I sent this to Wayne Brock the other day. I have yet to receive even an automated reply to either this message or my previous message to the BSA through their website acknowledging receipt of this message:
I sent this through the Scouting website the other day, but have not received any acknowledgment that it was received. I am sending it to you now. Please read this.
As a former Cubmaster and Scouting parent, I read with great dismay the letter on your website regarding the proposed change in the policy regarding sexual orientation. This proposed policy claims that Scouting has always been concerned about doing what is best for the young people that you serve. Add my voice to the list of those who will surely tell you in the coming days that a change in this policy will NOT serve those children well.
Your proposal states that “there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation.” This is false. Currently, the national policy disallows homosexual leaders and members. If you remove the policy, you are in force and effect ALLOWING homosexual leaders and members to participate, so whether the policy is written or not, Scouting will have implemented a policy that reverses course and allows what was previously disallowed.
The culture we live in is groaning with changes, and most of them are not good changes. Our kids are exposed to more sex and violence and swearing and examples of public figures who engage in dishonesty and corruption than at any time in our history, and with the ubiquity of cable television and 24 hour news and entertainment channels, the exposure is constant and nearly inescapable. As Scouting parents, we tell our children that “right” and “wrong” aren’t just words, but concepts that have meaning, and that they have to stand against the tide of change in the world. For over a hundred years, Scouting has been a constant that we could point to. When news of the so-called “controversial” policy would come on television, it always offered an opportunity for parents to answer questions that would be asked, or to ask some questions of our own and offer explanations about why Scouting’s stand in this area is important. For many kids who have non-religious parents, the stand by the Boy Scouts was the ONLY opportunity they might ever have to hear that there were reasons why allowing homosexuals in Scouting was not a good idea. By changing policy, you will be removing that potential for our kids to learn a positive message, and you will, instead, be telling them that in the face of withering criticism from politicians and the pop culture, EVEN SCOUTING will bend with the wind and do what’s popular instead of what’s right. You will, in effect, be endorsing homosexuality as an organization.
Your proposal also states that “BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.” Will there be an official list available detailing which local organizations allow gay members and leaders? If not, then you’ll be doing a disservice to those who want to continue in Scouting without those influences, and what happens the first time that a local organization that doesnt want to allow homosexuals is challenged by a family that wants in anyway? If you do provide such a list, however, then you will in fact be endorsing “homosexual-friendly” units, which would clearly mean that Scouting will have become a “homosexual friendly” organization. Again, you can’t claim to not have a national policy, when the lack of a national policy that once existed leads to proliferation and official sanctioning of something that the policy previously banned.
Change this policy at your peril. Doing so will be the first horn sounded on the march towards the death of Scouting as we know it.
We already know for sure the following church denominations will accept "chickenhawks".
1. Unitarian/ Universalist
3. United Church of Christ
4. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
5. Presybterian Church USA
6. Disciples of Christ/ The Christian Church
8. Alliance of Baptists
9. Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
10. United Methodist - special case - if the local parish espouses "social justice" and has a female pastor