FGF E-Package
                 The Reactionary Utopian
                      March 13, 2008

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 

     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 

     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 

     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 

     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 

     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 

     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 

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: 

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.