“...you could allow people to participate in scouting without allowing them to be scout leaders. In fact, there are a lot of people who can participate in scouts...I do know women can join scouting and be volunteers and serve on the committee.”
What a load of unmitigated horse manure. Do you really think this kind of crap somehow makes Romney’s statement mean anything less than what he said? The man wants the Boy Scouts to let homosexuals be involved in their organization. Period. Doesn’t matter whether he meant as janitors, waiters or scoutmasters. A conservative would have said something like “A private organization ought to have the right to decide for itself who affiliates with it.”
Romney didn’t.
Actually, he did. In the same answer where he gave his personal preference, he explicitly said that they had a right to make up their own mind.
If the Boy scouts decided to allow Gay scoutmasters, a large group of people here would scream that they were wrong, that we would NOT want them to allow it -- but we would also say they had a right as a private organization to allow it.
Maybe. If we were being consistent.
When you are asked what YOUR choice would be for something, you answer about what your choice would be. That is separate from the question of whether your choice should be forced or not. Romney clearly stated that his personal preference was NOT something he would request or require of the boy scouts.