When the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled August 4 that in the Boy Scout Oath, "the words 'morally straight' and 'clean' do not, on their face, express anything about sexuality, much less that homosexuality, in particular, is immoral," culture warriors on both sides opined everywhere. In our own publication, Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey wrote, "The court assumed a right to decide not only what is legal, but also what qualifies as moral and immoral." In a way, the unabashedly liberal magazine Mother Jones agrees. "With those words [from the New Jersey court], the gay rights movement stepped beyond the battle for civil rights and into the era of cultural integration," writes William Saletan in the November/December issue. Saletan and cultural conservatives agree that the Court's argument "there is no indication that [gay scoutmaster James] Dale intends to actively 'teach' anything whatsoever about homosexuality as a scout leader" is preposterous. The very allowance of a gay scoutmaster teaches scouts something. But Saletan presents a bright side: "Just by the force of his example, Dale will teach scouts that a gay man can be an ethical person and a good leader. He will challenge the organization's homophobia. And he should." Saletan concludes that the ruling will force the Boy Scouts into answering whether they're "antigay" (and thus likely lose much of their support) or not antigay (and thus lose much of their past character).

The cover story of that Mother Jones issue looks like it could have come from Christianity Today. (In fact, it's very similar to one of our most popular issues in recent years.) The story, "Culture Quake," asks, "What happens ...