Ultimately, the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization and has the right to define its own membership. However, they should be very careful about defining moral behavior as synonymous with a heterosexual orientation and banning gay adult leaders.
I thought it would be self-evident that the end of a 103-year-old ban on gay youth in a group that's a cultural touchstone of American life is something to applaud, affirm and even celebrate. Judging by the reaction from some members of the LGBT community, though, it appears I was wrong.
Most of the conversation has focused on the double standard of refusing membership to openly homosexual adults as leaders. However, there hasn't been any discussion about another qualifier in the proposed language -- "alone."
Every Boy Scout memorizes the Scout Oath, which requires him to be "morally straight." The Boy Scout Handbook says this means, among other things, that he should "respect and defend the rights of all people." It doesn't add, "unless they are gay."
Presumably, the Boy Scouts still believe that they must protect their charges from us scary adult gay men. And it's not just a concern about potential attraction. If it were, they'd also ban heterosexual women from being den mothers. It's a concern that we are predators.