Replies

I’ve never said he didn’t, so you are once again wrong in your statement that I am “finally admitting”.

He says so right on a video, he made the statement publicly, so obviously he isn’t trying to hide it either.

It is clear that Mitt Romney is comfortable in the public arena with gay peopole. He is not scared of them, he does not fear them, and he seems to be quite accepting of them as fellow human beings.

Further, I’ve several times expressed my opinion that I would support gays being involved in scouts, but NOT in positions of authority — and I would reject children who were active sexually, either gay or hetorosexual, under the “morally straight” clause. I believe homosexual acts are a sin, but no more a sin than sex outside of marriage.

I understand the rationale behind the ban on gays in scouts, and fully support their right to make their own rules. I’ve defended the ban on my own blog, as well as fighting for the ban on open gays in the military. But with the caveats I gave above, neither is of great importance to me.

The reason I support allowing gay parents to participate is that I think boy scouts are a tremendously positive organization for the boys, and for our country. I would hate to see a child miss out on what scouts will teach simply because the parent isn’t allowed to be involved.

Now, going back to your argument, your argument about “is” is is exactly backwards, and has been used exactly backwards by more than one Mitt-basher. The point of “is” is is that words actually have common meanings, and to try to twist them around for your advantage in a way that distorts their meaning is sleazy.

In this case, Romney NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SCOUTMASTERS. The word “scoutmaster” is easy to say. The person asking the question could have said “scoutmaster”, and romney could have said “scoutmaster”. Romney has had this position regarding gays and the boy scouts since 1994, which means people have had 13 years to ask him, and he’s had 13 years to say, if he actually supports gay scoutmasters.

But instead, his detractors insist on taking an answer where he took great pains NOT TO SAY scoutmasters, and pretend that the word “participate” actually means “be the adult leader”.

So pardon me for noting that THAT is clintonesque, insisting the the word “participate” means “lead”. See, participate does NOT EQUATE TO lead, and for you to insist it does is like Clinton arguing about what “is” is.

I am involved in scouts, and while I originally thought his term “members” meant kids after thinking about it (way back months ago when we discussed this) I agree he included adults. But I also KNOW that adults participate in scouts in many ways, and only a few are as “leaders”, and only one is “scoutmaster”.

And if the boy scouts decided to allow gay parents to join as adult participants, not in positions of authority, I would support them — although I also support their action in not doing so, as I think in the end I trust the scout leaders to have a better idea of what is best for the organization.

Your setting a “context” for the question only underscores the point that Romney specifically did NOT say “leader” or “scoutmaster”. If Romney thought they guy should win his suit, KNOWING the suit, Romney could have easily said so in his debate.

Romney willingly offered his opinion on gays participating, so it’s clear he wasn’t worried about expressing his opinion. So it’s clear his OPINION was NOT that the guy should win his suit (because Romney said he supported the rights of the scouts to make their own rules), and it’s clear he did NOT think the guy should be a leader (because if he DID, he could easily have used the term, which he did not).

I too am in boy scouts, and I am an Eagle Scout, and have son in scouting now, and I’m aghast at the attempt here to make a mountain out of a molehill. Romney said that he supports the Boy Scouts right to make their own decisions, and that’s all there is to it. The rest is trivia.

Like I said previously:
The debate tonight talked about big issues like Iran, terrorism, taxes, economy, immigration, ... big issues. And this is a flyspeck on a pimple on a flea of an issue.

Romney is being ruthlessly and mercilessly attacked here because he is not a gay basher. Even though he is consistently against gay marriage, even though the log cabin crowd hates Romney now for his vehement opposition to gay marriage and support of FMA, even though driving this and other issues is helping an opponent of FMA and friend of log cabin - McCain ...

Romney is one candidate who has been out in front defending traditional marriage. Divorced and remarried guys cant do it as convincingly perhaps, but its an important thing to do.