Scouts' dishonor: Chicago deals the first of many blows aimed at the Boy Scouts' antigay policy.

Bit by reluctant bit, the Boy Scouts' long-standing policy of discrimination against gays may be crumbling. The Boy Scouts of America membership policy, which requires the taking of a religious oath and excludes homosexuals, is facing a number of legal challenges across the country, and observers say this multifront attack could force the nation's largest youth organization to change its ways.

One of the more serious blows to the policy came February 4 in Chicago when the city settled in federal district court and agreed not to renew its sponsorship of Boy Scout units. The city had been a sponsor of about 28 career-related mentoring programs for teenagers.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city on behalf of Kevin Poloncarz, a University of Chicago law student who is both gay and agnostic and wanted to volunteer with one of the mentoring programs. The ACLU contended that the city was violating both the First Amendment and the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the settlement the city dropped all sponsorships and paid approximately $20,000 in legal fees and court costs.

ACLU attorney Roger Leishman said the case is significant because it is the first time Boy Scout sponsors have been challenged: "Whether or not you agree with the Boy Scouts, you have to agree that the city of Chicago should not be operating a program that is off-limits to people because of their sexual orientation."

"A strong message has been sent to the Boy Scouts," Poloncarz added. "This has kindled my faith in the legal system."

The settlement is "the beginning of the end of business as usual for the Boy Scouts," Leishman said. Another legal challenge was argued in January before the California state supreme court, which heard two cases -- one regarding a gay former Eagle Scout and another involving atheist twin brothers who refused to take the religious oath. Decisions are expected in April. Other cases pending in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., involve not only gay scouts but also girls who want to be members as well as heterosexuals opposed to the membership policy.

The legal challenges are based on the argument that as an organization that benefits many people, the Boy Scouts is subject to the same antidiscrimination laws that businesses are. The Boy Scouts steadfastly contends that as a private organization, it has the right to freedom of association (as defined in the First Amendment) and so can exclude whomever it chooses.

"My argument challenging the Boy Scouts' policy is to say that these people came together to celebrate shared values and to work with youth," Leishman said. "Expressing hostility to gay men and women is not something they have in common. That's not why they associate together. "