California Sen. Ricardo Lara (D) (Credit: Israel Rodriguez)

The California Senate overwhelmingly approved SB 323, a bill that cuts the tax exemption for any public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and several other categories of identity. The bill specifically targets the Boy Scouts of America, who, despite their vote to allow gay Scouts last week, still discriminates against gay adults as volunteers and leaders. The vote was 27-9, marking the first time that an LGBT rights bill passed with a two-thirds majority.

The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D), who is openly gay. He opened his floor speech by reading the pledges of the several youth organizations, noting that the Girl Scouts, 4-H clubs, Boys & Girls of America, and YMCA are all open to gay members, but the Boy Scouts stand alone in discriminating based on sexual orientation:

LARA: Members, we’ve given the Boy Scouts ample time to solve their discrimination problem and they’ve chosen a path that still leads to discrimination. The BSA’s recent vote to allow gay youth as members falls short of truly implementing a truly inclusive policy. While it is a step in the right direction, continuing the ban on LGBT adults is premised on absurd assumptions and stereotypes that perpetuate hate and homophobia.

What does this mean? Up to 17 you’re fine to be in the Boy Scouts and at the stroke of midnight on your 18th birthday you turn into a pedophile or a predator? What kind of warped message does this send?

Watch it:

If the bill becomes law, groups that discriminate like the Boy Scouts would have to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, and camp fees as well as sales tax on food, beverages, and even homemade items sold at fundraisers.

Since the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted last week to allow gay Scouts to participate in the organization, conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage, have warned that churches will abandon the organization, leading to its demise. Nearly a week later, it seems now that those conservative groups are actually now advocating against the BSA, as the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer explained this week:

FISCHER: We’re going to call on everyone that’s involved in Scouting: pull out. If your church is the sponsor of of a Boy Scout troop, we’re going to urge you to contact your pastor and ask him to withdraw the church’s sponsorship of the Boy Scout troop, because the only way you can do that — the only way you can stay in Scouting is to affirm this policy. You have to affirm it. You have to implement it. You are not allowed to exercise your own judgment on this based on your religious conviction. There is no option given by the Boy Scouts — if you’re going to be in Scouting, you have to allow open and avowed homosexuals to be a part of your Scout troop.

Watch it:

Many churches have already pulled their support, including the Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group. Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention added that with this change, the Scouts are no longer maintaining an “objective standard.”

These actions suggest that the primary reason any of these organizations supported the BSA in the first place was because of its policy of anti-gay discrimination. None of the other values the Scouts uphold or the lessons they teach boys are apparently enough for these churches to stick with them, because they just can’t tolerate that there might be a gay kid in their troop. If shunning teenagers for their sexual orientations trumps all the other values these churches care about, perhaps the BSA is better off without their sponsorship.

The National Organization for Marriage has joined other anti-gay conservatives in condemning the Boy Scouts of America for voting to allow gay Scouts. The statement from Brian Brown notably does not mention the word marriage — despite the group’s mission — and also reveals how NOM buys into hackneyed stereotypes about gay people and people of faith:

BROWN: Today is a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America. They have succumbed to political pressure and abandoned their historic roots in what will prove to be a failed attempt to appease gay activists and corporate donors. Unfortunately, what they have done is said to the world that their oath no longer means much. Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization.

I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it’s only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders. Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse. All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality. It’s the beginning of the end for what once was one of America’s noblest organizations.

The Boy Scouts’ former policy, which remains in place for adult leaders, was such that Scouts were kicked out not for engaging in sexual activity with the same sex, but for even admitting that they are gay. NOM’s claim that ending this discrimination will “end up sexualizing the organization” reinforces the narrow views that being gay is only defined by sexual behavior and that gay men are, in fact, obsessed with sex.

Furthermore, the implication that “thousands of churches” will pull their sponsorship of Boy Scout troops suggests that those churches only supported the organization because it was anti-gay. It reduces Christianity to a one-belief religion, and that beliefs, “No gays allowed.” Such preposterous predictions are an insult to all churches who work with the Scouts, whether they supported the discriminatory policy or not, and ignores the other noncontroversial values the Scouts espouse.

