Peggy Fletcher Stack puts an interesting spin on this in the SL Tribune. She depicts this as the scouts moving toward the Church’s position. I guess orientation alone is enough to disqualify one from the scouts, but because the Church is only concerned with actual behavior, some Church units have looked the other way for chaste gay scouts (although Peggy notes that other units have not). The proposed change would allow the Church to retain chaste gay scouts (and perhaps even leaders), while disqualifying unchaste ones. Other sponsors could continue the current policy and still others could allow gays, whether chaste or not.

1/3 is not 2/3 and I suspect the 2/3 of funding that has been pulled is the reason this policy–which less than 6 months ago was set in stone–is on the cutting block.

That or enough people have been pulling their kids out to make a difference, which is unlikely.

I think the church might actually be the driving force behind this. Church leaders don’t want to kick out chaste young men from scouts.

For a long long time, the Church has pretty much run the scouting program thhe way it wants. The Church was never going to kick anyone out based on BSA rules. But there are a lot of LDS leaders in the BSA leadership and this policy change just makes the BSA policy closer to the latest LDS policy, which is that sexual orientation alone is not a disqualification for anything.

Actually, the Church does allow openly gay men to be full members with no restrictions, so long as they are celibate. This means that an openly gay man could be called to be a scout leader. And rightfully so. Gay men are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else.

NewlyH, your comment is confusing to me. There is no restictions on gay members who are celibate. They are considered full members in every respect. Are you saying that, despite this, there is an unwritten restriction on allowing openly gay members to work with children that could only be overcome in “the most liberal of wards” (whatever that might mean)?

If that is your intent, I think that’s very wrong. No ward should place restrictions on members that are not placed there by the Church. There is no basis for believing gay members are not safe in working with children.

MCQ – I agree with NewlyH. on this. Since it was only last year (maybe 6 months?) that the Church officially came out and said gay men can serve in leadership, etc., it has been an unwritten rule of exclusion in the past.
I admire your personal openness on this subject but have not seen your generous attitude anywhere I’ve ever lived.

I did know one gay man who was active at church and he did a bang-up job on the weekly ward bulletin. That is as close to leadership I’ve ever seen any homosexual.

I’ve done some checking on this and yes, it is very new that the Church has allowed openly gay members to serve in callings (but much longer than six months), but already there have been advances. Mitch Mayne, an openly gay man, was called to serve as an Executive Secretary to the bishopric in his ward (see here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52486958-78/mayne-gay-lds-ward.html.csp) and I’m sure there will be other advancements soon.

As for callings with children, there is no restrictions on gay members but there is apparently a restriction on men serving in callings with children by themselves. Apparently men are supposed to be in a team of two teachers whenever they are serving in a calling involving children. This applies to straight men or gay men equally, but apparently does not apply to women. I have not noticed that this policy is being followed very thoroughly in my ward, however, since I have taught primary by myself as a substitute several times recently. This policy mirrors the BSA requirement of two leaders present at all times at any scout function or meeting of any kind.

So if any wards are putting additional restrictions on gay members, they are doing so against the current policy of the Church, although that policy is pretty new and might take a while to be implemented in all wards.

I want to reiterate again that there is no basis whatsoever for restricting gay members from holding callings involving children. Pedophiles are no more likely to be gay than straight.

All this excitement is all quite mind boggling indeed, considering that the Mormon Church was the main support and filed an amicus brief in siding the the BSA in the policy of excluding both gay leaders and children in Dale V BSA. The USSC sided with BSA in the exclusion policy based on freedom of association guarantees in the US Constitution–I actually concurred with the decision although I found the policy loathsome and hateful–I support any groups right to freely associate. The true mover here beyond the rapidly increasing support for equality and dignity of gay people is simply money–too many organizations not to mention parents are not willing to give financial support to BSA when it excludes gay people. If it does change its policy, BSA will then allow sponsoring organizations to decide for themselves whom to exclude. So to all the hubbub I say not so fast–nothing is going to change. The Mormon Church will still be able to deny membership and participation to whomever it chooses. The current ‘change’ and perceived softening of the Mormon Church’s attitudes and policies are cosmetic PR moves–nothing has changed whatsoever, and for my money, the Mormon Church is still Enemy Number One.

Yeah, it’s sad that you consider us enemy number one.

I actually thought this was a done deal, but a scouter who I now well (:)) dismisses it out of hand.

The church is a public entity and will have to change or fight changes in other entities. So, in that vein, Don might have a point. I don’t think the church is ready to accept gay scout leaders. So, for the boy scouts, with so much of their support from the Mormon Church, this seems like a tough decision.

Don, is the suicide rate for gay Mormon men higher than gay men overall? Just wondering…..

should read most of you are quite friendly

Thanks Anne–I have been a bit rough around the edges in some of my posts, but talking things out with patient people has helped me to calm down–some.