And it's a meaningful surprise that the Missouri Synod would take this stance?

Sorry, I stand corrected. No, I would feel differently about 2 known gay leaders taking a troop of kids out. Again, I would want to know them as well as I would know any Scout leader who takes kids out, regardless of any background checks. To some degree, I treat any men (or women) who want to take boys out camping with extreme suspicion unless I know them or have at least spent time watching their interaction with kids.

Well said.

I don't know if Wayne has grandkids that age or not. I don't, but if I did, yes, I would be okay with that. Kids or grandkids. Assuming I knew the guys in question. That goes for letting kids go into the woods with any 2 guys who have passed the BSA background check. Why would you assume the gay guys would be any more likely to molest them than any other 2 men in Scouting? But, in fact, you are posing a strawman kind of argument, because normally 2 boys and 2 men would not be going on a Scout outing.

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

Regardless of what happened recently, the IRS is a political tool that is used by politicians of all stripes to modify social or business behavior. The only solution is to repeal the 16th Amendment and institute a flat tax, fair tax, 9/9 tax or something else. The tax code was ridiculous 30 years ago when i studied it in law school and it has grown exponentially since.