This Wall Street Journal story blind-sided me this morning. I was unaware of this lawsuit.

On the one hand, the Boy Scouts have been roundly vilified, and even banned from city-owned buildings in gay-friendly cities, for expelling scouts who come out. Now an Oregon jury thinks they were too lenient about pedophile scoutmasters:

The jury found the national body 60% negligent for the abuse and the local council just 15% negligent, assessing economic damages of $840,000 and $210,000, respectively.

Deliberations on punitive damages—the plaintiff’s attorneys are asking for $25 million—resume here next week.

I know the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is disputed, and denial of any connection seems very plausible to me.

But on the theory that “we’re just like you except that we prefer the same sex,” I consult my own feelings (especially when I was a younger adult) about sexually mature adolescent girls. Hmmm. It seems to me that it would be highly imprudent to put a young straight guy in a position where he could finagle sexual access to nubile female charges.

By “just like you except …” extension, is it not imprudent to allow a gay adult male to be in charge as Scoutmaster of a bunch of sexually mature if young adolescent boys?  (Note, however, that the plaintiff here was apparently 11 or 12 during the abuse, and likely pre-pubescent.) We had a local tragedy as a result of “out” gay Greg Ledbetter being put in charge of troubled adolescent boys (although he was caught later, elsewhere), and the politically correct line throughout was that the charges against him were not even plausible, but were cooked up by fanatical homophobes.

The national Boy Scout organization apparently tried to avoid such problems:

[T]he Portland case against the Boy Scouts drew national attention, in part because it was one of the very few times jurors have been allowed to review secret “perversion files” the Boy Scouts compiled against its own membership.

The national organization in the past has tried to keep those files out of court proceedings, but lost an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court last February that would have kept confidential its files on pedophiles dating back to 1964. During the trial, attorneys for the Boy Scouts argued that the files demonstrated the lengths Boy Scouts officials have gone to police their ranks and keep suspected pedophiles away from children.

Attorneys for the defendants declined to comment, citing the coming deliberation on punitive damages. The Boy Scouts of America issued a statement on its Web site denouncing the jury’s decision.

“We are gravely disappointed,” the scouting organization said. “We believe that the allegations made against our youth protection efforts are not valid. We intend to appeal.”

I’m imputing no political agenda to the Plaintiff in this case, but is this a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma for the Scouts? How can an organization the puts adults and kids together steer between the Scylla of phobia and the Charybdis of laxity?