Homophobia and the B&B case

It's been another excellent day for LGBT rights in the United Kingdom.

The "Christian" (I'll explain the inverted commas in a moment) guest house owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay, in clear contravention of the law, have lost their case in the Supreme Court.  They were funded by the homophobic Christian Institute in their lengthy struggle to have the right to discriminate against the gay couple, in case you wondering.  They lost in the County Court, they lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal, and now they've lost (unanimously) in the Supreme Court. You'd hope they've got the quite clear message by now.

One of the most heartening aspects of this case were the words of Baroness Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, and as such the most senior woman judge in the country.   She went way beyond simply rejecting the guest-house owners' spurious arguments, with this passage right at the end of her judgment:

"Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation... [Homosexuals] were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others.  This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.  Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others.  But we should not underestimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going in many parts of the world."

These are beautiful words, coming as they do, from someone so very senior in the judiciary.  When I studied law (at the same Cambridge college as Baroness Hale, no less!) I remember sitting in a supervision in 1994 reading the words of the Law Lords in the recently handed down R v Brown case.  It followed a homophobic witch-hunt by the Police, and the overtones of the judgement were extremely unpleasant.  How times change, and so very rapidly.

The wonderful Baroness Hale of Richmond

The owners of the guest-house in this case have taken every opportunity to portray themselves as reasonable, simple Christian believers.  It is actually hard not to see them as are hard-nosed zealots, determined to take their alleged right to discriminate as far as they possibly can.  They have chosen to open a business and simply can't expect to get away in 2013 with the equivalent of hanging a "No Blacks, No Irish" sign on their door.  They do not even share the part of the building that was used as a commercial guesthouse with their private living quarters, nor is their any evidence they asked straight couples for proof of marriage: quite the contrary.

They will continue to portray themselves as a persecuted minority in the ilk of the early Christian martyrs.  There is a certain group, like them, who seem to revel in their status as long-suffering Joan of Arc types.  Being thrown to the lions in ancient Rome is nothing compared to what they suffer.  They were after all simply "following God's word" in discriminating against the gay couple.  After today's judgement they said they preferred to disobey the law of the land if it meant obeying "the law of God".  They forget that it's their interpretation of the law of God, and there are certain huge flaws in their argument as I've pointed out before with a quick look at Leviticus.

For any straight readers, imagine the personal offence and damage to your basic dignity at being told that cannot stay somewhere because of your relationship.  It happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend in an expensive boutique hotel one Easter, before this legislation existed, which wasn't that long ago.  The aggressive hotel owner told her he "wouldn't have any of that going on under his roof" and literally threw their bags out of the reception.

Of course there are amusing elements to this case too.  I love the assumption that sharing a double bed means you're going to have sex (or will be tempted to).  It's positively Victorian: hands above the sheets, boys and girls!  How about the times I've shared a double-bed with sundry male and female friends, with my mother, and indeed with my dog, without feeling even the slightest need to shag my bed-fellow in the middle of the night.   Moreover, who needs a double-bed if you do actually fancy your bedroom mate?  Do these people have no imagination? :-)

Christian Homophobia

I still encounter homophobia on a regular basis on Twitter.  A common theme arises: by no means all Christians are homophobes, but almost all homophobes I come across seem to be Christians.

There's the zealot Catholic stalker of mine who talks not about gay people, but of people who "have SSA" (same-sex attraction) as if it were an affliction or a temporary disorder that can be "cured".  I didn't chose my sexual orientation, honey - you however chose your faith.. and your nasty, bigoted views.  Then there are the random men, often from America and Australia, who just hurl out violent homophobic abuse to strangers.  It's a very odd straight man who spends all his time thinking about gay sex and gay men.  You don't need to be Dr Freud to take a guess at what's going on here.

Who you trying to kid?!

As ever, the hollow vessels make the most noise, however, and it's important to remember that the bulk of Christians I interact with don't share this type of view point.  In fact several I know are embarrassed, at pains to disassociate themselves from these attitudes, and are genuinely some of the kindest people I know.  It's a constant task to remind yourself of them, but it would make me guilty of the same prejudice I deplore not to.  Aside from anything, they're a delight to talk to.

