at the highest level in court, and as the legal report I posted (which was comissioned by the BSA prior to the vote), it's clear the BSA feels that the threat of any litigation advancing past the most preliminary of stages is virtually non-existent and not a concern. Any insinuation otherwise seems to be an exaggeration, at least according to how the BSA characterizes it.

This strategy (using the expense associated with litigation, rather than the decisions of the courts, to wear down and coerce private groups into capitulating) worked with the BSA,

Again, I believe the above statement to be a false characterization of why the BSA chose to do what it did, especially in light of the fact that (as you already pointed out) the BSA already won this battle in court, and nothing (not anti-discrimination laws, nor public accomodation laws, nor Obergefell--again, as demonstrated in the BSA's own commissioned report) changed or diminished that win. Not to mention the statement that Analytics posted.

But I understand that you would feel that that was the driving force, just as I understand that I would feel that it isn't, based on our own paradigms.

and it appears it will not be deployed against religious groups. The merits of the litigation, then, are secondary to the financial costs inherent in defending against that litigation.

Nate Oman's speculation is just one of an endless number of theoreticals that could be deployed against religious groups. Whether he is right or wrong on the law isn't really the point, is it?

It may not be your point--but I think it's definitely worth understanding the validity of his assertions, as well as taking into account all the actual moviating reasons why the BSA chose to allow individual units to choose their own leaders--an ultimate outcome that I believe the vast majority of America (let alone the majority of the membership of the BSA) likely believe is the fairest, just-est, and best possible outcome, anyway.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

That the juggernaut will not be satisfied with a live-and-let-live policy regarding sponsoring organizations who won't appoint gay leaders for their chartered units is evidenced by this story out of Los Angeles:

 

It's clear that she -- and probably others like her -- want to continue to try to starve the BSA into total submission and capitulation with their demands by urging corporations to withhold their support.

 

If that doesn't work all by itself, well, I have no doubt vexatious litigation would be part of the overall strategy.

Here's what Zach Wahls, the voice of Scouts for Equality, said:

 

"The Boy Scouts are in a tough place right now,” said Zach Wahls of Scouts for Equality in an email. “Until they have full inclusion, however, corporations like Caterpillar are doing the right thing by withholding funding.”

Wahls said that some religious denominations are rushing in to assist Scout troops that have been orphaned in the political crossfire. For example, the Episcopal Church has offered support, and some Catholic leaders have publicly stated that the new policy is not contrary to church teaching.

Wahls noted that other denominations have stepped up, as well.

We're glad that the United Church of Christ, a partner of Scouts for Equality, is stepping up to help Scouts that have been abandoned by anti-gay sponsors, but until we have full inclusion for adults, the BSA is still going to be sending a harmful message to youth."

 

Sounds like Wahls would not be shedding any tears if BSA had to shut down because it wouldn't be forced into coercing its sponsoring organizations into total capitulation with the juggernaut.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

There is no evidence that a plurality or even a majority of local scout volunteers supported openly homosexual leaders in troops.  The surveys done by the BSA were about allowing gay youth to continue until 18, and not be barred from earning Eagle.

 

Don't conflate the two events.  2013 BSA professionals and volunteers were surveyed and younger members, especially parents of cubs, felt admitting gay youth was positive.  The BSA made the change not to deny a gay youth membership.

 

2014 some local units accept gay leaders in violation of National policy and religious groups stop chartering scout troops.  Scout enrollment declines double over the previous years.  National sponsors say "not good enough" and do not return to supporting scouting.  A young gay man applies for a job at the NY council with lawyer and news reporters in tow and the NY office hires him.

 

2015 Executive Director Gates makes a surprise announcement at a national meeting in Atlanta that the current position vis a vis gay leaders is untenable and says it will be changed, with no surveys or input from the volunteer organizations.  Assurances are given that local units may choose leaders according to their own policy.  Groups like Lambda say publicly that they will sue local units over discrimination in volunteer policies.

 

Now- Councils are quietly telling local units to affiliate with traditional chartered organizations (churches or social organizations) not family groups or businesses or they will not be rechartered.  This is due to exposure to liability.

 

2013 to 2015 are very different situations.  No one can reasonably claim the move to include gay adult leaders had much to do with wider acceptance of gays as scout leaders.  It had everything to do with corporate and lobbyist groups putting pressure on the National Office, and individual units pushing the boundaries on current policy and daring national to do anything about it.

 

I reiterate, I do not have problems with gay men leading scouts, especially in light of the excellent youth protection policies in place.  However, these decisions were made under political and financial duress, and not some beneficent social enlightenment on the part of the BSA volunteer organizations.  I'm being nice.  You should hear the campfire discussions among the Southern Baptists and Evangelicals.

 

With the coercive tactics used against volunteer units, the acceptance of gay leaders is likely to be superficial, and the backlash and resentment is likely to be deep.  I hope the "activists" who demand faster change and universal acceptance realize they may be doing their own movement more harm than good.  Dressing it up as social enlightenment is not fooling many.

[smac97]

That is not the main reason why they changed the policy.  According to Robert Gates, the principal reason why the BSA changed is because their own membership wanted it to change.  The secondary reason was because new laws were weakening their legal defense of the old policies.  In his words:

 

There seems to be conflicting information here.  You and Daniel2 are saying one thing, and KevinG is saying quite another ("National changed a policy they had won the right to have in the courts because they were losing big money donors and sponsors over the gay leader issue." and "There is no evidence that a plurality or even a majority of local scout volunteers supported openly homosexual leaders in troops.").

