Boy Scouts Remove Gay Troop Leader in Seattle

The Boys Scouts of America has removed an openly gay troop leader in Seattle, saying he made an issue out of his sexual orientation.

The organization told Geoff McGrath in a letter Monday that it “has no choice” but to revoke his registration after he said he was gay while being profiled by NBC News.

“Your statement is in direct violation of the BSA’s leadership qualification,” said the letter from the Boy Scouts’ Office of General Counsel in Irving, Texas. It noted that there would not be a review of the decision unless McGrath didn’t make the statements at issue.

“I’m stunned,” McGrath, 49, told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “Our hope is that they’ll rethink their decision.”

That didn’t take long.

The half compromise they pulled with gay youth was never going to cut it for the homosexual activists. They will keep the pressure on the BSA till it gives in.

It is unclear who the “our” refers to in “our hope is that…”. The scout troop, him and the female pastor, the cause. Not that it truly matters, but I am curious who he is referring to in the plural.

It does seem like the Boy Scouts stuck to their guns, though, about the policy which was very publicly discussed. Whether it was evident that he was gay, the fact that he openly brought that fact into the public forum specifically relating to this position as Troop Leader appears to be a violation of the Boy Scouts’ policy, whether you agree with the policy or not.


Why? The BSA is a private organization. You do believe in the freedom of association, don’t you?

I believe that what people do in their off hours is none of the BSA’s business. What I don’t believe is that corporate entities and organizations should be allowed to punish people for exercising their right to free speech on their own time. Besides, no freedom of association has ever been granted to businesses/organizations.

I doubt they will be happy until every troop has a gay leader or co-leader just to teach equality.

I agree with you first statement. But when the troop leader represented himself as a Troop Leader on the news, that brought it into the realm of the BSA.

Also, I don’t believe it is punishment for someone to be stripped of club membership, especially when the rules were known very clearly. By joining the BSA as a Troop Leader, he knew what was acceptable and what was not, and agreed to abide by those rules. Then, he openly defied the BSA. What type of role model is that to agree to follow the rules and then breaks them on a public forum

He knew what the consequences would be, and I don’t believe this was an accidental slip - it was a statement, but that is just my personal opinion and not based on any factual evidence.

There is no such thing as a business/organization, just like there is no car/dog. They are different, and yes, the court has ruled.

It is irrelevant. The day too much sin is forced upon people, they will simply reform under a less formal guise. The homosexual activists are not about rights. They are about active promotion of homosexuality, you know, Satan’s job. This is why they want access to boys. They can only produce “offspring” by conversion.

From his side of the story, BSA already knew he was gay when he became the leader. :shrug:

Precisely. The ban was on OPENLY gay. The fact that he was gay did not matter - when he broadcast that information on television while representing himself as a Troop Leader did he violate the code he had agreed to follow, and that is why the revoked his membership. Seems pretty logical, actually, regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not.

Again, my personal opinion was that this act was an attempt to force this policy to the test, and it was no accident. Do I think it was a ‘plant’, no, not at all. But once he was in the position, I think it was a willful decision to force their hand and start the battle again.

More to the point, the troop is* church* sponsored.

Whoops! I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread :o:blush: Can someone answer it for me that knows more details, now that I have it in the correct one?

“I’m somewhat confused. The article says that the troop has not been notified of any such leadership change, and that McGrath will continue to be leading a Boy Scout troop, despite his orientation. Yet the BSA claims they removed him. Either one of the two people is lying to save face, or the BSA is really bad at notifying people.”

Right to free speech does not apply to private companies. People seem not to understand that. If someone represents a business or organization, that business has every right to tell them what they can or cannot do in their free time. If someone does not like that, then they are free not to work there. At a place I worked one time, one of the employees got caught with drugs, away from the workplace, in his own free time, and was charged and convicted for it. They company then fired him. Should they not be allowed to do that? Businesses and organizations have images to maintain, if what you do in your free time conflicts with that image then of course that business or organization is not going to want you representing them anymore.

Mozilla just forced their new CEO to basically resign because his views on marriage conflicted with theirs. Should they have not been allowed to do that? The door swings both ways. If someone can be fired for not supporting gay marriage then someone can be fired for supporting gay marriage. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

What is a business or organization if not a group of people associating together?

From what I understand the policy is similar to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, and whereas once that was a military thing, now it is being pushed in the BSA to become more open and embracing of active homosexuals. So now it is that even our youth must worship the image.

It won’t end unless people are willing to speak out with their wallets and sometimes even their livelihoods. (Think bakeries and photographers), and their “popularity”.

False compassion won’t win the day, nor help those fighting the temptation of homosexuality.

The difference is in the policies.
The BSA has definitive policies about such.
Mozilla did not.

The normal process is that the individual is notified and the Chartering Organization that sponsors the troop is notified (since they own the troop and are responsible for adult leaders.) It is very possible that the chartering organization had not inform the rest of the troop adults.

Similar but not quite the same.

The current policy is:

The adult applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law.

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to [adult] individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

When he made statements to the press about his sexual preferences, he violated the policy.

There is a lot of information here:

In my area the youth policy change came and went with barely a ripple.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

Thank you for your questions. I know it is difficult to know what to believe sometimes, so I’ll tell you no tale that you cannot satisfy for yourself. Consider going to the Seattle Times website and searching for my name, paying attention to events prior to the founding of Troop 98 in November of 2013. Then consider using Bing or Google and searching for my name, and the name of my brother (Dave or David) for information about us. Find me on Facebook (it shouldn’t be that difficult) and understand that I’m “friends” there with members of Thunderbird District and Chief Seattle Council. We all know that FB friends aren’t always real life friends. But sometimes that is just what they are. Review my page since I joined FB.

Remember that all of us in our local Scout district are friends. It was the public statement by BSA to the press which caused a breaking news story. Consider how differently things would have been if “no comment” had been their response, and then the matter handled in a more regular way. Think about how difficult this is for my friends who work at Chief Seattle Council, the pressure they’re under to enforce a rule they don’t agree with, enforced by people thousands of miles a way.

These people are my friends. I love them and they love me. But they hate this and just like me want the policy to change so that we can all get back to doing our good work together for the sake of the kids, the families and our neighborhood.

Feel free to reach out to myself or Pastor Monica Corsaro (yes, she’s on FB too) if you would like to know more about who knew what when. Because those details may matter to you. And let’s keep what matters most foremost in our discourse and in our hearts.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit