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.

Scouts for Equality, the Boy Scout alumni association working to end the Boy Scouts of America’s national policy of mandatory discrimination against LGBT Scouts and leaders, held a national day of action Friday. The dozens of events at Scout councils across the country encouraged the national representatives from each to back a proposed rule change to allow openly gay Scouts and to also push for an end to the exclusion of LGBT adults as volunteers and professionals with the organization.

In Bethesda, Maryland, dozens of Eagle Scouts, current Scouts, parents, and volunteer leaders gathered outside the National Capital Area Council headquarters. Scores of cars passing on the highway next to the building honked in support, while attendees held signs urging and end to the ban.

ThinkProgress talked with several participants. Debbie Heller, mother of an Eagle Scout and wife of a former Scoutmaster, said that “I think Scouting is the greatest organization in the world, but if they continue to discriminate, I could couldn’t support” the BSA.

Eagle Scout David Churchill observed: “Discrimination is wrong.” Noting that the Boy Scout law requires all Scouts to be kind, he said “the organization needs to reflect that as well.

Jody Benjamin, a former Den leader and committee chair, objected to the current requirement that troop leaders kick out youths who identify as gay. “The Scouts are asking me to be a liar or to do a really hurtful thing to a child. I can’t do it, and so I think it’s wrong.”

Justis Tunia, who earned his Eagle Scout award in Layton, Utah in 1995, lamented that events like this were necessary. “It’s a shame that we as former members and families associated with Scouting have to push the organization in this direction, as these were values that were taught to us throughout our period in Scouting.”

Andrew Kragie, who was Senior Patrol Leader of his Washington, DC troop and achieved the Eagle rank in 2010, noted that he worked to teach younger Scouts not to bully and to respect all others. “Just being accepting about different people, it was the basic tenets of living together and being at a camp site together.”

Eagle Scout Harris Walker, a North Carolina native, noted that he has LGBT family members. “I want to see my nephews be able to participate in a Scouting organization where their mothers can be their Den mothers.”

And Jerald Lentini, who earned his Eagle Scout award in Georgia, explained that “Scouting is a trail, and we’re being told that we should be leaving some of our fellow hikers on that trail, along the wayside, because they are different than us.”

Watch the video:

Roughly 1,400 representatives will vote on May 24 whether to end the ban on gay Scouts. It is unclear whether they will also be allowed to vote on proposals to also eliminate allow LGBT adults into the program.

A group opposed to allowing gay Boy Scouts — “On My Honor” — has issued an open letter from its only apparent member, John Stemberger, urging opposition to the proposed change, which would allow gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders. Among the ten arguments are offensive lies and stereotypes about gay people, as well as arguments that aren’t even substantively relevant:

1. Allowing Gay Scouts But Not Leaders Is Inconsistent

This argument is actually valid, making it one of the weakest presented in the letter, because it supports an inclusive policy for all Scouts and leaders, not a continuation of the ban. The only inconsistency in the membership policy is that it excludes people who are gay (and atheist). On My Honor may even be correct that the inconsistency “will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit,” but that is the fault of the Boy Scouts of America for trying to cling to some form of discrimination.

2. Boy-On-Boy Sexual Contact Will Increase

This argument conflates sexual orientation with sexual behavior, while promulgating the myth that people who are gay are predatory. The implication is that gay teenagers should never even be allowed to go camping because they’re a threat to their straight friends. Such fear-mongering serves only to further demonize the gay community.

3. All Troops Will Have to ‘Facilitate Open Homosexuality’

This isn’t a new argument; it’s merely a complaint derived from a desire to discriminate.

4. So Many Will Leave In Protest That The Scouts Will Collapse

If “tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts” leave the BSA, as On My Honor suggests they will, it’s an insult to the very integrity of the program to begin with. Rather than supporting the many values and lessons the Scouts stand for, these individuals will prove their only reason for participation in the Scouts was because the organization is anti-gay.

5. Parents Will Lose Their Right To Shield Their Kids From Learning About Gay People

Like argument #2, this claim relies on the false assumption that being gay automatically makes an individual somehow more “sexual.” Having gay Scouts will not increase the level of discussion about sex anymore than having straight Scouts does. Even a “17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda” would honor the Scouts’ commitment to improving society by being helpful, friendly, courteous — and particularly brave.

6. The Scouts Are Caving To Pressure From Society

On My Honor is disappointed that it was just last year that the Scouts decided that banning gay Scouts was “the absolute best policy,” but now “BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family.” When that decision was made, the Scouts refused to explain it, likely because there is no sensible justification for it. Since then, the organization has lost the corporate sponsorship of Intel, UPS, and Merck, so it’s not surprising  its leaders became less attached to a policy they couldn’t even defend.