I therefore deliberately put the word "Christian" in inverted commas at the start of this blog post because my understanding is that the type of people who would shut people out, discriminate, judge and behave spitefully to others based on Jesus' teachings are about as far away from "salvation" as it gets.  It's just such a shame they have such enormously big gobs and make you forget about the good guys.

Going Forward

Gay men, in particular, were often accused in the past of being unable to forge lasting relationships and commitment.  Imagine the effects on their relationships if for a chunk of their life they were at risk of being arrested for having private, consensual sex in their own home.  Imagine what it would be like to live through Mrs Thatcher's government introducing the most spiteful piece of hate-legislation parliament has probably ever passed, with words in it like "pretend family relationships".  Imagine hearing as recently as 2012 from the most senior Catholic in Britain (who as it turned out sexually assaulted young male priests), and half the Tory party in Parliament, that your relationship was in no way worthy of being put on the same footing as heterosexual marriages.  Imagine not knowing for sure until 27 November 2013 whether you could go away for a break together and risk having a guest-house shut you and your partner out for being gay.

All of that has a massive knock-on effect.  Everyone wants their loving relationships affirmed and their love for one another honoured by friends, family and society at large.  When the law allows the discrimination it has done, it places an enormous strain on things.  The fact that so many LGBT people have worked through all this and led happy, fulfilling lives with contented relationships is a real testament to them.  As the legal and societal position continues to improve, so I believe will the lives and relationships of those in the LGBT community.  This a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So it's been another great day, just like the day Parliament finally passed the Same Sex Marriage Bill.  Thank you, Baroness Hale, and your learned colleagues.  You have no appreciation of the ripple effect your splendid words and sentiments may come to have. 

Leviticus

It's a fabulous name: "Leviticus".  Sounds like an extra from the Life of Brian - perhaps a Centurion colleague of Biggus Dickus.  It's the third book of the Old Testament and it actually means "relating to the Levites" (the priestly Hebrew tribe).  Its very name has that Old Testament awe and divine "smite them" power about it.

We all presumably know the two passages most quoted from Leviticus:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination (18:22);

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (20:13). 

Why do we know these passages?  Because they are routinely trotted out by homophobes, predominantly traditional or evangelical Christians as proof of the "sinfulness" of gay people.  I have seen Norwich Reform Church* Members picketing Norwich Pride handing out leaflets based on the text to young gay and lesbian people.  The leaflets state that faithful marriages are the best way of countering Aids (along with wearing modest clothes), that homosexuality is a "perverted and degrading violation of normal human relationships" and that gay people must "repent".  They also say that the "medical, social and emotional consequences militate against the legalisation of homosexuality at any age".  Yup: they'd like to make homosexuality entirely illegal for all people in Britain, based on their reading of the Bible.

What we also (hopefully) know is the fabulous selectiveness with which the two passages are quoted.  They are part of the "Holiness Code" that was allegedly passed down by God, via Moses, to the Children of Israel.  My understanding is that they are a set of rules by which Biblical Jews should lead their lives.  There is a lot of scholarly debate about their applicability today, given that the Levitical priesthood and rules for animal sacrifice which are covered by them ended two thousand years ago, in AD 70, with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

Here's a lovely link to a post by @jamesrbuk that sets out some of the things that Leviticus bans: yes, it covers eating (or touching) a pig, eating shell food, trimming your beard, selling land permanently, wearing clothes with mixed fibres, having a tattoo, picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard, reaping to the edge of your field, eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it, etc. etc.

"Protestors point out: We Can Quote the Bible Too"

The point has been made a million times, but it's worth emphasising.  When Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are quoted to justify denying LGBT people rights, where is all the outrage about Christians tucking into a prawn cocktail in their local Indian restaurant?  Why aren't people out holding placards calling for the death of non-virgins?  If you're going to live your life by the letter of this stuff (or more to the point tell others they should do so) then adopt all of it, not just the bits that suit your prejudices.

My former boss, a devout Orthodox Jew, was quite straightforward in his analysis: the Holiness Code is a set of rules for Jews.  What we "goyim" (non-Jews) do is absolutely no concern of his.  His job is lead his life following the rules of the Old Testament, which included tolerance and compassion to all people.  He certainly extended a kindness and liberality to me which plenty of Christians could learn from.

