I’ve never been more ashamed of the fact that I was born and raised
in the Garden State than I was after hearing about the 7-0 Supreme Court
ruling there ordering the Boy Scouts to reinstate a homosexual activist
as a scoutmaster.

I’m renouncing my birthplace. Can you do that? By the looks of
things, New Jersey would be just as pleased to dissociate with someone
as committed to freedom and free association as I am.

You see, New Jersey is well on the road to fascism. “Fascism?” you
ask. “What do you mean, Farah? I thought the New Jersey Supreme Court
was filled with enlightened men who merely want to expand our antiquated
notion of civil rights?”

Uh-uh. Fascism. I don’t remember if the New Jersey justices wear
black robes or not, but they might as well be wearing brown shirts and
jackboots. In fact, I suspect several of them might get quite a thrill
wearing jackboots — perhaps with some appropriate leather
accoutrements. But I digress.

You see, this decision has nothing to do with expanding civil rights.
It is one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of government
restricting personal freedom and the right to live as self-governing

The Boy Scouts is a private organization. Until this decision, many
of us were still under the delusion that private organizations retained
the ability to make their own rules — without interference from

Think about it. What makes the Boy Scouts the Boy Scouts? Rules.
Standards. Tradition. And, yes, a moral code.

The New Jersey court said the Boy Scouts organization constitutes a
“place of public accommodation” because it has a broad-based membership
and forms partnerships with public entities like police and fire
departments. That should be a lesson to anyone considering forming any
kind of partnership with government at any level. Partner with it and
you accept its control over you.

Written by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, the incredible ruling
dismissed the contention of the Boy Scouts that the words “morally
straight” and “clean” in the Boy Scout Oath constitute a statement
against homosexuality and allow it to keep gays out. In other words,
the Supreme Court justices know better than the Boy Scouts what their
oath means.

“Nothing before us … suggests that one of Boy Scouts’ purposes is
to promote the view that homosexuality is immoral,” the decision reads.
Well, how about the pleadings of the Boy Scouts’ attorneys?

The decision also suggested that sexuality has nothing to do with
morality. This is truly a ruling for the Clinton years. It’s also a
radical decision — perhaps as radical as Roe vs. Wade.

What this ruling says is that the state’s subjects — you and me —
will live, work and play by the arbitrary moral code of government’s
secular high priests. For 6,000 years, most of mankind has been under
the impression that there is something queer about homosexuality. Maybe
it was the fact that the Bible condemns the practice as an abomination.
But, even more to the point, those ancient religious traditions
responsible for the very inspiration and creation of western political
institutions have always looked askance at any sexual activity outside
of marriage.

I think it’s safe to say that the Boy Scouts were attempting to live
by a moral code accepted by all three major monotheistic faiths. Well,
they’ll have no such right in the future — unless the U.S. Supreme
Court should take on the case and overrule the New Jersey jesters — I
mean, justices.

No matter how you feel about homosexuality, if you value freedom and
free association, this is a bad ruling — a disastrous landmark ruling.
Heck, even the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a similar
lawsuit not too long ago.

What can we do about it? Do we boycott New Jersey? Gee, that wouldn’t
be too difficult. No, I say we all pitch in to help the Boy Scouts take
their case to the Supreme Court. Let the Scouts organization know that
we’re with them — that their fight is our fight. You can find out more
about the organization at its website.

There’s a lot more riding on this case than one homosexual

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.