Two steps back

Somewhere in America, in a room off the main church, the following will never take place:

"Crisp opening, Scouts! Very patriotic. OK, Senior Patrol Leader, what is the Troop doing tonight?"

"Yes sir. Let's see … the new Scout patrol will meet to discuss 'What is homosexuality, anyway?' with David's dad. We were going to have Tommy's mom as guest speaker, but since she's one of the gays, we can't have her leading anything."

"That's being prepared. What else?"

"OK … the Bear Patrol needs to finish modifying its patrol flag to incorporate the rainbow colors … and the senior patrol will work on their Citizenship in the Community merit badge with an analysis of the Homosexual Agenda and how it will run the Troop. We'll play ultimate Frisbee and … that's about it."

"Great! Oh, one more thing, Scouts. BSA has issued this new oversized bandanna. It kind of folds out … look how large this thing gets … you wear it under your hat, like so, and it drapes over your body. What's that, Tyler? Yes, yes, it does look kind of like a burqa, with the mesh eyeholes and everything. With the new membership policy, we can't be too careful that you gays in our Troop may want to jump these straight boys' bones. This — burqa, if you will — will cover you up and deliver the gay guys from temptation. Keeps away mosquitoes too! OK, Senior Patrol Leader, let's get started!"

Ridiculous, of course, but some critics imagined as much when last week directors of the Boy Scouts of America decided to allow boys who are gay to join Scouting. Adults who are gay are still barred from participating as leaders.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, an Eagle Scout, likened homosexuality to a fad and said, "For pop culture to come in and try to tear that up because it just happens to be the flavor of the month, so to speak, and to tear apart one of the great organizations that has served millions of young men … that is just not appropriate.”

A fad. For as long as humanity.

Upset parents described how gays have forced their agenda on Scouts, as if Scouting is now about being gay and celebrating homosexuality. Some have said they'll leave Scouting; some others say they'll try to create a similar group that upholds Scouting values. The irony: Scouts opposed to the ban have been trying to do the same thing for years, while working with Scouting to change the membership policy.

As if being gay had anything to do with values, instead of being the way some people are born.

Scouting is about boys who want to go outdoors and cut things with knives and burn stuff. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Imagine if Scouting banned African Americans because they corrupted Scouting values. You'd laugh, but in Boy Scouts of America's early days, forces moved to do just such a thing.

W.D. Boyce, one of Scouting's founders, fought from the start to open Scouting to all despite race or creed. Of course, Scouting was right. It is right to lift this ban, too.

"While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting," Boy Scouts of America announced in its decision last week.

What I don't understand is why Boy Scouts didn't lift the ban entirely. Half a decision is no decision at all.

Judging by the first-day news stories, foes of the ban are happy, if not satisfied, with the decision. It's a stutter step, an appeasement to those outraged at even suggesting a change. Once the bluster and recriminations have passed — once some churches cut ties with Scouting and Troops find other places to meet — once everyone remembers that Scouting is about cutting things with knives and burning stuff, and adults telling them not to — then Scouting will lift the ban for leaders too.

I read the BSA board decision differently: This gay thing? Son, it's just a phase you're going through. Once you turn 18, you'll return to your "values" or you'll be through with Scouting.

The irony remains: An organization that purports to nurture citizen leaders in a country working toward liberty and justice for all, can't also say, "Well, it's really liberty and justice for some."

I hope this is just a phase Scouting is going through.

Lemme askew some questions

What exactly does Boy Scouts of American want from me?

Twice in as many weeks, BSA has asked me whether it should change its membership policy and allow Scouts and adults who are homosexual.

The first online survey felt like a friendly neighbor jawing over the back fence, just to hear my thoughts.

The second, longer survey felt like a befuddled scold. It was a bit … strange. I don't know if that stemmed from the lack of professional polling assistance, or a careful calculation to arrive at a desired outcome, or just an honest mess.

To both surveys, I said Boy Scouts should change its membership policy. BSA's governing board is expected to discuss and perhaps vote on the issue in May.

As it is, Scouting does not serve its mission to boys of the nation, who will grow up to serve a diverse world.

I'm a registered adult leader in my son's former troop only by the generosity of the parents' committee, who hope that I would be able to return in some role. I was Scoutmaster for a while. We've yet to figure out what that role is, and I'm hesitant mostly because I believe parents and guardians of active Scouts should be the ones assisting the troop.

Some troops — probably a lot of them — are led by adult leaders who hang on long after their own children have left, or never had children in the troop. They're real-life versions of Lem Siddons, Fred MacMurray's Scoutmaster character from "Follow Me, Boys!" They provide continuity, and I'm sure they're honorable, but the concept has always unsettled me, and I don't feel right being one of them. Nonetheless, as a registered leader I got to weigh in on the survey.

The long-form survey made me wary — and not because the wording on some of the 13 questions made me re-read them several times to make sure I knew what it was asking; or because the range of answers would abruptly reverse in order from one question to the next, so that I might have answered opposite my real thoughts if I wasn't careful.

