It is a great big reach to argue that the guy is a gay activist -- quoted in a college newspaper as a member of the gay & lesbian group -- and not "practicing." But, for the sake of argument, let's just say he wasn't. He still is actively supporting immoral behavior in a publication that was accessible to the community. That is enough to disqualify him, imo.
Look, there is nothing biologically normal about being gay. No matter how much gays want to be "the same" they simply are not. Their bodies are made just like heterosexuals. Their whole argument is based on "I want to, therefore it's normal." That's weak at best. There is NOTHING about their physical selves that backs that claim up. There are countless things we all face daily that force us to choose beweeen what we want and what we ought to do. All desire is not moral. There is nothing natural, normal, or moral about homosexuality. If you want to argue that someone has the right to choose an immoral lifestyle then that is one thing. But no one has the right to be a Boy Scout leader. That's a privilege. Immoral people need not apply.
Do you think scouts must also accept bisexuals or transexuals or the transgendered? What about polygamists or prostitutes? Where does it stop?
Additionally, gays being gay can't have kids. This is none of their business. Sure, many gays have kids but how did they get them? One hundred percent of the time they got them through heterosexuality. That is what is normal. It is normal -- as in supported by biology and nature -- to discriminate against gays in relation to children. If you want to argue what is "natural," THAT is natural.