From a reader:
1) Rich Lowry’s point about Boy Scouts was actually the Wall Street
Journal’s point about Boy Scouts — his entire post was a quote.
2) There are (gasp!) such thing as gay men who don’t prey on barely-legal
boys. I know, it may be hard for you to believe, but it’s true. So, I fail
to see how this is going to come back and bite anyone. If you can find me
any Democrats who feel that gay men who are known to prey on boys (as Foley
was) should be boy scout leaders, let me know. I won’t hold my breath.
Me: 1) Point taken. I should have said Rich’s “post” not “point.”
2) Of course there are plenty of gay men who don’t prey on barely legal boys. I never intended to suggest otherwise.
As for Democrats who think there’s nothing wrong with gay men who prey on teenage boys being Scout leaders, I’ll have to get back to you. As for Democrats who think there’s nothing wrong with Congressmen preying on barely legal teenage male pages, I once again refer you to the Democrats who re-elected Gerry Studds over and over again — and those colleagues who saw nothing wrong with working with him.