What caught me off-guard was the survey's construction. It first asked whether I thought Scouting should allow homosexuals to join (I do) and whether I found current policy acceptable (I don't).

Then it presented several brief scenarios, some ripped from the headlines, some hypothetical, depicting Scouts or adult leaders who are homosexual, and then asked if I thought it's OK to have homosexuals in that situation.

For example, it asked if I thought it OK if a mom who is lesbian should serve as den mother for a Cub Scout den (from an actual case, and one that became a tipping point in this whole debate). Another scenario from an actual event asked me if a Scout who rose through the ranks and earned his Eagle award should receive it even if he then revealed he is gay.

Yes and yes, I said.

Another asked if a Scout who is homosexual should be allowed to share a tent with a Scout who is heterosexual (I'll presume this is a hypothetical); or if a boy who is homosexual should be able join a troop over the objects of another boy who thinks homosexuality is wrong.

Yes in both cases, I answered. Deal with it.

After the scenarios, the survey repeated the first question, whether Scouting should allow homosexuals.

It was as if to say, "Didn't think it through, did you?! All progressive and full of righteous relativism, but you didn't account for the possibility of gay Scouts sharing tents with straight Scouts, didja? Or a lesbian leading your Cub Scout's den, huh?! Whaddya think now?!"

My answer didn't change.

If I was smart, I would have copied and pasted the questions before completing the survey, so I could write with more authority — and because in researching the survey, I came upon the Christian Broadcasting Network report that said one of the questions is whether those surveyed think a homosexual adult leader should share a tent with a Scout.

Good Lord! I hope the Christian Broadcasting Network got that wrong, because I wouldn't consent to an adult sharing a tent with any boy, ever. Scouting may be wrong on this issue, and has made major missteps in preventing harm by sexual predators over the decades, but it has worked hard to prevent abuse since, and two of the smartest steps are requiring at least two adults in attendance at any Scout activity, and prohibiting adults from sharing sleeping spaces with Scouts.

I'm already re-thinking my answer on whether gay and straight Scouts should share tents; co-ed Venture crews (a program for teens and young adults) prohibit young men and women from sharing sleeping quarters. It's an issue for program policy, but should not preclude homosexual Scouts and adults from membership.

Next, the survey asked whether each chartering organization should have its own say whether to admit homosexuals, an idea leaked in January when BSA's governing board began official consideration of its membership policy.

I said no. Imagine Scouts and their families asking this and that troop for their policy on gays before considering membership. Usually Scouts pick troops based on their level of support, degree of activities, and discipline or lack of it, to find the one that fits them. Sexual orientation should not be a factor.

In my myopic life view, chartering organizations, even churches, don't micromanage a troop's activities anyway. I guess that in the minds of most, Boy Scouts are apple pie and Americana and Fred MacMurray and Kurt Russell. Except for the Disney corn and the fact that Scouting never reaches the fraternal ideal in "Follow Me, Boys!" that's pretty close to the mark.

Scouting is about going outdoors, learning leadership and citizenship there, and learning to plan and get along in the weekly meetings for planning the outdoor trips. It's about service, about each Scout and adult leader looking beyond himself and reaching out to others.

Scouting is not about sexual politics, but BSA's intransigence has now stitched it into the program's fabric.

Further, the survey asked whether I thought homosexuality fit the core values of Scouting (the awkwardness of the phrase "morally straight" notwithstanding, yes); finally, it asked me some general Scouting questions (did I find the monthly Roundtable, in which adult leaders gather to get news for their troops, very effective? … not really … and if there was one thing I would change about Scouting, what would it be?)

You mean, what would I change about its membership policy, or in its entire program? Why, I asked the computer screen, was Boy Scouts of America asking me these off-topic questions?

It sounded oddly like the Eagle boards of review I've sat on, in which adult leaders query Eagle candidates to determine whether they should receive their highest rank; "What would you change about Scouting?" is a classic review board question, among many that roam far and wide, about Scouting and life and the Scout's Eagle project.

It was during an Eagle board of review that cemented what I had been thinking for a while, that BSA's membership policy was shortsighted. The Eagle candidate said an open membership is the one thing he would change about Scouting; it's the first I heard a Scout aware enough or brave enough to broach the topic.

If he saw the policy as wrong — if he realized that the amazing benefits available from Scouting should not be for straight people alone — then I realized the time had come for change.

Unfortunately, the survey gives me the feeling Boy Scouts of America has already made up its mind.

Morally straitened

Trouble brews at the Boy Scouts.

Bring it.

And bring your hip waders. The irony and hypocrisy flow thickly.

Boy Scouts of America's governing board last week delayed until its annual May meeting a decision whether to include gay Scouts and Scout leaders.

Last week's was supposed to be a private board discussion, just a consideration of the possibility of lifting its ban, The New York Times reports, until news of it leaked and the planned discussion took on the public weight of an imminent decision.

Foes and friends of the policy flooded BSA with consternation after the leak. Now all sides stake positions for the next three months.

