FGF E-Package
The Reactionary Utopian
March 13, 2008
PERVERTED JUDGMENT
by Joe Sobran
A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that the Boy
Scouts of America violates the state's laws against
discrimination by excluding homosexual scoutmasters.
The Boy Scouts, who consider homosexuality "a
serious moral wrong," argued that as a private, voluntary
organization they are entitled to set their own criteria
for membership. A lower court agreed, and a higher court
may yet agree. The question is why anyone should
disagree.
The New Jersey court -- all three members --
explained unanimously: "There is absolutely no evidence
before us, empirical or otherwise, supporting a
conclusion that a gay scoutmaster, solely because he is a
homosexual, does not possess the strength of character
necessary to properly care for, or to impart BSA
humanitarian ideals to the young boys in his charge."
Note the lingo: The court adopted the cant-word
"gay," showing its guiding ideology. There is nothing
wrong with homosexuality, and nobody is entitled to
believe otherwise.
On this principle the court arrogated to itself the
authority to define "character" and "BSA humanitarian
ideals" for the BSA. By the same logic, it could have
ruled that women, just because they are women, can't be
presumed to lack the qualifications to be Catholic
priests and teach Catholic doctrine -- and never mind
what the Catholic Church happens to think.
There's a word for this: "totalitarian." If a group
can't define its own purposes, standards, and criteria
for membership, if such a basic prerogative can be
usurped by the state, let's have no nonsense about
"freedom" and "pluralism." We are living under the
comprehensive, monistic, centralized state, which can
dictate its standards to us.
In the name of opposing "discrimination," the state
is gradually stripping away another basic freedom,
freedom of association. At first the targets were "public
accommodations." Now it turns out that the Boy Scouts
are, in the eyes of the state, a "public accommodation."
Just as the Interstate Commerce provision of the
Constitution has been turned into a wedge for federal
control of all commerce and lots of things that aren't
commerce at all, the term "public accommodation" is being
broadened to extend state control over private
associations.
Not incidentally, the government, both state and
federal, has thrown its power on the side of the sexual
revolution. The New Jersey court, with its airy contempt
for the ancient code of sexual morality, fits a larger
pattern.
Why should a government that increasingly limits the
sphere of freedom, privacy, and choice in every other
area show such consistent favor to sexual libertarianism
alone? Because the traditional code is designed to
support the family as the basic unit of society, and the
family, like religion and private property, is one of the
foundations of liberty and resistance to monolithic state
power.
Without religion, the state faces no rival moral
authority. Without property, freedom has no material
basis, and everyone becomes dependent on the state for
support. And without the family, the individual belongs
almost wholly to the state, with no stable competing
loyalty.
The sexual revolution is really an attack on the
cellular structure of society. Under communism, "free
love," including abortion, was the only freedom left,
because it's the only freedom the total state finds
congenial. Citizenship ceases to be just one aspect of
identity and becomes your only identity. In short order,
citizenship is reduced to total subjection to the state.
"Sexual freedom" is what we used to have: the
freedom to choose one's mate and to build a family. But
the term has been redefined to mean sexual anomie and
irresponsibility.
There is no real paradox here. The state continually
releases us from our duties to our families as it
increases our obligations to itself. You can leave your
spouse, abort your children, abandon your parents. But
you can't divorce the state.
The state gives you two options. If you won't be its
dependent, you must pay taxes to support those who are.
Living off others' taxes is legitimate; refusing to pay
those taxes is criminal.
The comprehensive state sees no reason why it
shouldn't change all our traditional morals and
relations, however ancient, to suit itself. The New
Jersey ruling is just the latest instance of the public
devouring the private.
[This column was originally published by Universal Press
Syndicate March 3, 1998.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2008/080313.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2008 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,
P.O. Box 270, Vienna, VA 22183. All rights reserved. If
you forward this column, please send the entire page.
Joe Sobran is an author and a syndicated columnist. See
his writing at http://www.sobran.com, and see him on
YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NJZ3FZ4iiw
To support further columns by Joe Sobran, please send a
donation to the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,
P.O. Box 270, Vienna, VA 22183.
To subscribe, renew, or donate, go to:
http://shotsfired.us/foundation.html
The Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation is tax-exempt
organization under the 501(c)(3) tax code of the Internal
Revenue Service. Contributions to the Foundation are
tax-deductible. The Foundation was formed in 2003 to
research, inform, and educate the public about the need
to preserve Western Civilization.