Dr. Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University and Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, is, like his grandfather before him, an Eagle Scout, and served as a volunteer adult leader in the Boy Scouts as a Cub Scout Den Leader, Cubmaster, and Assistant Scoutmaster as his son advanced through the ranks to become an Eagle Scout as well.
===
Thirteen years ago, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court upheld the right of private organizations to make their own decisions about membership. The particular issue was whether the Boy Scouts would have to accept into its leadership ranks an openly homosexual Scoutmaster, as required by New Jersey’s public accommodations law. The organization insisted that to do so would counteract its associational view that homosexual conduct was incompatible with the requirement in the Scout Oath that one be “morally straight.”
The Boy Scouts of America recently celebrated their hundredth anniversary as an organization and of adherence to that policy even in the face of increasingly strident pressure by “gay rights” activists to abandon it. But this past week, the national office of the Boy Scouts announced that it would likely be eliminating that policy and leaving it up to each individual sponsoring organization to determine whether to infuse homosexuality into the core of the local troop organization. It does not take consultation with the oracle at Delphi to predict that this “house divided” solution is unstable and will not last. Every scout and scoutmaster who moves from one council, where homosexuality was permitted, to another, where it was not, will quite reasonably expect that the local troop in their new neighborhood will accept them into the ranks.
In short, the Boy Scouts will become all one or all the other, and the tea leaves are not encouraging for those who share their century-old view. Once the organization’s leadership has capitulated by taking an agnostic position on the question, it will become increasingly difficult for the constituent parts to adhere to the view that homosexual conduct is immoral.
The leadership of the Boy Scouts must certainly know this, so why, after decades of fight, are they throwing in the towel? I did a little digging and fear that I have uncovered the answer. It is not pretty.
As anyone who has been involved with Scouting knows, it is largely a volunteer organization. The local troops are run by volunteers, who devote countless hours (“just an hour a week,” the joke goes) to supervising boys ranging in age from 7 to 17 in the running of pack and troop meetings, weekend outings and major, 2-week long excursions or summer camps, and of course, fundraising to finance the group’s activities, etc. According to the latest IRS 990 Form available for the Boy Scouts, there were 1,111,453 such volunteers affiliated with the organization in 2010.
But the Boy Scouts is also a major corporation, with revenues in 2010 of more than a quarter billion dollars. The “business” side of the organization is managed by 3,771 employees, from the national Chief Scout Executive down to the clerk in the local scout shop, overseen by a large, 70-person Board of Directors. The Directors are also mostly volunteers, but the chief executives are most certainly not. Indeed, the Chief Scout Executive in 2010, Robert Mazzuca, drew a salary of more than $1.1 million. Regional director Tom Fitzgibbon pulled down more than three quarters of a million. R. Tuggle, the Assistant Chief Scout Executive, pocketed $598,533. Wayne Brock, the Chief Operating Officer: $676,545. James Terry, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer: $586,878. Mike Ashline, Supply Group Director: $311,068. Gary Butler, Council Operations: $411,843. David Park, Chief Legal Counsel: $502,483. Bradley Farmer, Assistant Chief Scout Executive for Development: $458,733. Eleven national leaders of this “volunteer” non-profit organization earning more than a quarter million a year, with six of them making more than a half million a year. I’m guessing that there are some pretty lucrative retirement plans/pensions in place as well.
So, when members of the national board, CEOs of major corporations like AT&T and Ernst & Young, start pressuring the executives at the national office to give up the fight on homosexuality in the ranks (or, presumably, risk losing the philanthropic support of those corporations) because it is not consistent with policies those own corporations have adopted for their adult employees, someone with his own million dollar salary at risk might, just might, have a personal stake at odds with the Boy Scout’s long-standing policy against interjecting homosexuality into a youth organization.
The scout executives and members of the national board need to be reminded of the tenth point of the Scout Law: “A Scout is … Brave.” That requires doing what is right even when it costs you, even when it is painful. If you agree, call them and let them know your views. The number for the national office is 972-580-2000. Or you can contact them through their website. Also contact your local BSA council and ask them to stand firm in opposition to this policy change.
Please do it today – the Board’s meeting is this coming week, as early as Monday.
57 Comments
If the scouts bend to this pressure they will be defunct within ten years. But like these corporate heads bowing to their Washington masters the elites running the Scouts may be tempted to join in on a wicked game of "Hot Potato" believing that they themselves will be long gone before that potato has a chance to blow up in their faces.
"everything was just fine when I left..."