 

I am curious as to whose representations are more accurate.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

That is not the main reason why they changed the policy.  According to Robert Gates, the principal reason why the BSA changed is because their own membership wanted it to change.  The secondary reason was because new laws were weakening their legal defense of the old policies.  In his words:

 

There seems to be conflicting information here.  You and Daniel2 are saying one thing, and KevinG is saying quite another ("National changed a policy they had won the right to have in the courts because they were losing big money donors and sponsors over the gay leader issue." and "There is no evidence that a plurality or even a majority of local scout volunteers supported openly homosexual leaders in troops.").

 

I am curious as to whose representations are more accurate.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Perhaps when Gates stated "membership" he was referring to members of the national board, not local volunteer leaders.

 

I think Analytics, Daniel, and Kevin could all be correct.

[Daniel2]

Perhaps when Gates stated "membership" he was referring to members of the national board, not local volunteer leaders.

I think Analytics, Daniel, and Kevin could all be correct.

 

I agree with the above, including that I believe Kevin is accurate that pressure from corporate sponsors also played a role (corporations comprised mostly of staight allies who likewise reflect the cultural shift and value non-discrimination and equality as virtues, which I spoke of earlier).  Each of the posts above highlights different facets of the many reasons why the BSA chose to allow local units to select leaders that reflect their own values.  That's what I meant in my previous post when I said:

 

While the BSA clearly considered the threats of litigation as one reason to effect the change, I think you're still painting an incomplete picture, and solely with the darkest of shades... I'm not attempting to suggest that the threats of litigation didn't play a role (I think it's clear such were considered); however, I think it's a mistake to conclude that negative pressure was the only motivating force here, or in all of the advancements of LGBT equality today...This sea-change of opinion was both external and internal to the BSA, but it seems clear to me that if the BSA didn't see enough of their own membership wanting the ability to select gay leadership, threats of litigation alone wouldn't have been enough to cause them to implement the new policy.

 

(bold added)

 

All of the above are factors that likely came into play, despite efforts to paint gays and lesbians and their allies as an ominous/nefariuous-sounding "jaggernaut."

Edited September 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[provoman]

The "about face" does not show a sustaining. The Brethern only announced the relationship would be reconsidered. The utah mormons came out en mass to speak ill of BSA or express their non-support of Scouting. That is not sustaining the Brethren.

Anf now that the Brethern decided to stay with BSA, the about face. This all demonstrates fickleness.

Those who maintain their opposistion to Scouting, AND support the decision of the Brethern to stay with Scouting....those are the people who are sustaining the brethern.

[KevinG]

Being an LDS Scout adult volunteer for 26+ years, in five states, with 7 wards...  I can say with the perspective of long experience.  Those parents who do not value the Scouting program should keep their kids out of it.  There is nothing more miserable than trying to coach boys who do not want to be in Scouts, whose parents think YM/YW and Scouts is a glorified baby sitting service, and who do not take an active role in the programs that their kids are involved in.

 

If you sustain the brethren in public opinion surveys, but don't put some blood, sweat, and tears into magnifying the programs your children take part in, then you aren't really sustaining anything.

[Scott Lloyd]

The "about face" does not show a sustaining. The Brethern only announced the relationship would be reconsidered. The utah mormons came out en mass to speak ill of BSA or express their non-support of Scouting. That is not sustaining the Brethren.

Anf now that the Brethern decided to stay with BSA, the about face. This all demonstrates fickleness.

 

 

This is a crock.

 

Responding to a pollster taking a public opinion survey is not the same thing as "[coming] out en masse to speak ill of BSA or express their non-support of Scouting".

 

As far as "not sustaining the Brethren," bear in mind that it appeared very likely at the time, based on the unusual tenor of the public comment from the Church, that it was on the verge of withdrawing from its association from Scouting. I still believe the Brethren came very close to doing just that.

 

 

Those who maintain their opposistion to Scouting, AND support the decision of the Brethern to stay with Scouting....those are the people who are sustaining the brethern.

 

Did it occur to you that many, if not most, of the respondents to the most recent survey reflect precisely that attitude? That, like me, they still have their reservations about BSA but they are determined out of love and trust for the Church leaders to sustain their decision?

Edited September 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

This is a crock.

Responding to a pollster taking a public opinion survey is not the same thing as "[coming] out en masse to speak ill of BSA or express their non-support of Scouting".

As far as "not sustaining the Brethren," bear in mind that it appeared very likely at the time, based on the unusual tenor of the public comment from the Church, that it was on the verge of withdrawing from its association from Scouting. I still believe the Brethren came very close to doing just that.

Sustaining the Brethren, does not mean coming criticism of a organization that the Church has not come out and criticized. There was no "duty" based on substantiating the Brethren on the part of the respondents to be critical of Scouting. There was no "duty" to be in favor of leaving Scouting.

Did it occur to you that many, if not most, of the respondents to the most recent survey reflect precisely that attitude? That, like me, they still have their reservations about BSA but they are determined out of love and trust for the Church leaders to sustain their decision?

Your negative attitude toward Scout and your present "support", is an example of sustaining the Brethren. As despite your personal angst you support a finalized decision of the Church. Edited October 5, 2015 by provoman