I am writing regarding the July 7 article, "County Scout council ready to move on."
I’m glad that the Supreme Court decided that an organization such as the Boy Scouts of America has the liberty to prohibit someone from participating based on what it sees to be fundamentally a moral issue. That’s the good news. The bad news, to me, is the position the BSA has taken in this particular case: simply being gay is inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law.
As an Eagle Scout and as a parent actively involved with my sons’ troop, I want to say that the BSA does not speak for me. The BSA’s position is about as enlightened as if it had said that simply being left-handed is inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. (Recall that centuries ago left-handedness was indeed viewed in a similar vein.)
In my personal experience, I have gay friends and family members with superb character and values to whom I would unhesitatingly entrust the welfare and safety of my own children. I’d love for BSA officials to try and point out where these individuals violate the Scout Oath and Scout Law simply by being gay. (Yes, I have also known some gays that I wouldn’t want my children anywhere near. Come to think of it, I have known a lot of straight folks that I’d put in the same category.)
Perhaps some parents believe that a Boy Scout would be more susceptible to abuse from an adult of a particular sexual affinity. If I follow that logic, I would ultimately conclude that the BSA shouldn’t allow straight women volunteers for packs or troops, and the BSA shouldn’t allow men or women of any sexual orientation to lead Venture units (which include both boys and girls). I would further conclude, for example, that straight men shouldn’t coach girls athletic teams — but straight women or gay men could.
The general concern about potential abuse of a child in any way by an adult volunteer is a very valid one. To its credit, the BSA takes that concern extremely seriously. The point, of course, is to know your adult volunteers very well. In addition, the BSA energetically preaches awareness and practices safeguards such as the "Two-Deep" rule or a rule about who can share a tent with whom.
I believe the BSA position should be to let individual troops or dens, or Venture units decide for themselves whether any given individual can serve as a volunteer — whether they have the qualifications and whether they exemplify the Scout Oath and Scout Law, gay or not. I wouldn’t predict or presume how the parents of my sons’ troop would come out on this issue. But at least let it be our decision if there were ever a need to discuss it.
Gary Munson
Little Silver