I predict BSA will ultimately hold fast — for now. But change is gonna come, sooner now. Be prepared. It has to.

As a private organization, BSA has a right to decide who its members are, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it. So, no homosexuals in the ranks. Pedophiles yes, it turns out tragically, and BSA is moving grudgingly and glacially to eradicate that horror, but no homosexuals.

But Scouting wants it both ways. It wants to be America's citizenship laboratory, but just for some boys. It positions itself as the foundation for America's future leaders, but only for heterosexual leaders. As it helps to mold men for an American society that becomes daily more complex, it is only molding some, preparing them partway for what they'll face. Like banks we deem too big to fail, Boy Scouts of America fancies itself too American to mess with.

In upholding BSA's policy, Gov. Rick Perry, an Eagle Scout, unwittingly gives credence to change.

"Scouting is not a place where sexuality should be the intersection of," Perry told reporters before addressing Texas Scouts visiting the State legislature. "Scouting is about teaching a substantial amount of life lessons. Sexuality is not one of them. It never has been. Doesn't need to be."

He's right: Scouting is not about sexuality. Nevermind the old gay-bait card Perry seems to toss, that if you let gays in, the banners and pamphlets come out and recruitment ensues. Scouting is about the great and wonderful outdoors, the laboratory in which those life lessons play out. Lessons in self-reliance, preparedness, stewardship, and working with other people.

Sexuality wasn't an issue when I was a Scout leader. Once in a while it came up: Adult leaders talk of high school Scouts being overcome by fumes — perfumes and car fumes — during the long climb to Eagle rank. And once in a while an adult leader might talk with Scouts casually about prom or events in Scouts' lives. Other than that, we didn't raise the issue; it never seemed germain to our mission.

[These are the observations of one dad/Scoutmaster/former kid who wishes he had been a Scout. Beware the narrow view and lack of perspective. Pick from the bones what you will.]

And there's the Scout oath, in which Scouts pledge to keep themselves "physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight." Time has bent "morally straight" into an unintended connotation. 

I'm not so naive to discount that sex talk goes on among Scouts away from leaders' hearing, the kind of wildly erroneous talk that kids talk.

It reminds me of when Bill José told the other kids on our block a dirty joke. When he got squints and stares and not the laughs he expected (I was in fourth grade, maybe), he tried to salvage the joke by explaining the mechanics of sex and the existence of pubic hair. When we told Bill that was the most outrageous and unbelievable lie we had ever heard, rendering his joke inert, he gave up telling us dirty jokes.

I've heard Scouts throw around "gay" as an adjective to mean "lame," and I'd tell them it's not cool. Scouting is indeed a reflection of society, and left to their own devices — at recess, on a campout — kids carry out their own varyingly cruel versions of "Lord of the Flies."

Scouting is not about sexuality. It's about character, a wholly independent trait.

By barring gays from Scouting, its governors — and we involved at the grass roots — are saying gays are not worthy as people, that their contributions — as people — are unworthy.

Maybe we could declare that publicly over a music backdrop of Aaron Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man," arguably the most "American" of musical pieces. Aaron Copland, by the way, was gay.

Maybe Scouting can explain to Native Americans why, since BSA's early days as a merger of the Woodcraft Indians, it has picked and chosen elements of Indian culture and left out others. It isn't long before a Scout encounters BSA's version of Indian lore: Our Troop's favorite summer camp included membership in a "tribe" that bore no relation to native Californians that inhabited the site — and still an active community nearby — but more of a Disney-fied long-feathered-headdress-breechcloth-and-pidgin-English-noble-savage version.

One of the elements omitted from the vast diversity of Native American cultures is that some tribes had special roles for members who were homosexual, including as spirit messengers.

The BSA's aborted discussion was to touch on the trial idea of letting chartering organizations decide whether to admit gays.

The Troop my son and I belonged to, 328, is charted to a Catholic Parish. The Catholic Church finds homosexuality a sin, with a "hate the sin, love the sinner" policy.  I imagine the practical effect of a decentralized decision on gay membership would be:

• The Troop would have to look elsewhere for a chartering organization and places to meet and stow their gear … of which the parish has been generous — the most likely scenario

• The Troop might dissolve over dissension on this issue; 

• All parties will decide it's no big deal, and life will go on;

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known also as the Mormons, would have major problems with a new policy. Boy Scouts is a kind of extended ministry for boys in the church, and operates with marked differences from most other Scouting units, including large gatherings among its own units.

On the other hand, public schools and civic groups with anti-discrimination policies would again open its facilities for meetings and events and equipment storage.

When — not if — the change comes, the fallout will be wild. Scout units will dissolve, others will move … private chartering organizations will be outraged, while others embrace the change. Recriminations and kudos alike will erupt all the way to the president's office and the steps of the Supreme Court.

Over time, Scouting in tatters, people will want an organization like Scouting, the nation's greatest steward of public lands. People will realize Scouting's potential for shaping citizens and leaders, and learning to work and live together.

They'll reinvent Scouting — truly too American to mess up.