To them anonymity is like a warm blanket protecting them from the harsh realities of life.
It is very worrying the gays want to go out on camp outs unsupervised around young boys.. I hope the Boy Scouts stands up for what is right, what is good for the safety of our precious youth.
I hope that the BSA does not permit homosexuals to become involved in scouting. It is no secret that male homosexuals are sexually promiscuous and that even those who support redefining marriage to include homosexuals argue against monogamy, permanence, and exclusivity - necessary for successful marriages. Is this an example we wish to present to our young men and boys?
I suspect that alot of parents will not allow their sons to participate in scouting and that the organization will die off. But that is probably the goal of those pushing this nonsense.
The BSA should be reminded that the Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to become Catholic priests, believing that their oath of celibacy would render their sexuality irrelevant. The consequences of that decision brought about those horrible scandals involving the molestation of young boys.
For the sake of the integrity and dignity of the Boy Scouts of America, they must not compromise their God endorsed principles for either cash or popularity. That is the path to damnation!
It is better to win God's approval than the world's applause.
Funny but the majority of those Catholic priests who molested young boys were heterosexual, not homosexual. I guess you missed that memo, Son of Adam.
If Teri or some other advocate has a sound moral argument in favor of the moral assertion that same-sex sexual behavior is moral, ever, then provide it.
If you can not provide the sound reasoning to support the assertion, then, you would not approve of the pressure being put on the Boy Scouts. Indeed, you would oppose that pressure and demand that the gay activists stop immediately.
If you demand moral neutrality, but can offer no sound moral argument as per my first paragraph, then, you have no moral basis for the demand. Again that ought to compel you to oppose the gay activists.
Moral approbation or moral neutrality, either way your lack of sound moral argumentation combined with support for the gay activists would expose your unreasoning obstinancy.
Also known as bigotry -- in this case, pro-gay bigotry.
Teri, your slander does not distract from your lack of sound moral argumentation. In both instances, the truth is the best defense and you oppose the truth.
2nd comment in que.
Wrong again Teri,
Every single Catholic priest caught up in that Church's abuse scandal is a self identified "homosexual."
And as everyone knows the only way you could possibly know if a person was a so call "homosexual" is if said person self identified as a "homosexual."
Even a person as disingenuous as you should appreciate this well known fact.
Perhaps gay activists would supply the sound moral argument in favor of the assertion that same-sex sexual behavior is moral, ever. If not then it is just to oppose the gay activists who are pressuring the Boy Scouts.
If instead the assertion is the demand for moral neutrality, then, the lack of sound moral argumentation in favor of same-sex sexual behavior means there is no real neutral ground between moral approbation and moral disapprobation. So it would be just to oppose the gay activists.
Either way, the lack of sound moral argumentation for same-sex sexual behavior points us to heeding the current policy of the Boy Scouts.
But if you support the gay activists against the Boy Scouts policy, then, you unreasoning obstinancy stands exposed.
You might blurt out, so what? But that would amount to admission of your bigotry -- pro-gay bigotry.
Teri, why would a heterosexual want to molest young boys? Such a concept makes as little sense as two men or two women marrying each other.
Randy, your own animus does you in. The overwhelming majority of those caught were not homosexuals but heterosexuals. The church tried to claim they were all homosexuals, to mislead the investigation, but they were unable to keep all the mouths shut. Nice try, though.
Chairm, if only you didn't try so hard to use multisyllabic words to make you seem more intelligent. Again, nice try, but your lack of research is showing yet again.
I don't know the source of the propaganda you've been spoon fed Teri, but at least try to infuse it with some semblance of sense before you expect people to believe such falsehoods.
"Funny but the majority of those Catholic priests who molested young boys were heterosexual, not homosexual. I guess you missed that memo, Son of Adam."
Uh, how do you figure that, Teri? A man who desires individuals of the same gender is a HOMOSEXUAL, period. Who missed what memo again? Try connecting with reality instead of letting politically-correct falsehoods to color your thinking.
The seduction of teenage boys by homosexual men is a well-documented phenomenon. This form of deviant behavior is the most common
type of clerical abuse and is directly connected to homosexual behavior.
As Michael Rose shows in his book, Goodbye! Good Men, there´s an active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The Church´s confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to and tolerated in the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests
identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively
disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic
Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality,
1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA
document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit.
While the Church´s approach to those who struggle with homosexual attractions has been compassionate, she has been consistent in maintaining the view that homosexuality is objectively disordered and that marriage between a man and woman is the proper context for sexual activity.
