California Senate votes to revoke Boy Scouts' nonprofit status

[alp227]

Even as the Boy Scouts of America moves to allow gay youths to join its troops, the California Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would revoke the organization's nonprofit status because it does not permit the participation of openly gay adults.

"They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians," Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said as he introduced his bill. "SB 323 brings our laws into line with our values."

The measure calls for revoking the tax-exempt status of youth groups that discriminate against participants on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification.

While the text of the bill does not specifically mention the Boy Scouts, analyses of the legislation and discussion among senators Wednesday made clear that it targets the organization.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/30/5457390/california-senate-votes-to-revoke.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Wish they would do that in every state!

[byeya]

2. Hear! Hear! Hope it passes in California.

[corkhead]

3. Happy to see that the adults are in charge in CA!

I wish that was the case in MI where I currently reside.

[Starry Messenger]

4. k&r

[KamaAina]

5. It should be noted that Sen. Lara is openly gay.

As are Assembly speaker John Perez, Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano and Rich Gordon, and doubtless others.

[idwiyo]

14. Why should it be noted?

[KamaAina]

16. Because having a strong caucus of LGBT elected officials

makes it easier to get laws like this passed. There is zero chance, for instance, that such a law will pass in Alabama any time soon.

[idwiyo]

17. Strong caucus of elected officials who support Human Rights makes it easier to pass such laws.

Your post can easily be interpreted as "what else would you expect!", this is why I asked for clarification.

[KamaAina]

18. That's what I figured

hence the explanation.

You are correct: diversity of all sorts makes for a healthier legislative body. Not surprisingly, California does well in that department, too, with plenty of Latin@, African American and Asian legislators, and even a couple of Armenians (who are a sizable ethnic group, especially in SoCal and the Central Valley).

[BrotherIvan]

6. Can they include bigots, racists and misogynists too please?

[donnasgirl]

7. And the next

That should be revoked are the churches, if they truly cared about their followers they would help alleviate the tax burden on all of us.

[dogknob]

11. +111111111111111111111 zillion! n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

8. I don't understand the distinction the BSA are making...

between being a gay Boy Scout and a gay Boy Scout leader. I think, as in the military, that "leaders" should be held to account for their actions including those involving their "charges". But if you have an exemplary Boy Scout that achieves Eagle Scout statue and then wants to continue as a scout leader the issue is whether he likes men or women? It makes no sense but I suspect it is not intended to make any sense.

I think the game the BSA are playing is there is a lot of sympathy for young men who are gay who want to be part of the BSA. But when it comes to leadership they lean on the perverted Catholic Church experience where they let every pervert that was alive molest young boys and girls and the BSA says...well, you cannot be a leader and be openly gay. Nothing prevents a homosexual person from not disclosing their behavior and then molesting boys.

The best way to avert these situations is for TRANSPARENCY. If you want to be a priest then acknowledge and be allowed to have sex with a man or a woman, based on your orientation. If you are a scout leader, do the same. Most crimes by adults on children are done by men on women (i.e. heterosexual) and not vice versa.

[Politicub]

12. It's because prejudice is nonsensical

It's not logical.

[trof]

13. J.D. Crowe has an editorial cartoon about exactly that:

J.D.'s editorial comment:

"What good does the Boy Scouts of America's half-way policy change on gay rights really do? In essence, it tells kids: It's ok to be gay, just don't grow up that way.

Folks, there's no reason to fear the openly gay. They're honest about who they are. Beware the wolf who hides behind the mask of virtue.

Puzzled and perturbed by the Boy Scouts' move? You have something in common with the man who first challenged the Boy Scouts' ban on gays over two decades ago.

James Dale calls the policy change "destructive."

How did the Boy Scouts get mixed up in the gay rights issue, anyway? This whole mess could probably have been avoided if the BSA hadn't reacted hastily to a quote in a New Jersey newspaper 23 years ago.

From the linked story on nj.com: In 1990, while co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Alliance, James Dale was quoted in The Star-Ledger when it covered a seminar on problems faced by gay youth.

About a month later, the 19-year-old Eagle Scout received a letter dismissing him from his volunteer post as an assistant Scoutmaster of a troop in Matawan. He challenged that action all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2000 by a 5-4 vote that the Boy Scouts of America could set its own membership rules.

Because the Boy Scouts' policy change doesn't also include lifting the ban on gay adult leaders, Dale says, "I think it’s a bit of a step backward."

"It sends a very convoluted, mixed message to gay kids. It says that being gay is a youthful indiscretion, and that there’s no future for you," Dale said.

_______________________

Why did the Scouts make this change now? Because lumbering towards tolerance is a step in the right direction? Because of political pressure?