NOM’s decision to engage in an issue outside their mission merely because involved the inclusion of the gay community further reflects how the group works against LGBT people, not for marriage.

After more than three-fifths of delegates to the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council voted Thursday to lift the organization’s ban on openly gay youth — a move that preserved the ban on LGBT adult leaders and volunteers — groups ranging from GLAAD to the LDS Church embraced the change. But several of the most anti-LGBT extremists expressed outrage, hate, and vitriol at even this half-measure:

Politicians

Anti-LGBT Activists

The Scout law embraces the values of being “helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind.” It is a shame that those who claim Scouting has abandoned its moral code so blatantly violate its most important provisions.

Former Den Leader Jen Tyrrell and former Boy Scout George Takei protest the BSA's anti-gay ban, at the 2012 New York City Pride parade

The roughly 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) National Council voted 61-38 percent Thursday to end the ban on gay youth participating in the program, but reaffirmed their policy of mandatory discrimination against LGBT leaders and volunteers.

The move — suggested by the national leadership as an attempted compromise — represents a modest step forward, but still comes as a disappointment to the thousands of Eagle Scouts,1.8 million Change.org petition signers, and the 56 percent of Americans who want the BSA to end its anti-LGBT discrimination.

While the policy change will permit openly gay Scouts like Ryan Andresen to receive their Eagle Scout awards, it will still prevent openly lesbian parents like former Cub Scout Den Leader Jen Tyrrell from volunteering with their parent’s Scout units.

BSA President Wayne Perry wrote, in a USA Today op-ed Wednesday, that allowing LGBT leaders “would have conflicted with the majority of our partners, 70% of which are religious organizations, and would have disrupted our ability to deliver Scouting.” But in the same statement, he noted, the organization was “unaware of any major religious chartered organization that believes a youth member simply stating he or she is attracted to the same sex, but not engaging in sexual activity, should make him or her unwelcome in their congregation.”

This admission and the rule change seem to contradict the BSA’s long-standing rationale that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” By finally admitting that being LGBT is not, itself, incompatible with being “morally straight” or “clean,” the justification for excluding adults purely on the basis of their sexual orientation seems to now be reduced to “some religious organizations prefer discrimination.”

The BSA’s Honorary President Barack Obama and former BSA national board member Mitt Romney agreed in their 2012 presidential campaign that the organization should stop discriminating based on sexual orientation — a view shared by corporate CEOs and more than 7,000 Eagle Scouts.

The Family Research Council published a full-page ad today in the Dallas Morning News today opposing the inclusion of gay Scouts in the Boy Scouts of America. The arguments are familiar, but one manages to imply much more than what is on the page:

ROBS PARENTS of their authority to address issues of sexuality:

Parents properly have the exclusive right to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their children when they think it best for their child and family, and to not have it brought up by older openly gay boys around a campfire.

This argument essentially uses the closet as a weapon against gay youth. The intention is to prevent young people from learning that gay people exist, using “parents’ rights” as a straw man to justify. The argument also relies on other anti-gay stereotypes often included in arguments against gay Scouts, such as the idea that a same-sex orientation is only defined by sexual behavior.

Children of any age can learn about sexual diversity without learning about sex. Many will grow up with parents of the same sex, or with classmates who have same-sex parents. FRC is reinforcing that it is not “best” for children to learn that gay people exist — essentially forcing a closet of invisibility upon the entire gay community.

Polls have consistently shown that knowing gay people helps individuals become more comfortable with LGBT issues and thus more favorable. FRC has to oppose that visibility at every turn, because their scare tactics depend on the fear they can perpetuate when people know less about homosexuality.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) is not happy about the pressure on the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay Scouts, a decision being weighed today by Scout leaders from across the country. Earlier this week, he spent some time on the House floor decrying the “intolerant Left” because of how it “bullies and browbeats” the BSA into abandoning values of right and wrong:

BRIDENSTINE: I rise today as an Eagle Scout and one who has a stake in the future of our Scouting programs. Some of us in America still believe in the concept of sexual morality, that sex is intended for one man and one woman within the institution of marriage. Organizations that hold this philosophy and promote it among our youth should be commended, or at least you would think, tolerated. Unfortunately, the intolerant Left bullies and browbeats private organizations like the Boy Scouts into accepting their philosophy. Notice they didn’t start their own organization. They went after the Boy Scouts of America.

