Amy Young investigates the attitudes towards gay people in the Scout Movement both in the United States and here in the United Kingdom.
On the 23rd May, the Boy Scouts of America voted in favour of allowing openly gay Scouts during their annual meeting in Texas, which has resulted in public outrage for many different reasons. Some are against the allowance of openly homosexual members of the BSA, and others are upset because they did not even discuss removing the ban on openly gay Scout leaders. But it was not as if the new policy won by a landslide vote. In fact, 61% of the 1,400 voting members approved the policy, which leaves quite a large percentage of the Boy Scouts of America National Council against the change. Some who have voiced their outrage at this new policy are members of Southern Baptist Churches.
Boy Scout troops in America are sponsored by third party groups, the majority of whom are churches. People such as Richard Land, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, suggest that no “Southern Baptist pastor […] would continue to allow his church to sponsor a Boy Scout troop under these new rules”. If they do lose their sponsorship, then Boy Scout groups in certain areas may have serious financial issues in the future. However, one of the most vocal campaigns against the acceptance of openly gay Scouts was organised by the website ‘onmyhonor.net’, and its leader John Stemberger.
An Eagle Scout and former Scoutmaster, John Stemberger encouraged the general public to protest against the allowance of openly gay Scouts. He argues that those who voted for this change are a “militant lobby” and “bullies” apparently located in the US capital, Washington D.C. and Hollywood. The aim of this protest was, according to ‘onmyhonor.net’, to “keep sex and politics out of Scouting”, but in organising a protest in the first place, they have failed. Groups of Scouts publically rallied against openly homosexual Scouts, and if this is not politicising children then I do not know what is.
What were his motivations for this? On his website, Stemberger details ten reasons why the Boy Scouts of America National Committee should have voted against open homosexuality for Scouts. Though all of these reasons do not justify such a harsh reaction, one of the reasons is particularly disturbing. He argues that openly gay Scouts would increase boy-on-boy sexual contact, resulting in public scandal and many cases of sexual, physical and psychological abuse. These bigoted, stereotypical ideas are absolutely ridiculous, not to mention incredibly insensitive, although it seems that these ideas are not, worryingly, restricted just to the United States of America.
On the UK Scouts Association website, there are many documents detailing their policies on homosexuality, which are actually far more positive than those in the American version of the organisation. Like the BSA’s new policy, the UK Scouts also accept openly gay Scouts, but in their Scout leader document they also state “It’s OK to be an adult in Scouting and gay!” However, in this document, the UK Scouts Association seemed to need to dispel the “presumed link between homosexuality and paedophilia”. I find this statement very disturbing, and so the question must be asked: what is the reason that the Boy Scouts of America will not even discuss voting on the allowance of openly gay Scout leaders? And why are the UK’s more tolerant Scouts’ policies not universal within the organisation?
Surprisingly, I do partially agree with one of Stemberger’s points, that “The proposed BSA resolution is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent”. The difference is that he believes the new ruling must be reversed in order to make the Scouts “morally and ethically” consistent. But this cannot happen. Allowing openly homosexual Scouts but not openly homosexual adult Scout leaders is hypocritical; it is ridiculous to tell a child that they are accepted no matter what their sexuality, and then exclude them once they turn eighteen. How confusing will it be for some young Scouts in the future, when they will be rejected by and isolated from an organisation who once welcomed them with partially open arms?
The National Commissioner of the BSA, Tico Perez, argued that they are still not allowing openly gay Scout leaders, because this restriction has “served [them] well for the last hundred years”. But they are refusing, or are otherwise incapable of seeing, an alternative. Perez also argues that the sexuality of Scouts is different from that of Scout leaders because “the leadership role is a different role”. What is this teaching young boys? That you cannot be a positive and effective role model for children if you are openly gay? What sort of leaders will the BSA be creating? Scout leaders teach boys valuable life skills through fun activities. But it is the ability to lead well, and not a person’s sexuality, that creates a good leader.
The future of the Boy Scouts of America may be a tumultuous one. With the threat of a loss of support and finances, Stemberger has also threatened to begin the creation of a new Scouts-like organisation when his group meet in Louisville, Kentucky next month, which sticks to his rigid conception of what is morally acceptable. The policy of allowing openly gay Scouts only becomes effective from the 1st January 2014, as it has to be implemented in 116,000 units across America. We will only truly begin to know the effects of this policy next year.
Amy Young
exeposedev 