Boy Scouts make right move by lifting ban on gays

   I was pleasantly surprised on Monday (Jan. 28) when the Boy Scouts of America announced that, after 102 years, they had finally decided to lift the ban on gay Scouts and Scout leaders. To be clear, this is not a wholesale reversal of position after decades of opposition. I doubt we'll ever see the BSA advertising openly to attract gay Scouts and leaders. But what the new policy does do is leave the decision of how to deal with the issue to the individual councils. Personally, I don't think the new policy goes far enough. I'd like to see the ban completely thrown out so that all boys, gay and straight, can reap the benefits of Scouting. But it is a stunning step forward after decades of opposition, and it is long overdue.
   I have always loved Scouting. I joined at age 8 (this is well before the creation of Tiger Cubs. Back then, you just joined the closest Cub den.) after weeks of bugging my parents incessantly to sign me up. I had heard great stories from my friends about the adventures they were having, and I wanted to be part of it.
   Scouting was always great fun for me. Not only did I get to hang out with my friends, but we got to do cool things together. We learned archery. We took tours of cool places such as newspapers and police stations and fire houses. In fact, I can honestly say that the tour we took of my local newspaper helped pique my future interest in journalism. As I got older, we started camping on weekends and going to "Camporees," a gathering of local and area Scout troops. All in all, it was great fun.
   But all fun aside, I loved (and still love) Scouting because it helped reinforce what my parents were teaching me at home. Scouting teaches honesty and loyalty. It teaches boys the importance of service, and  encourages members to help other people (the Scouts' slogan is "Do a Good Turn Daily"). And it instills a sense of patriotism. All are great things to teach the next generations of boys. So why should the fun and those great life lessons be limited only to heterosexuals?
   For years, the BSA has argued that homosexuality, in essence, went against the traditional morals it was trying to instill in its members. The Scouts also argued that, as a private organization, it had a right to discriminate. That position was affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in 2000 in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale. Still, I always thought it was short-sighted and silly to kick a good Scout out or to expel a popular troop leader just because of his sexual orientation -- something he has absolutely no control over.
   I believe a good portion of the reason the BSA has been slow to embrace gay Scouts and Scout leaders is simple fear fueled by ignorance, Back in 1910, when Robert Baden Powell founded the Scouting movement in his home country of Great Britain, homosexuality was largely unheard of. It was certainly never discussed or acknowledged in polite company, though everyone knew it existed. For many decades, until the 1970s, in fact, homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness. No wonder the BSA didn't want gay Scouts in its ranks or gay leaders influencing boys.
   Times have changed, though. Today we understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Our sexual orientation -- gay, straight or bisexual -- is genetically predetermined. Today, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and recognizing the equal rights of homosexuals. So why shouldn't the BSA finally recognize that a gay boy can be just as good a Scout as his straight counterpart? Why shouldn't the BSA recognize that gay men are fully capable of leading troops, just like straight men? Right. It just doesn't make sense to differently.
   When I was in Scouting, one of the biggest fears I heard expressed about allowing gays in the ranks is that they would molest boys, or worse, try to "convert" them to the "gay lifestyle." Well, the BSA itself has taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen. Every Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster is required to receive training in how to recognize sexual abuse and what to do if a boy comes to them with charges of inappropriate contact with a leader. The same is true of camp counselors. There are strict rules in place which dictate showering times when camping. Boys don't shower with adults. Ever. No leader is allowed to be alone with boys without at least one other adult present. That's called the "two-deep leadership rule," and it's been in place for at least two decades.
   As for the idea that gay leaders will molest boys, we're talking about two different issues here. Gay men aren't attracted to every man or boy they see. They're not interested in "converting" anyone. And the problem of sexual abuse isn't about orientation, anyway. It's an issue of power. It's true that some gay men do molest boys. But they don't do it because they're gay. And the truth is, statistics (and the Scouts' own files) have shown that straight men are far more likely to be molesters than gay men are.
   The BSA's new policy is likely to have very little discernible effect in the short term. Councils in the South and other reliably conservative parts of the country will continue to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders, just as they always have. That's their right under the new policy, which wisely steers clear of laying the law down to civic, religious and educational institutions which may be opposed to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. If we see changes, expect to see them in the areas where you would expect to -- the coasts and up in the Northeast.
   The Boy Scouts have taken a giant step forward with this policy change. Eventually (and sooner rather than later), I'd like to see them take the final step and throw the organization open to all boys, gay or straight, without fear, without reservations and without conditions. I'd like to see them use their massive influence with boys to teach not only honesty, service and patriotism, but also tolerance
 and respect for others' differences. When that happens, and I believe it will, our society will be better for it.