@Teri,
Somewhere along your trip down the river Denial you are going to have to come to the realization sooner or later that the trip you are on cannot last forever; that sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "Na, Na, Na, Na..." is not as an effective tool as you thought it would be for turning the truth into a lie.
The problem you are faced with is quite simple; unlike you your opponents are too lazy to lie, even to themselves.
The tortured logic of marriage terrorists, called out by NOM again.
Pedophiles are successfully re-marketing themselves as "minor attracted." In Canada and other countries it's being called a "sexual orientation." Those who go along with this foolishness are the same folks who claim that the men who go after boys are really heterosexual. It's ridiculous.
Exactly!! This is the key objective of the homosexual agenda and it has to stop!
Perhaps if any of you did the the research that others have done, you'd actually have legs to stand on.
From "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010" which is a report presented to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops by the John Jay College Research Team: "Priests who has same-sex sexual experiences either before seminary or during seminary were more likely to have sexual behavior after ordination, but this behavior was more likely with adults. These men were not significantly more likely to abuse minors."
(taken from the Executive Summary of the report, page 4)
Too bad that trip down the river of denial belongs to Randy and Chaim.
This does not in anyway explain how the male priests who molested young boys could be identified as heterosexual, which means:
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex
or:
of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
You might as well try to pass off Micheal Vick as a white guy because you don't want blacks to be associated with animal cruelty.
Something rather amusing about this, is here in Minnesota the Largest Troop, the Northstar Council (75,000+ Members) has had an Inclusive Policy for the last 13 years. They have yet to have any issues or problems with it. Nor were they ever forced to adhere to the National Policy.
@Teri---you are arguing with people who hate gays---you will never make any impact with reason, as they have none. Bless you, though, for trying
You are correct in that 2% of the population is an insignificant number, but that does not change the fact that 100% of the 2% are self identified "Homosexuals."
Earth to Teri: Read, then re-read, then re-read again the post by FemEagle. She stated it very cogently and clearly, but to reinforce it so it can penetrate all that denseness you learned from popular culture and the DNC, virtually ALL the abuse cases involving Catholic priests were with young boys. Now, Teri, what type of sexuality is that...? Right. Now, take your meds ... there, attagirl!!
OldKingBlog should do some research on "sexual predators"---reading is fundamental---attaboy!!!
"you are arguing with people who hate gays---you will never make any impact with reason, as they have none. Bless you, though, for trying"
If that's your attitude flanoggin, then why are you here?
Who did priests have easy to access to in the 1960s-1980s before the problem of abuse came to light?
Altar Boys.
Who did they not have easy access to?
Girls.
Homosexual behaviours by heterosexuals is well understood cf studies on prisoners
I thank you.
Then I ask you, Marc Paul, why isn't the Boy Scouts of America not plagued with scandals of the child molestation of boys by scout masters?
I gotta say, these lame attempts to pass of incidents of homosexual pedophilia onto heterosexuals is pathetic and desperate. You might as well claim that Michael Vick was a white guy so that blacks aren't associated with animal cruelty.
"Heterosexual" implies exclusivity in sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex; so to claim that self identified "Homosexuals" were actually "Heterosexuals" is to stretch credulity past its breaking point.
Credulity: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence
Exclusivity: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group.
Once again we get to see the innate tendency of marriage corruption supporters towards accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit.
Well at least they seem willing to acknowledge that their tendencies are criminal in nature.
Here are a couple of observations of gay behavior made by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's"(1989).
- Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone.
- The authors also say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.
Do the posts above, both pro and con, not help confirm these observations?
Son of Adam, the Boy Scouts, much like the Catholic Church, hid their cases of molestation in order to maintain their 'reputation' of being morally straight. And much as I hate to be the one to try to knock some sense into all of your addled brains, molestation of minors rarely hinges on sexuality. It is the lack of sexuality that most predators look for, which is why there isn't always a preference of boy or girl up until a certain age.
And FemEagle is trying so hard to prove a point that doesn't exist when you're talking about minors. For Christ's sake, can't you people just once get past your own particular YUCK moments and read? And I don't mean just things that religious organizations publish?
For the last time, MOLESTATION OF MINORS ISN'T ABOUT SEXUALITY. Much like rape, it's a matter of control and the absence of sexuality. Do the research yourself and you might just learn something.
So now you are pimping that sexual abuse is about abuse and not sex...?