It's about money. The BSA is losing corporate sponsorship.

From linked editorial: Last September, Intel — the Boy Scouts’ largest corporate contributor — announced it would stop donating money to discriminating troops. In November, UPS pulled its funding. A month later, Merck followed suit. All blamed the BSA’s ban on gays."
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/05/boy_scouts_be_prepared_for_puz.html

[tblue]

19. You can't be a scout leader cuz you might act like a priest?

As an Eagle Scout parent, I know that all adult leaders have to attend training where they are told they are forbidden from being alone with a scout for any amount of time. They receive training to prevent abuse and are required by law to report suspected abuse of anyone by anyone. Parents of course want to be sure their kids are safe, but BSA already regulates behavior of adult leaders. There is no reason to worry more about a gay adult than about anyone else.

We had at least one gay Eagle Scout who came out after he left for college. And another gay scout who dropped out because he didn't like it that much. But there were never any rumors or anything ill said of either of these two. We just don't have that kind of mindset. The gay Eagle Scout is still welcome to participate as an adult leader in any troop events, same as any Eagle Scout. Bottom line is: It doesn't matter who you are. It only matters that you follow the rules, and the rules are the same for everyone. As it should be.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. I wonder if the BSA ever had an unofficial don't ask don't tell policy

Not that it makes a difference, just curious.

[MindPilot]

9. I wish they would do that because Scouts STILL don't allow...

Atheists.

[alphafemale]

10. Their non-profit status is salt in the wound. They also still discriminate against not just Atheists

They discriminate against religions like Unitarian Universalists.

No way they should have special status. A BSA chapter in my area gets to lease a building from a state university for $1 a YEAR.

[eShirl]

15. WHAT? "They are out of line with the values of California..."

r u serious



OK.. (duh) now I get it...
I think?

[Ohio Joe]

20. Good

Equal rights should not be some kind of bargaining chip... You respect them or not.

[joelfreak]

21. But wait...is this really a good idea?

I'm a bit confused. I hate the BSA a ton, but I worry this sets a precedent. Are we going to say now that unless they are open to ANYONE, NO ONE can be tax exempt? Targeting people/groups we hate is one thing, but it must be legal. I don't think BSA should be allowed in schools, and I don't think they should be allowed to use public property...but this starts to get close to discriminating against idiots for their ideas, which is never a good road to start on. Again, DEFINITELY NOT defending the BSA, but I don't want this to come back and bite us later if used against an organization we agree with...It seems to be a VERY specific law meant to do damage to ONE group.

[KurtNYC]

23. BSA can do whatever they like as a private organization. The issue here is tax exempt status.

Groups have always had to meet certain criteria to be exempt from taxes.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

28. FEDERAL charter is a larger issue

Unlike most non-profit corporations chartered by states, the Boy Scouts of America received its corporate charter in 1916 directly from the United States government.

Federal charters were designed to give organizations the aura of government approval without any accompanying government oversight. By its charter, the BSA is NOT a "private" organization, and therefore should not discriminate against any class of citizens.

In addition to other benefits of the federal charter, the BSA has claimed under this charter an exclusive monopoly on the term "Scouts" when used with youth organizations.

In short, BSA wants the benefit and recognition of being federally chartered while still being able to discriminate against selected classes of individuals.

[Brother Buzz]

24. An organization I agree with doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The measure calls for revoking the tax-exempt status of youth groups that discriminate against participants on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification.

Your argument is a nonstarter in my world.

[joelfreak]

25. Just because its what we want, doesn't mean its right...

Yes, and what I am saying is that the rules the be a non-profit should not be able to be applied specifically to a single 'class' of groups. If we want to argue that ALL youth groups may not deserve to be tax-exempt, that may be valid, but making a specific carve out ONLY for BSA may come back to haunt us when we are not able to write laws...Again, I hate BSA, but I also don't think that 2 wrongs make a right. I just wanted to hear the legal basis of why this carveout would be legal, and why it wouldn't set a precedent for future carveouts that we may NOT be in favor of.

[Brother Buzz]

26. Why, specifically, do you hate the Boy Scouts?

[HiPointDem]

27. i'd rather they revoked ALEC's non-profit status.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization composed of legislators, businesses and foundations which produces model legislation for state legislatures and says it promotes free-market and conservative ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

THEY WRITE LEGISLATION AND PUSH IT. How are they not a political organization?

[WVU]

29. Here's a solution:

Nationalize the boy scouts. Fuck the fundy, church based, homophobic organization that it currently is.

Recreate it as an inclusive group, where young men aren't exposed to hate and can learn from Gay and straight men alike.

[DesertDiamond]

30. For so many reason, and this is just one more -- I LOOOOOOVE living in California!!