01:00 AM EST on Monday, February 16, 2004

NEW YORK

ANYONE ENTERTAINING the notion that the advancement of "gay rights" needn't affect those with moral objections to the normalization of homosexual unions should pay 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 the practice of homosexuality 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 the punishment of Mr. Kempling a by a local teachers' panel.

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, homosexuals, to attain individual self-fulfillment."

The lesson of the Kempling case transcends its Canadian context; it is of no less import to Americans and Europeans. The issue of "gay rights" is not benign; the struggle between those who wish to make homosexuality acceptable as a normative lifestyle and those who do not is, simply put, a zero-sum game.

To the degree that the gay movement's program is advanced, those who adhere to a traditional moral system will be not merely ignored but also vilified, demonized and penalized.

The "gay rights" zero-sum truism is at the core of a legal brief recently submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the organization I am privileged to represent, Agudath Israel of America. We asked the court to 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 for the decision was the group's policy of not letting open homosexuals serve as Scoutmasters or in other leadership positions.

One of our brief's points is that decisions such as this malign traditional religious groups for their deeply held beliefs. As The New York Sun noted in an editorial shortly after the Massachusetts high court's "same-sex marriage" ruling: "[W]ith a few exceptions, this cause [the acceptance of same-sex marriage] is being advanced through the denigration of Jews and Christians who adhere to the fundamentals of religious law."

The editorial recounted the reaction of "a friend" of the editorialist to the opposition to same-sex 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 object on moral grounds to homosexuality as akin to vicious racists of yesteryear. Those who espouse a traditional view of acceptable sexual behavior, the ACLU asserted, seek "to hide behind morality."

But, the ad continued, "we all know a bigot when we see one."

If disapproving of homosexual behavior is bigotry, then adherents of most religions -- along with nonbelievers who accept 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 -- such as multi-partner or incestuous relationships.

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 also discrimination and legal action against them -- as Christopher Kempling's treatment and Connecticut's action against the Boy Scouts well demonstrate.

The scenario of Catholic organizations', Jewish religious schools' and devout Muslims' being branded -- and even prosecuted as -- bigots simply for operating or living according to religious convictions is not unthinkable.

It is, on the contrary, the logical outcome of a process that began as a plea for "rights," is continuing as a demand for redefinition of marriage, and, unless stopped soon, will end as a crushing of the ability of religious or just morality-minded citizens and communities to live their lives freely, in accordance with their beliefs and consciences.

Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish organization.