7. Units Who Don’t Comply Will Be Legally Vulnerable

Like argument #1, this concern simply reveals the inconsistency of allowing gay Scouts but not leaders. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BSA’s policy in 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that the BSA engages in “expressive association.” If that expression is applied inconsistently, it would no longer define — or protect — the organization. This argument is simply a redundant concern that units will no longer be able to get away with discrimination.

8. The Policy Will Allow ‘Transgendered Girls’ In the BSA

First of all, transgender girls would probably be more interested in the Girl Scouts, which they’re actually welcome to join. Contrary to On My Honor’s fears, gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever. Transgender boys should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts, but that form of inclusion is not addressed by this policy. The language “sexual preference” in the proposed change is disappointing, but only because it’s inaccurate nomenclature for sexual orientation.

9. Language In The Resolution Is Merely Symbolic

On My Honor seems to think it’s consequential that the “whereas” statements that justify the resolution will not be part of the policy once it’s approved. It apparently has no qualms about putting forth its own symbolic arguments.

10. Many In the Scouting Family Support Discrimination

On My Honor conveniently ignores the most recent survey that specifically addressed the policy on gay Scouts to cite an older survey with less supportive results. Still, trying to argue a “moral” point from a claim of popularity compromises what moral integrity the position even has.

It’s unclear if On My Honor represents anybody other than its founder, John Stemberger. Nevertheless, other anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council are supporting his efforts. Through this open letter, he has shown not only a lack of understanding but a significant antipathy for the gay community. Scouts For Equality called the letter, “a new low,” but arguably this is the same low the Scouts’ policy has perpetuated for years.

Earlier this year, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) proposed lifting its ban on gay Scouts and leaders, but a swift backlash — particularly from Mormon-funded chapters in Utah — delayed action. On Friday, the BSA announced a proposal that would lift the ban on gay Scouts, but maintain the ban on gay leaders. This proposal would have to receive approval from the roughly 1,400 voting members of the Scouts’ National Council when it meets the week of May 20.

The Scouts conducted surveys of its members in order to determine the best way forward on the controversial anti-gay policies and based its proposal on these results. An internal survey from last year found that an overwhelming number of people felt the measure “negatively impacted their loyalty.”

Though allowing gay Scouts is an important step forward, continuing to ban gay adult leaders is particularly problematic. It is an acquiescence to conservatives’ claims that gay leaders are a threat to children’s safety, an assumption that reinforces false stereotypes that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles.

Despite significant declines in membership and United Way funding, the Boy Scouts of America doubled down on their outright ban on LGBT Scouts and leaders last July, claiming its “leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization.” But a newly obtained internal survey shows that of those commenting on the issue, 97 percent of Boy Scouts and their parents said that reaffirmation “negatively impacted their loyalty.”

Scouts for Equality, the Scout alumni association dedicated to ending the ban on gay members and leaders founded by Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, obtained a copy of the BSA’s 2012 Voice of the Scout internal poll results. The documents show that loyalty to the organization dropped 11 percent over last year, driven by widespread opposition to the organization’s “membership standards policy.” In a press release, Scouts for Equality noted:

• Of the 5,800 survey respondents who commented on the policy, 95 percent said the “reaffirmation of the membership policy negatively impacted their loyalty.” For Boy scouts and their parents, that number jumped to 97 percent.
• BSA noted that “conservative estimates assign a 15:1 ratio of negative to positive comments about the existing membership standards policy” that prohibits gay scouts or scoutmasters.

Deron Smith, a spokesman for BSA, told ThinkProgress that the survey asked 68,441 respondents an open-ended question about why they provided the rating they did to the BSA: “Of the respondents, 91 percent did not raise membership standards as an issue or concern, and approximately 9 percent cited it as an issue or concern that impacts their loyalty to the organization. Of the 9 percent who mentioned this issue, 97 percent of Boy Scout parents and 95 percent of Cub Scout parents had negative views toward the current policy. Using an open-ended format like this indicates the membership standards policy is a factor, but it doesn’t tell you to what extent the issue impacted loyalty to the BSA, nor does it represent the beliefs of the 91 percent of respondents who did not comment on the issue. Also, this level of feedback is not unusual. Throughout the years, people involved in Scouting and others who are not related to the program have expressed their disagreement with this single policy in a variety of ways.”

The Boy Scouts of America’s National Council will decide at its May national meeting whether to change the policy. BSA is again surveying Scout families on the subject prior to the May vote. It seems clear that the survival of the organization as a national movement depends on standing with the these Scout families and lifting the ban.

A day after admitting that its sponsorship of the Utah Scout-A-Rama violated its corporate non-discrimination policies, Chipotle told ThinkProgress Tuesday that it has cancelled its support.

In an email, company spokesman Chris Arnold wrote:

By way of follow up, we have terminated our sponsorship of this event.

As I mentioned yesterday, community support decisions like this are made in a decentralized way and this one was inconsistent with our own policy. We believed that terminating the sponsorship and remaining consistent with our policy was the right thing to do, and we have reinforced our policy with the team that makes these decisions to try to prevent similar issues in the future.

The decision puts Chipotle back in line with its corporate charitable giving policy, which states that the company “will not support organizations that discriminate against a person or a group on the basis of age, political affiliation, race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief.”

Chipotle Mexican Grill will sponsor the Utah Scout-O-Rama, the annual fundraising gala for the Great Salt Lake Council — the largest council in the Boy Scouts of America and the leading voice within the BSA against lifting the nationwide ban on LGBT Scouts and leaders. And a spokesman confirms that the company’s contributions to the event are in direct violation of its own policy against sponsoring groups that discriminate.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported Friday that, while contributions to the event have dropped from $70,000 to just $8,000 due to the pro-discriminatory policies of the organization, one of the few sponsors supporting the event is Chipotle. The article quoted company spokesman Chris Arnold defending the move, telling the paper: “In Salt Lake, the Scouting institution is very strong, and it is our chance to connect with customers in that community,” but noting that the company “would like to see” BSA “in a place that’s more inclusive than where they are now.”

A ThinkProgress review of the company’s charitable giving policies found that Chipotle’s guidelines explicitly states that the company “will not support organizations that discriminate against a person or a group on the basis of age, political affiliation, race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief.”

ThinkProgress asked Arnold about the obvious contradiction. In an email, he conceded that the decision does violate company policy but said they were going to sponsor the event anyway:

We have built our brand largely by reaching out to people on a grassroots level and have done that working with a variety of community groups around the country, including school groups, youth sports, pride events, music festivals, food events and farmers’ markets, among many others. Our intention in doing that isn’t to endorse the policies of those groups, but rather to reach individuals (in this case the scouts themselves) through groups that are important in a given community. These decisions are made by a team of people around the country with the intention of connecting our restaurants with people in those communities.

That being said, this decision is not consistent with our own values, and we have used this opportunity to reinforce those values with the team that makes those decisions for us.

He added that Chipotle’s “support for this event is limited to coupons for volunteers and participants and was an effort to connect with those individuals, not to endorse any Boy Scout policies.”

In other words, the company is willing to compromise its values by ignoring its own policies when it thinks it might help sell more burritos to young Utahns.

At Saturday night’s GLAAD Awards, Madonna arrived dressed as a Boy Scout, telling the cheering audience that she always wanted to join the organization but they wouldn’t let her. After making it clear she believes the Boy Scouts of America should “change their stupid policy,” she went on to defend standing up against anti-LGBT views, even while in Russia, because people will become more comfortable with the LGBT community if they become more familiar with it:

MADONNA: Things like bigotry, homophobia, hate crimes, bullying, and any form of discrimination always seems to be a manifestation of fear of the unknown. Most people are not comfortable with things or people that they perceive as different from themselves. And I would wager that if we just took the time to get to know one another, did our own investigation, looked beneath the surface of things… that we would find that we’re not so different after all.

We are also under the illusion that with the wonder of technologies at our fingertips that the world is coming closer together, that people are becoming more familiar with one another, that the distance between one human and another is being diminished. Now, on one that is true, but on the other hand, it is not true. I believe the opposite is taking place, because a picture doesn’t tell a thousand stories — a picture tells a version of a thousand stories, and this supposed intimacy that we think we are gaining is false. It is unearned, it is a trick.

Watch it:

She went on to explain that all religions teach, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and so religion should not be used to justify hate or discrimination. Madonna is currently fighting a lawsuit from Russian officials for speaking out for LGBT equality at her concert there.

After speaking, Madonna presented an award to Anderson Cooper.

During an interview with Mike Allen for Politico’s Playbook Cocktails, billionaire Bill Gates described some of the things he learned as a Boy Scout, then made it clear that the organization should lift the ban on gay Scouts and leaders. He didn’t feel the need to offer much explanation for his point of view:

ALLEN: Should the Boy Scouts of America rescind its ban on gay members and leaders?

GATES: Absolutely.

ALLEN: …Why?

GATES: Because it’s 2013.

Watch it:

Gates has proven himself to be a generous ally to the LGBT community, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars from his Microsoft fortune toward last year’s marriage equality fight in Washington state.