It was recently announced that Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, was elected President of the Boy Scouts of America.
The BSA were beset by controversy a few years ago over the question of whether openly gay scouts should be allowed to participate, and, more recently, over whether openly gay men should be allowed to serve as Scoutmasters.
Gates said he would have supported gay troop leaders when the issue came up last year, but since it was voted down democratically he didn't think it was appropriate to raise it again this year.
It's hard to find any justification for excluding gay Scouts. But having gay men in charge of young boys is a bit more complicated. "Boy Scout troop leader" has actually become almost a cliche as a job which attracts pederasts.
And while it's true that being gay is not the same as being a child molester, pederasts are not distributed proportionally. Homosexuals are roughly 2 to 5% of the population, depending on which source you believe, but between a third and a half of all child molesters are homosexually inclined.
(On the other hand, child molesters are almost never women, so there's really no reason to worry about lesbians as Brownie leaders.)
Coincidentally, a week ago the NY Post ran an article about a child porn bust which snared a Boy Scout troop leader, among others. (It also snared a police officer, a rabbi, a paramedic, an airline pilot, and an architect.)
The NY Times supports the inclusion of gay Scoutmasters. Yet they have been waxing outraged over the scandal involving pederastic Catholic priests for years. In fact, they've deemed it an issue of such significance that they've put it on their front page many times.
Would they have supported the Catholic church excluding gay priests?
If gay Scoutmasters are allowed, when the inevitable scandals and recriminations occur -- maybe years afterward, as with the church -- whom will the New York Times blame?