Next you will be telling us that same-sex attraction has nothing to do with sex either. It appears that your real agenda is to obscure the innate and immutable differences that exist between the sexes in a vain attempt to appease your sense of guilt for your crimes against humanity.
Society is not responsible for your refusal to take responsibility for yourself Teri!
From 'As Good As It Gets':
Secretary: how do you write women so well; how do you know what is going on in here?
Author: I start with a man and I take away reason and accountability.
That's where you are wrong, Teri. The BSA isn't wracked with scandal like the Catholic Church because they had the good sense to keep the perverts out of their organization.
You have nothing to support your crackpot assertions other than political correctness.
Wrong again, Teri. The BSA avoided the scandal suffered by the Catholic Church because they had the good sense to keep deviants out of their organization.
You have nothing to back up your crackpot assertions than political correctness.
Randy, Teri is correct: rape (and child molestation is rape) is an act of violence. Rapists aren't horny, they're violent. I know Hollywood often portrays sexual violence as sex, but I'd hope you'd be more critical of Hollywood. Jerry Sandusky wasn't full of lust, he was full of violence. To conflate rape with consensual sex is defamatory to gays and trivializes the trauma that the victims have suffered. The BSA has had less of a problem than the RCC because they have more accountability and transparency than the RCC.
Will,
Quit rationalizing already. You are just making yourself look ridiculous.
Rape is an act of violence. No doubt about that. But to say that sex has nothing to do with it is just plain denial.
Wow, Randy, what am I rationalizing? Please elaborate. It's clear you don't understand the concept of informed consent and why it's important in American Law.
Rationalize: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable:
Randy, attraction has NOTHING to do with sex. You can be attracted to men or women and never have sex with them. You can be attracted to men, marry a woman, and never act on that attraction. You're the one with the hangup on sex. Methinks the problem is, you just haven't gotten any in so long that it's easier to talk about it than actually remember what it felt like.
Hypocrisy at its finest Teri!
You are the one - of many - pimping the right to marry the person you are attracted to. Circular logic is not as devastating a weapon as you seem to think it is.
And then you attempt a unfounded personal attack as your proverbial exclamation point.
Pathetic!
There are two issues here.
First the sex abuse of youngsters and the duty to protect these youngsters. In this instance the predators would be focused on young male persons.
Second, but not least, the moral view of human sexuality that is directly contradicted by same-sex sexual behavior (but not only such behavior) and the socio-political view that is asserted by the gay identity politics of today. The focus of the gay activists is on this contradiction they wish to impose on the Boy Scouts as an organization.
Teri's off-topic slander is an example of her bigotry and her misdirections do not align with the truth regarding the first issue.
Teri and others who are against the Boy Scouts on the second issue have run away from the query posed that challenges them to supply their effort at a sound moral argument in favor of the asserted moral approbaion of same-sex sexual behavior. Lacking sound moral argumentation does not provide the basis for their back-up demand for moral neutrality. Indeed, that lack demands opposition to the gay activists.
But it also puts the second and the first issues in proper context. The morality of human sexuality applies to all human beings and not merely those who'd engage in same-sex sexual behavior (and those who'd excuse it or espouse it).This morality applies to two-sexed scenarios of course. The gay activists would rather throw that away for the sake of their asserted supremacy, however, what might be the excuse of others who are not so obsessed with gay identity politics? Gai look to their focus.
Teri, is your use of homosexual and other multisullable words a good reason, do you think, to attack you rather than the actual content of your comments? It is unsurprising that you blurt out accusations or ad hom attacks that more aptly apply to your own behavior in this discussion. You fool no one.
Teri, you told a falsehood in your initial comment. You have not backed it up. You are dodging. Your unreasoning obstinancy is bigotry as per the basic definition of bigotry. But your progay bigotry does not transform your falsehood into a truth.
Do you think that truth is real or is it something else?
Let me put that in monsyllables for you: do you thing that truth is real or is it unreal?
Randy, you're the one making every post into something about sex. When one does that, it usually means they ain't getting any.
And yes, I do believe in marrying the one you are attracted to but I've never said that attraction is ALL marriage is about. What I have said, and will continue to say is that marriage is NOT all about children, nor is it solely a religious thing.
"What I have said, and will continue to say is that marriage is NOT all about children, nor is it solely a religious thing."
And it is that belittlement of the role children and religious values play in marriage and promoting the sexual lusts of adults is what defames the institution.
You consider that to be belittlement? Congratulations for calling so many marriages a defamation, Son of Adam. There are literally thousands of marriages that have no children and/or are between atheists. You're basically saying those marriages, ALL those marriages are about nothing more than sexual lusts? You're more twisted than any homosexual or marriage equality supporter could possibly ever be and I pity you.
