Anyone entertaining the notion that the advancement of the
"marriage redefinition" agenda needn't adversely affect those
with moral objections to the normalization of immoral
behavior should pay close attention to what happened to
Christopher Kempling.
The British Columbia public school teacher was suspended for
a month without pay and received a black spot on his
professional record for writing letters critical of immoral
practices to a local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo
Observer.
The Canadian Charter of Rights protects citizens' freedom of
expression and religion, but that was apparently no bar, in
the eyes of the British Columbia Supreme Court, to a local
teacher panel's punishment of Mr. Kempling.
As one of the justices wrote for the court in denying Mr.
Kempling's appeal of the penalty: "Discriminatory speech is
incompatible with the search for truth. In addition, [Mr.
Kempling's] publicly discriminatory writings undermine the
ability of members of the targeted group . . . to attain
individual self-fulfillment . . . "
The lesson of the Kempling case transcends its Canadian
context; it is of no less import to Americans or Europeans.
The issue is not benign; the struggle between those who wish
to make immorality acceptable and those who do not is, simply
put, a zero-sum game. To the degree that the movement to
redefine marriage is advanced, those who adhere to a
traditional moral system will be not merely ignored, but
vilified, demonized and penalized.
That zero-sum truism is at the core of a legal brief recently
submitted to the United States Supreme Court by Agudath
Israel of America. We asked the Court to review and reverse a
lower court's decision permitting the state of Connecticut to
disqualify the Boy Scouts from inclusion on a list of
charities to which state employees were encouraged to
contribute. The reason the Boy Scouts were disqualified was
the group's policy of not allowing people whose lives
evidence an acceptance of immorality to serve as scoutmasters
or in leadership positions
One of the brief's main points is that decisions like the
lower court's patently malign traditional religious groups
for their deeply-held beliefs. As The New York Sun noted in
an editorial shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court's
recent ruling on the definition of marriage in that state,
"with a few exceptions, this cause [the acceptance of the
redefinition of marriage] is being advanced through the
denigration of Jews and Christians who adhere to the
fundamentals of religious law."
The editorial went on to recount the reaction of "a friend"
of the editorialist to the opposition to redefining marriage
asserted by "Agudath Israel and its Council of Torah Sages."
Said the gentleman: "I see them as bigots . . . "
Similarly, an American Civil Liberties Union advertisement
several years ago in the New York Times compared those
who affirm a traditional moral system as akin to vicious
racists of yesteryear. They, the ACLU asserted, seek "to hide
behind morality." But, the ad continues, "we all know a bigot
when we see one."
If disapproving of behavior the Torah considers abominable is
bigotry, then adherents of most religions -- along with
nonbelievers who nevertheless accept the validity of the
traditional moral code -- are, ipso facto, villains. What is
more, there is no reason why the label is any less applicable
to those who disapprove of other affronts to the moral ideal.
Either morality has true meaning and trumps what some people,
even many people, wish to do, or it does not.
And if moral scruples are indeed conceptually devolved into
bigotry, there will be not only denigration and derision of
traditionalists, but discrimination and legal action against
them too -- as Mr. Kempling's treatment and Connecticut's
action against the Boy Scouts well demonstrate.
The scenario of Catholic organizations, or Jewish religious
schools, or devout Muslims being branded -- and even
prosecuted as -- bigots, simply for operating or living
according to deeply-held religious convictions is not
unthinkable.
It is, on the contrary, but the logical outcome of a process
that began as a plea for "rights," is continuing as a demand
that marriage be redefined, and that -- unless it is stopped
soon -- will end as a triumphant crushing of the ability of
religious, or just morality-minded, citizens and communities
to live their lives freely, in accordance with their
consciences and beliefs.
Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for
Agudath Israel of America.
