Today the Boy Scouts of America will be voting on a proposal to overturn the decades old policy that homosexuality goes against the core values of the BSA. As an Eagle Scout, I was never taught this as a value. We were taught to live our lives by the Scout Oath and Law. However, I was taught that living by Scout Oath and Law requires that we value the inherent worth and dignity of all those we meet and that our duty is to uphold “the rights of others” (Eagle Scout Charge). Many people have come up with their own interpretations of these promises, but what is written in my Boy Scout Handbook has not changed.

As Scouts, we attend interfaith services on Scouting weekends, camp with fellow Scouts, cheerfully serve our communities, and learn from the mentorship of strong adult volunteers. Sexual orientation does not affect any of Scouting’s activities. When we donned that uniform, we were equal, in the eyes of Man and God.  We were simply Scouts.  Our diversity as people unified us and enabled us to overcome any obstacles and challenges that we faced.

Kids that have gone through Scouting come out as participating citizens and civic leaders. The morals instilled in us compel us to speak out for what is just and to stand up for people when they are mistreated. We have been given some of the most amazing opportunities for personal, emotional and spiritual growth and development that any child could have.

Denying these chances to anyone is wrong. Telling a child that they are not worthy of these opportunities is wrong. Telling a child that their parents are not worthy is wrong. The BSA is still an incredible organization, but discrimination is tainting the BSA in the eyes of young American families and potential new Scouts, as well as those of us with Scouting’s highest honor.

Excluding any group of boys from Scouting not only deprives them of the Scouting’s benefits, but it also diminishes the experience of all scouts. Exclusion has no place in the oldest, largest and most effective youth development organization in our nation's history. Exclusion runs counter to those principles we as Scouts pledge.  Scouting should be a home to every young man willing to serve his community, obey the Scout Law and who has the courage to stand up us a leader. Leadership requires bravery, which is one of the principles of the Scout Law.  I trust that the leadership of the BSA can find the bravery to lead by choosing the inherent worth and dignity of every boy over a policy that goes against the very foundation of Scouting’s legacy.

Taking a step toward ending discrimination will not bring about the end of the BSA as some have suggested. In our collective history, the end of discriminatory practices has always had critics who suggested that ending the bigotry would bring about an end to our social mores.  But history shows us consistently the reverse is always true.  Embracing love and respect over hatred and exclusion always leads to a stronger society.

The BSA's own internal survey found that ending the ban on gay youth "would be consistent with the religious beliefs of the BSA's major chartered organizations." Not only is the BSA America's youth organization for leadership and character development, it is also one of the greatest interfaith organizations for America's youth. Even those that choose to label the BSA as a "Christian organization" are throwing away a major point of the last tenet of the Scout Law. For a Scout to be reverent he must respect the beliefs of others; this goes beyond respecting only that which he finds agreeable. Furthermore, with the majority of Americans and most Christian Americans supporting marriage equality, it is unfair to label Christianity or any religion as an excuse to continue discrimination in the BSA.  As Christians, we are called “to love our neighbor as ourselves”.  Love is not possible with hatred in our hearts and in our organizations.

The Boy Scouts certainly made me who I am today.  Every boy should have the same opportunity.  As Scouting’s Founder Baden-Powell said:  “There is no teaching to compare with example.”  I pray the BSA set the proper example with their vote.

Mark A. Yost, Jr., Esq.
Eagle Scout
Board Member, Equality Maryland

With same-sex marriage now available, state to end benefits for domestic partners: State says change is needed to avoid lawsuits

By Michael Dresser and Carrie Wells, The Baltimore Sun

May 3, 2013

The O'Malley administration has notified state employees in same-sex relationships that they won't be able to include domestic partners in their health insurance anymore.

If they want coverage, they'll have to get married.

The policy change is the result of the new Maryland law allowing same-sex marriage, which took effect Jan. 1. The thinking is that offering health coverage to an unmarried same-sex partner doesn't make sense anymore, officials said, particularly since an unmarried heterosexual partner doesn't have the same right.

But the move by the administration — which introduced domestic partner benefits in 2009 and championed marriage equality last year — has drawn polite dissent from some of the administration's staunchest allies.

"It's really not the most equitable thing to be doing right now," said Carrie Evans, executive director of the gay and lesbian rights group Equality Maryland.

Read the rest of the story here.

County executive launches investigation: 'We don't know what the facts are yet'

Anne Arundel County Executive Laura A. Neuman has launched an investigation into allegations that county Police Chief Larry Tolliver used homophobic slurs and retaliated against officers whose testimony led to her predecessor's criminal conviction for misconduct.

County Councilman Jamie Benoit called for the investigation in a letter to Neuman in which he recounted allegations from officers that Tolliver moved the detectives to less desirable positions and used the anti-gay term "fag."

Tolliver denied any wrongdoing. He told The Baltimore Sun on Tuesday that the personnel changes were not demotions, but part of a broader effort to fix the department after more than two years of turmoil stemming from former County Executive John R. Leopold's misuse of his police security detail.

Benoit, the most vocal council critic of Leopold, wrote to Neuman that Tolliver was "exacting a bizarre and unreasoned form of retribution against the very officers that led to the removal of the most corrupt elected official in our county's history."

"No one should stand for this type of behavior," he added. "In this case, no elected official should stand by idly and watch yet another police chief wrack the department with more ethical misconduct."

The county reviews all personnel complaints as a matter of policy. Neuman, who was appointed county executive by the council in February after Leopold resigned, declined to comment on what she said was a personnel matter. But she added that "there's a zero tolerance policy as far as discrimination."

"We don't know what the facts are yet because it's just too soon," she said.

Tolliver said in an interview that the officers who testified against Leopold were among many who were reassigned after he took over the agency last year.

