MORE LIGHT UPDATE October 1995 Volume 16, Number 3 Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns James D. Anderson, Communications Secretary P.O. 38 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038 908/249-1016, 908/932-7501 (Rutgers University) FAX 908/932-6916 (Rutgers University) Internet: jda@mariner.rutgers.edu MORE LIGHT UPDATE is the Monthly Newsletter of Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns, an organization of Ministers, Elders, Deacons, and Members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Send materials marked "For publication" to the editor. PUBLICATION DEADLINES: 6 weeks prior to issue month. Most material appearing in MORE LIGHT UPDATE is placed in the public domain. With the exception of individual articles that carry their own copyright notice, articles may be freely copied or reprinted. We ask only that MORE LIGHT UPDATE be credited and its address be given for those who might wish to contact us. Suggested annual membership contribution to PLGC: $50.00. Annual subscription to MORE LIGHT UPDATE: $10.00. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Coming Out for Inclusiveness in Your Boy Scout Programs You are part of a congregation that believes in, preaches, and tries to practice God's inclusive love for all people. As part of your ministry, you have a Boy Scout troop. How can you effectively deal with the conflict between your convictions and the discriminatory practices of the Boy Scouts of America? Here are some practical suggestions from veteran scouter David A. Rice. Rice, an elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), was a professional Scouter for 16 years, serving as a district Scout executive. He is now national coordinator of a network of Scouters, "Scouting for All," who are acting within Scouting to effect change and bring the discriminatory practices to an end. - - JDA. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) practice of excluding gays (I dislike dignifying their stance with the word "policy") was "discovered" in about 1978 in a document not widely circulated. The "policy" appears nowhere in Scouting literature or forms. It first reached the media in the case of Tim Curran of Berkeley in 1980 (his law suit is now before the California Supreme Court). Other current legal challengers include James Dale in New Jersey (court decision expected this fall) and Keith Richardson (a deacon in Chicago's Fourth Presbyterian Church!) before the Chicago Human Rights Commission (decision also expected this fall). [By the way, James Dale, the New Jersey litigant, is a Rutgers graduate who worked closely with *Update* editor Jim Anderson on liberation issues as a student there.] Currently BSA bases its stand on a narrow rigid interpretation of "A Scout is clean" in the Scout Law, and "morally straight" in the Scout Oath. Scouting says that when a man or boy says he's gay he has made an immoral choice and also must be excluded. BSA states that we Scouters and chartered institutions have joined the movement *because* it excludes gays! There is some talk that if a straight Scouter upholds gay rights in Scouting he is denying the Scout Oath and Law and must be excluded! (I might be kicked out because my Christian and Presbyterian beliefs are immoral!) In fact, Scouting's policy works out to "don't ask, don't tell." They apparently act only when one's sexual orientation becomes known. I feel that many professional Scouters simply won't ask and don't want to know. Many churches do not know what it means to be *chartered to operate* (not to "sponsor") a Cub Scout pack, Scout troop, or Explorer post. Sessions of churches which are now chartered should examine this carefully. They have agreed to adopt and adapt the Scouting program to serve as an the right and responsibility to operate its Scout program in accordance with its own doctrines and policies. The church must approve all appointments of adult Scout leaders in its units. When a church finds that its beliefs in the rights of gays are in conflict with the BSA stance, a number of choices are open to it: * The session should *not* drop its Scout units; this is completely ineffective and puts the church *outside* Scouting, whereas its witness is most effective when applied *within* Scouting. * A More Light church (or any other congregation committed to inclusiveness) should not merely acquiesce to Scouting's practice, thinking it shouldn't interfere with an outside organization. On the contrary, Scouting really is *within* the church. * An inclusive church without Scouting should organize a Scout unit within the church, working through the local council to do so. * The session should meet with its own unit (parent) committees and Scout leaders and make sure they understand where the church stands. * The session should decide to continue to operate its Scout units in accordance with its beliefs. * The session may want to send a letter to the local council stating its position and asking to meet with local officials. *A copy of this letter should go to the National Council, BSA*. * The church's chartered institutional representative may discuss the church's stance at district committee meetings. He or she may want to make a motion on the matter at the annual council meeting. (This has been done, and local councils *have* decried the BSA practice!) * The session may decide to actively recruit gays and lesbians into its Scout units, or merely to let its beliefs accepting gays in its Scout units be more widely known. * If the local or National Council threatens to "de-charter" the church's Scout units, the session needs to decide what to do: Give in? Appeal to BSA region and national? Ask presbytery and the More Light Churches Network and other churches to join the protest? Continue to operate without a charter (difficult, but barely possible for a short while; I can give some ideas on how to get away with it)? Take legal action (perhaps with ACLU or the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)? For more information and counsel, contact David Rice at 433 Garfield Dr., Petaluma, CA 94954-3818, 707-763-8378.