There you go with the lame strawmen, Teri. Marriages like that are the exception, not the general rule. Besides, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack of them, they all reflect God's design by forming the only biological unit capable of producing children and raising them as a mother and a father. They are also visual examples of the virtues of putting men and women together as opposed to the promotion of sexual deviancy.
That's true. With gay marriage and all the other rights they want, it will never end, not with the Boy Scouts, not ever. Thank you for taking a stand for decency.
Teri blurted out: "The overwhelming majority of those caught were not homosexuals but heterosexuals."
Then offered no evidence for that assertion.
Instead Teri quoted a report:
"Priests who has same-sex sexual experiences either before seminary or during seminary were more likely to have sexual behavior after ordination, but this behavior was more likely with adults. These men were not significantly more likely to abuse minors."
Men who engage in same-sex sexual abuse of boys are men who engage in same-sex sexual arousal and same-sex sexual behavior.
The boys were victimized by men. Does that not compute with Teri? Nope, she thinks that this abuse is not about sex. Somehow she thinks that men who sexualize boys (most of whom were teenagers by the way) are not actually sexually attracted to the male victims of that abuse. The lengths to which Teri goes to display her anti-Catholic bigotry and to defend the homosexual men who engaged in this abuse is, well, shameful.
No more of that crap, Teri, stick to your SSM argumentation which is just as goofy but less exploitative of youngsters.
Comments in the que.
Teri, you have said that the SSM complaint against the marriage law is that the law discriminates based on sexual attraction.
Why would you deny that now? Arguments of convenience is what you are all about, always.
Homosexuals, especially the "openly gay" ones should not be around children period. There's no way any of my young male relatives will be joining the Scouts organizations now. That was the last place where children used to be safe. Now they're probably only safe at home. Sad but true.
The BSA is financially top heavy. To return to the original thought in Professor Eastman's post, if you are looking for a theory that explains what is going on, I suggest it's about the money.
Publius, Eastman is probably correct on this. The members of the gay identity group whose deeply radical views are matched by deep pockets have done this sort of thing before.
Friends:
This is a heated debate and I would like to offer my views. I am a lawyer who has assisted in the defense of several Roman Catholic Archdiocese lawsuits stemming from the sexual abuse lawsuits. I was not lead counsel, but was local counsel for two of the cases, and thereafter served as a consultant to lead counsel in two other cases out of my jurisdicion. Needless to say all our legal work is completely confidential and covered by NDA's.
But from the publicly available information, several things are clear and should not be debatable by reasonable people. One is that there were virtually no allegations of heterosexual child abuse, that is, rape or molestation of little girls by male priests or molestation of little boys by nuns. Second, virtually all the allegations were based on repeated instances of sexual molestation usually over a prolonged period, and not one-off, isolated events; this means that the priests thought they had a "relationship", however misguided. Third, the allegations had at their basis sexual molestation, not other forms of violence or harm; that is, these were not "angry" men/priests commiting random acts of violence, but were sexual acts (I actually think in most cases arising from both sexual arousal and erotic love, however misguided, by the priest). Fourth, in almost all instances the priests involved were also deeply involved in other forms of illicit behavior like on-line homosexual pedophile chats, child porn, and the like.
So I think it is imossible to maintain that there is not a strong connection between these kinds of sexually predatory same-sex behavior, and the homosexual life-style or culture. However, that is hardly to say that all, or even most, homosexuals are inclined to participate in such behavior, or even to condone it.
Are they more inclined to do so than are heterosexual men? Perhaps, and even probably (in my view at least). But we should also not lose sight of the heterosexual abuse in sports, the most recent example being USA Swimming sex abuse cases nationwide, involving male coaches molesting female swimmers.
My own take-away from my involvement in the Roman Catholic cases is informed heavily by one of the priests whom I got to know pretty well (before he went to prison). He said candidly that he had entered the priesthood as a young man and during seminary became involved in homosexual activities (at Berkeley), and thereafter decided that the priesthood would afford him the opportunity to seek out "relationships" with young males while still serving God's plan for him. He honestly believed that.
So my bottom line is that we would be misreading human nature and asking too much of an organization (i.e., Boy Scouts) if we were to permit openly homosexual men to become leaders in the organization. As for homosexual members, to the extent there is proper supervision, I think that could be accommodated. In any event, proper supervision is the key, and what organization to date can say that it has done so?