"It bothers me that they think it's all about them," he said. "I came in to a mess in this department."

Benoit said the allegations about the anti-gay comments came from a personnel complaint, which has not been made public.

Tolliver said he supports "a culture of diversity." Asked about the allegations, he said, he does not recall "everything I've ever said."

"Do I joke around with the officers? Yes," he said.

"I'm not a homophobic," Tolliver added. "I'm not going to question anyone's sexual orientation. It's none of my business, and it's a personal issue."

Benoit wrote in his letter that the author of the personnel complaint alleged that Tolliver "referred to a person as a 'rump ranger'" — which Benoit described as "derogatory slang used to describe a homosexual male."

Benoit wrote that the complaint author also alleged that Tolliver looked at a photo of an officer and remarked, "I didn't know that you were a fag."

Benoit wrote that the complaint was filed Monday by one of the detectives assigned to Leopold's security detail. The officer was among five who testified during Leopold's criminal trial that the two-term county executive had used his taxpayer-funded security detail to perform campaign tasks and to drain his urinary catheter bag.

Leopold, a former state legislator in Maryland and Hawaii, was found guilty in January of two counts of criminal misconduct in office and resigned as county executive.

A representative from the Fraternal Order of Police union confirmed that an officer filed a complaint against Tolliver on Monday but declined to name the officer or discuss the nature of the complaint. Calls to the county's personnel office were not returned.

The five officers who testified in the Leopold trial have been reassigned from the intelligence division that oversaw the county executive's security.

In one case, Benoit wrote, the detective was told his position as lieutenant had been eliminated. A month later someone else was given that same title.

Leopold appointed Tolliver, a retired former state police superintendent, to take over the county Police Department last summer after the retirement of then-Chief James S. Teare under duress.

Detectives on Leopold's security detail told a grand jury last year that they complained about the executive to Teare, but Teare didn't intervene to stop the misconduct.

The Maryland state prosecutor's office investigated, and police unions and then the County Council issued votes of no confidence in Teare. His retirement ended the state probe; he was not charged with any offense.

Carrie Evans, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Maryland, said the allegations of slurs by Tolliver, if true, are "disappointing."

But she added that the alleged attitudes are "not unexpected" in the law enforcement profession.

"Many remain closeted within the force in fear of having this kind of treatment and not having a fellow officer back you up," Evans said.

She said the allegations are troubling because they concern the chief. If true, she said, they give "implicit permission to anyone in the force to say those things."

ecox@baltsun.com

Copyright © 2013, The Baltimore Sun

This is the first in a series from testimony supporting SB 449 - the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2013. Thanks to Ms Byrd for sharing her moving story.

My name is Mattie Jean Byrd,

As parents my late husband and I have tried to provide our children with a decent education as well as love and support. I raised Lauren along with my other five children. Lauren has two sisters and three brothers. Lauren is my youngest. Never in our wildest imagination did my husband and I think we would be parents of a transgender child. In truth, we didn’t know what transgender was. Our prayer was for healthy children, ten toes and fingers. However, I knew there was a possibility that we could have a child with a disability, and I also knew we would love our children no matter what.

I’m a mother of six healthy children, now six responsible productive adults. One of my children happens to be transgender. My Transgender daughter Lauren is a transgender advocate in Maryland. Henceforth, I guess I’m advocate mom of a transgender child. At seventy four, activism is not want I thought I’d be doing at this point in my life, but you never stop being a mother.

So here we are; it is heartbreaking to be a parent of a transgender child, because of discrimination and abuse inflected upon transgender people. It is difficult to see your child struggle through life, because they’re transgendered. Especially, when you know they’ve done nothing to deserve it. My late husband and I raised our children to be decent respectable adults, to love their neighbors, and to help others whenever possible. I know we have seceded in doing so. The proof is evident in the way our children live. I’m proud to say Lauren has dedicated her life to helping others. I am here today to challenge you all to put laws in place that well protect my child as well as others from discrimination and abuse.

No one should be discriminated against because of who they are: African American, gay, lesbian, transgender, religious or not religious. Everyone should be afforded descent housing, education and a good job, regardless of if you're transgender or not. Please protect the rights of all Americans. My transgender child included.

Listen to EQMD Executive Director talk to Delmarva Public Radio about the marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court

http://www.publicradiodelmarva.net/post/same-sex-marriage-implications-court-decision

March 14, 2013

In a 5-6 vote this afternoon, the Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee failed to pass SB 449,The Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2013. Voting infavor of the bill were, Senators Raskin, Forehand, Frosh, Gladden and Zirkin. Voting against the bill were Senators Stone, Muse, Jacobs, Brochin, Shank and Getty. 

Equality Maryland’s Executive Director commented on this vote, “It is terribly disappointing the committee failed to stand up for fairness and protect transgender Marylanders.We are particularly incensed with Senator Jim Brochin’s vote. He had at least 1,000 constituents contact him asking him to support this bill. Despite this, he turned his back on these voters. It ironic that transgender people in his own district [Baltimore County] have protections yet he wouldn’t cast a vote to extend these protections to transgender individuals in the 20 counties that aren’t  so fortunate.”

Evans goes on, “This is not over. Equality Maryland will come back every year until transgender Marylanders are afforded the right to  be free from discrimination in their jobs, homes, and places of public accommodations. “

The time is now and we need your help. Stand for all Marylanders by attending a canvas or a phone bank.

It's now or never! The session is winding down and we're making a final push this week to firm up legislator support for SB 449.

Trans folks can't afford to wait any longer for this bill. Will you come? Email Alex@equalitymaryland.org for more information.

In 2006 EQMD published a report on the 400+ state-level rights and responsibilities of spouses in Maryland. /uploads/5019/original/marriage_inequality_in_maryland_copy.pdf