[AgThorn]

If you say people should be let in regardless of sexual orientation, and don’t qualify it with “unless they tell,” the only proper interpretation is it just means everyone.

OR ... one would have to 'pre-screen' anyone that is asking to be a leader with a specific questionnaire about their sexuality, which in all fairness (with kids in mind) should include more than just homosexual leanings. ... I don't think the Boy Scouts have such a 'screening' otherwise I am sure that ACLU would have made it known. Are you suggesting that they should get one?

Regardless, you seem to think that the only way to defend Mitt from seeming pro-gay is to accuse him of being a Clintonian parser. Go figure.

I don't see any 'parsing' at all going on, other than my NOT reading into what others are in this video. I think more 'parsing' is being done by people who want to find fault with Romney here.

[BackInBlack]

“I don’t think the Boy Scouts have such a ‘screening’ otherwise I am sure that ACLU would have made it known. Are you suggesting that they should get one?”

I haven’t said anything about my own views on the matter. I’m talking about how to interpret what Romney said. And no, he did not favor a screen; he clearly favored there being no consideration of sexual orienation at all, at any time — even as he argued for the right of the boy scouts to make up its own mind.