From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Scott)
Subject: Re: Gays and BSA
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:14:40 GMT

aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>There is something I am not sure about all this debate:

>If the BSA stops getting money from United Way or any other tax-funded 
>charity, would GLB stop complaining about BSA segregation?

To the best of my knowledge, the BSA are not *segregating* homosexuals.
(Segregation says to me ``separate but ``equal'' ''.  There are no
separate troops just for gay scouts and/or gay scout leaders within the
BSA, as far as I know).  The BSA are *discriminating* against gays,
which is a much stronger statement.  They are not providing a separate
space for gays; they are allowing *no* room at all.  (This is national
policy; regional policy may vary, as many happy scouts (including
*straight* happy scouts) have attested in this forum).

But, to answer your question, if the BSA stops getting money from public
sources (gay *and* straight tax dollars), then, *some*, but not *all*
GLB(O)s will stop complaining.

>Would GBL assume that BSA has a right to discriminate them, or would 
>GBL still complain about it?

Some GLB (GBL?) would say that the the BSA does indeed have a right to
discriminate; they just shouldn't lie about it or pretend that they are
holier-than-thou because of this evil (anagram-vile) practice.  Still
others say that, *no*, they do not have that right, as long as they are
publicly funded by *all* tax dollars, including *gay* tax dollars.
(Although it is not completely clear how much of the BSA is *publicly*
funded, it is certainly greater than $0, as some scouts have claimed
public accomodations, privileges, etc., on city/county/state parks,
military bases, etc.)

>In short: All of this complaining is about BSA segregating or about
>BSA getting money from the United Way?

In short, all of this complaining is for several different reasons, and
*many* people are pissed off by one or more of them (sorry if this is
more complicated than you initially expected, or are able to comprehend;
I sincerely hope that you can understand that different people are upset
for different reasons, some overlapping, without necessarily belonging
to any specific group:  gay, lesbian, bisexual, atheist, or otherwise).
If only one of these reasons goes away, some people will still be pissed
off.

Some of the American public are complaining because they feel that the
BSA has no moral right to discriminate against homosexuals (bigotry in
*any* shape or form is inconsistent with the ``morally straight'' values
that are supposed to be instilled in our good scouts).  Even though the
BSA has a *legal* right to discriminate against ``undesirable'' people
(be they gay, atheists, or up until some 20-odd years ago, black, etc.),
this *does* go against the grain of being a good scout.  Contrary to
popular opinion, it *is* possible to hold solid moral values without
being heterosexual and/or theistic (in fact, *some* may argue that this
is a more direct route to *real* moral values ...)  Most scouting
organizations outside of the U.S. already know this.

Still more people are complaining that even if the BSA *did* have this
right to discriminate, the BSA is getting UW money under false
pretenses.  United Way *does* have a *national* policy of contributing
to non-discriminatory organizations; many good people contribute to the
United Way on that basis.  The BSA has claimed to be non-discriminatory,
when in fact, they are not; the national council has publicly and
repeatedly declared that gays [and atheists] are no longer welcome (this
was not part of the original charter, contrary to popular belief -- it
was officially added some time in the '70s, I'm told).  When applying
for UW funding the BSA *still* claims to be non-discriminatory.

Some people are outraged that, even in light of the now publicly known
discrimination, organizations such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Levi
Strauss, and numerous chapters of the UW, etc., are being politically
and economically blackmailed by the BSA into continued coerced funding
of this organization (some of these organizations who have denied said
funding have succumbed to BSA political (and religious funny-mentalist)
pressure and have since resumed funding the BSA.  Other organizations,
who have never, *ever* contributed get *no* pressure at all ... hmmm).
In spite of the *national* UW policy, only a few chapters have dared
opposed the BSA's discriminatory policies (San Francisco, and [I think]
somewhere in or near Chicago ...).

>AAP

So, to answer your question, many different people (GLB, GBL, and
others) are pissed off with the BSA policy, for many different reasons
(bigotry, deceit, coersion, etc.), and if the BSA were to eliminate some
but not all of these practices, some people would still remain who are
pissed off.  

If there is still something that you are unsure of in this debate,
please let me know.

Rob