BSA
-
Has this discussion been brought up before? Most likely, but let's resurrect it.
hXXp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16869379-boy-scouts-we-need-more-time-for-decision-on-gay-membership#comments]Boy Scouts: We need more time for decision on gay membership
In my opinion, this is not the fight to fight at this time. I am sympathetic with current gay Scouts who are stuck in the middle of this mess, but priorities need to be set. Also, this muddies the waters in a most unusual and emotional way, as much of the concern here is about children. Kids, at best. That fact alone makes me lean towards putting this off for another day. But there is an even bigger reason.
Some of us are old enough to remember the local "Country Clubs" that were whites only clubs. Obviously that was dead wrong. But I doubt that it was foremost in Dr. King's mind as he marched from Selma to Montgomery.
A brief look at the Commonwealth v. Pendennis Club decision, decided in 2004 by the Supreme Court of Kentucky
In that case, the Kentucky Court held that the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (KCHR) had the authority to investigate private country clubs to determine if they deny membership based on race. If the Commission concludes that a club discriminates in its membership practices, Kentucky law prohibits members from taking tax deductions for amounts paid to the club.Pendennis is an important decision that upholds the KCHR’s authority to look into the practices of private clubs and “refuse endorsement” of discriminatory conduct by disallowing tax deductions to members. Yet, questions remain regarding whether the state is doing enough to end racist policies at country clubs. The KCHR’s mission is “to eradicate discrimination in the Commonwealth through enforcement of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.” While Pendennis was a victory for the KCHR, it does not fully satisfy the KCHR’s goal of eradicating discrimination.
My point being that even today, this issue has yet to be eradicated in even what could be classified as a robust manner in the racial arena. And while I certainly do not advocate never taking the BSA to task on the matter, I think we do more harm than good by trying to do so now.
-
I disagree.
The only reason one might put off a decision like this would be to further debate the merits of either side, to try to make sure that the "correct" decision is made.
Only, in this debate, only one side has merit. Only one decision is even close to acceptable. What needs to be done is stupefyingly obvious. Debating this is like debating whether it is appropriate to starve children as punishment for crying; or whether it's okay to sell your children into slavery. We already know the answers to these questions.
Deciding not to decide is just a delaying tactic in the hope of maintaining the status quo of bigotry as long as possible. The sooner the scouts do the right thing, the better. The longer justice is delayed, the more damage is done to the institution and everyone associated with it.
-
Trent, looking back, my post may have been misleading in that the headline I posted is, unfortunately, related to time, as is my point. The headline could just as easily have read "Scouts Refuse to Allow Gays To Join" and said nothing about them wanting to delay their decision. My point is that I do not think that now is the time for gays in the U.S. to fight this fight with the BSA. What the Scouts are doing is not illegal. It is done all of the time all across the U.S. We (none of us) want laws forcing them to allow gay Scouts. This fight is very different than the civil rights fight for equality. What we want there is to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. That is, in my opinion, the single most important struggle we should throw all of our resources behind right now. To get laws changed to allow is all of the liberties that straight people have. In the case of BSA, what is needed there is for them to have a change of heart, on their own. Of course, with a little prodding from us. As I stated in my original post, the struggle for full racial equality within the realm of private clubs is still not fully realized. If they wanted to, BSA could legally bar any Latino or Jewish people. Now, in the case of either of them being barred, those groups already have full legal rights within the U.S. so it would behoove them to take up that fight immediately. And you can bet that most of the U.S. population would be behind them. A much larger percentage than is behind us now. I believe that would be better for us to wait until we have more backing and stand a better chance of winning them over than to make multiple attempts, failing again and again. Each time it will become easier and easier for them to say no.
In sort, I think that we have enough on our plate at the time. The laws of this land do not even consider us equal, it is a stretch to expect the BSA to at this time.
And by the way, thanks for responding. Even if we disagree on this, it is nice to have the conversation.
