Responding to letter on Boy Scouts of A.

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to the letter to the editor by Nate Kennedy, published April 3rd, regarding the current dilemma facing the Boy Scouts of America regarding their policy of banning openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders. I would begin on a personal note: Nate is a personal friend of mine. I've known his family for some time now; and they are a wonderful and upstanding family. I only mean to disagree, albeit politely.

Nate brought up two main points in his letter that deserve answers. First, the claim that there will be an increased in sexual predation of minors by openly gay leaders is dismissed on the basis of an appeal to the "perversion files" that came to light last year in an Oregon court case. I would argue that a simple lack of abuse is not enough to suggest that the policy should be reversed; regardless of abuse, there will still be an irreconcilable conflict in morals between those who permit openly gay leaders and those who do not. What will the Scouts do when they faced with the inevitable challenge that will arise when a scout leader or scout who objects to the policy is accused of discrimination for opposing the new policy, or appealing to their faith tradition as forbidding the practice of homosexuality as sinful?

Nate then brings up the swift change of heart that has swept the nation regarding the stance on same-sex marriage and makes the second half of his case here. It is undeniable that the popular opinion has changed dramatically; but is this reason enough to consider changing the current BSA policy? Is it indeed possible to oppose the policy change for reasons other than gross moral turpitude or bigotry? What about the differences in world views regarding morality, or even the foundational question of the meaning and nature of sexuality itself? Did people change their minds by reason, or emotion?

Finally, an appeal is made that the policy should be changed in order for the organization to grow. I see a much different result if the policy is changed: it will result in entire religious denominations, notably the Southern Baptists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, withdrawing support rather than going against their own moral teachings. Many parents would pull their sons out of their troops. Parents would have no desire to voluntarily involve their sons in an organization that suddenly and perpetually undermines the moral foundations they desire to desire to be fostered in their sons. In short, if the policy is changed, even to allow the 'local option,' the Scouts would find they have no need of the corporate sponsors who are withholding support. But there is another effect that the 'local option' would have on the BSA. If the Scouts were to allow individual troops to determine their membership, the pressure currently at the national level would then be exerted upon every single Scout troop in the country, and upon individual Scoutmasters, Scouting families, and Scouts themselves. This alone would have a negative effect on the Scouts, let along the litigation the change would initiate. How will the BSA define, let alone enforce, multiple standards of morality as regards the policy change?

The dilemma facing the BSA is one front in a much greater social conflict. As it stands, the source of the conflict is the same: the question of whether or not male-and female-ness are malleable or fixed. What is the purpose of sexuality, and masculinity? If society itself is dependent upon the union of male and female, then this union is exemplary on the basis of being different not in degree but in kind, and the Scouts have an interest in this and only this view of human nature, even if this particular element of our being is rarely directly discussed in Scouts. But the BSA has become the site of a proxy war, which is part of a greater subversion of the institution of the traditional family. And thus they must take a stand, if for no other reason than to maintain that moral boundary.

I personally owe a great deal of gratitude to scouting for the impact it had on me as a youth. I, too, am an Eagle Scout (Oct. 1995) from Nate's troop. I am not sure that the BSA could provide the same impact on the youth of today and tomorrow if it goes through with this change. Changing to fit the times would be a dereliction of conviction about the very virtues and morals that the Scouts have thus far maintained.

David Sorrell

Poplar Bluff, Mo.