The Left’s agenda is not about tolerance, and it’s not about diversity of thought. It’s about presenting a worldview of relativism, where there is no right and wrong. Then using the full force of the government to silence opposition and reshape organizations like the Boy Scouts into instruments for social change.

To my friends on the Left, this is not tolerance. but here’s the good news about true tolerance. The most tolerant one of all has the ability to redeem us all.

Watch it (HT: Towleroad):

Bridenstine’s insinuation is that homosexuality is wrong, and gay people should not be able to participate equally in their communities. It’s unclear how such a philosophy constitutes “tolerance” or an embrace of “diversity.”

The ex-gay “professional” organization NARTH has published a new document highlighting its beliefs about homosexuality as a recommendation to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to continue its policy of not permitting gay Scouts. NARTH asserts the following false conclusions:

• A person’s environment can contribute to their sexual orientation. Research suggests this isn’t really true after someone’s born.
• Children experiencing “sexual confusion” can be harmed if encouraged to identify as gay. This is only true for people like NARTH members who believe homosexuality itself is harmful.
• Engaging in homosexual behaviors carries a “significant risk for serious health consequences.” These are largely caused by anti-gay stigma, not homosexuality itself.
• Gay young people are more sexually active than their peers. This is a distortion of data showing that young people’s first sexual experience is with a person of the same sex, not evidence about young people who actually identify as gay.
• Sexual abuse causes homosexuality. This is patently false.

Based on all these assumptions, NARTH warns that allowing gay Scouts would be a threat to other Scouts’ protection:

The most critical question to answer regarding this proposed policy change, however, is: How will child protection be assured? If openly homosexual boys are allowed to participate, how does a Scoutmaster monitor the influence or actions that these boys may have upon others in the troop especially during overnight events? Will equal but segregated facilities be required? This certainly would be the case if the BSA were to alter its policy and admit girls.

As the BSA deliberates a potential change in its membership policy, NARTH encourages the council members to carefully consider the complexities of sexual orientation development reflected in the aforementioned research. Council members must strive to envision the short-term and long-term consequences of any potential decision.

Ex-gay therapists like NARTH represents prey on young people who “struggle with same-sex attractions,” a struggle influenced by a disapproving family or community. Allowing gay Scouts to participate fully in the BSA would both compromise the stigma that they rely on to bring them clients and further disprove many of the claims they make to substantiate their shame-based treatment.

This week, the Boy Scouts of America National Council will finally vote on whether to amend its policy to allow gay Scouts, though it would still prohibit gay Scout leaders. Conservatives continue to eagerly argue that maintaining the complete ban on homosexuality is important for “protecting” Scouts as well as the religious faith of the many churches that sponsor troops, though many people of faith support equality in Scouting too. But last week, the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse presented this interesting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” interpretation of the ban:

Finally, an important distinction has been lost in the current debate. The Boy Scouts’ long-standing policy does not, by its terms or in practice, exclude people who experience same-sex attraction. Rather, the prohibition is on “open and avowed” homosexuality, and it is that prohibition which will be lifted if the resolution passes.

In other words, it’s apparently okay to be a gay Scout — it’s just not okay to acknowledge it. The problem isn’t whether there’s someone gay in a troop, but whether people in the troop actually learn anything about the existence of gay people. In contrast, multiple studies have shown that coming out is actually good for individuals’ health. Honesty to one’s self, friends, family, and community also embodies the Scout virtue of being trustworthy.

This argument actually compromises conservatives’ many claims about gay men being sex-obsessed pedophiles. Instead, it reflects an assumption that sexual identity should be denied or repressed, framed by Ruse’s plea to Catholic church sponsors to oppose the change. It’s basically an admission that opposition to lifting the ban has little to do with “protecting” anybody and more to do with maintaining religion-fueled animus against people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Indeed, this approach jibes with how the Catholic Church tries to simply deny the existence of gay people.

By trying to posit both arguments simultaneously, the Family Research Council and other conservative groups demonstrate that they have no legitimate reasons for discriminating against gay Scouts. They support discrimination simply because they support anti-gay stigma.