Selectivity

The selectivity of quoting the above passages is gob-smacking.  It does not, of course, just extend to Leviticus.  Those who feel the need, frequently choose other passages of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to justify their views, prejudices and sometimes hatred.  The Dutch Reform Church in South Africa based its support of Apartheid on the Bible and only felt the need to apologise in 1992. Clearly a lot comes down to how you interpret Biblical passages and this changes over time.  It is also subject to human fallibility and disagreement (the World Council of Churches expelled the South African church because they did not accept the biblical justification to treat black people as inferior, for example.)

Much more recently, the Tory MP for South West Bedforshire was quoted this week in the Guardian as follows:

This is quite fabulous.  Selous is of course talking about moves to legalise same-sex marriage.  One of the passages he selectively quotes from, Mark 10, goes on to set out Jesus' views on divorce:

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. ¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. ¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

We remind ourselves of the fact that the Church of England was set up to facilitate the divorce by Henry VIII of his wife, Katherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boyeln.  Remarriage is adultery and to allow divorce is "directly contrary to what Jesus said."

There is no doubt Selous is a devout Christian.  He is a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and sits on the group "Prayers for Parliament".  This group asserts that "the real power to change this land rests not in 10 Downing Street or in the Palace of Westminster.  It rests wherever you bow your head in prayer to the Almighty God who is sovereign over all."  He voted for Nadine Dorries' anti-abortion bill in 2011, voted to reduce the abortion limit to 12 weeks, and voted against the abolition of the crime of blasphemy, both in 2008.  It is not known, however, whether he enjoys prawn cocktails.

We also do not know what Tories like Selous think of passages like Matthew 19:24:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

If we are going to change the land based on the Bible, this is a fairly powerful and little passage.  There's not much arguing against what it is saying.  How about a private member's bill from a Christian Tory MP to introduce an income tax of 90% on investment income, guys?  We need to save those rich people's souls and get them into the kingdom of God after all.

Nor can we say too much about Acts 4.32-35 which seems to be advocating in really quite clear terms an extreme form of socialism.  Anyone for that? Conservative Christian Fellowship?  No?  Oh.
 
You get the point.  I could go on and on if I wanted to.  The use of the Bible by people such as the Norwich Reformed Church or Andrew Selous MP is selective, manipulative and disingenuous.  They themselves do not lead their lives by the strict (and often contradictory commandments) of the Old and New Testaments, but they will choose passages from both to tell other people how they should lead their lives and to seek to prevent them from having the sames rights that they do.

Reform, Liberal and Masorti Judaism

The Reform and Liberal synagogues have clearly stated that they wish to marry same-sex couples in the eyes of God.  They have already been doing so for some time in the United States.  Remarkably, today, the Masorti ("traditional") synagogue movement in the UK hinted that it too might join them.  Masorti is the broad equivalent of the American Conservative Judaism movement.

If it does so, we have a really interesting triple whammy of three Jewish movements in this country wanting to marry same-sex couples.  It is wonderful, not just for the LGBT members of these synagogues who wish to marry, but because it is a massive slap in the face to the traditionalist and evangelical Christians who use the Old Testament Leviticus rules to justify their homophobia.  As I understand it, the theology behind the acceptance by the synagogues of same-sex marriage is that the Torah is a living book and set of commandments: it should not be taken to be rigid code that never changes.

Leviticus is undeniably a set of rules by which Jews seek to lead their lives: these are THEIR rules.  If three synagogue movements have studied them (Judaism is really quite good at this type of thing) and say it's okay by them in 2012 for gay people to get married (and even have sex without being put to death!), that really should be quite significant for anyone who believes in these things.  I don't see how bigoted Christians can keep banging on in the same way they have in the light of this.

Why am I getting into all this?

And on that last note, I just want to emphasise one thing.  The position of these Synagogues  is significant for "anyone who believes in these things".   I'm no theologian but I can recognise the highly selective and debatable use of Biblical passages.  I can chuck back the snippets I know and quite easily pick logical faults in the likes of Andrew Selous MP's arguments.  However, why am I even doing so?

Religion is in steady, dramatic and seemingly irreversible decline in this country.   This piece in the Guardian sets it out well  Fewer than 1 in 10 people who even says they are a Christian has been to church in the past week.  Even the Telegraph is under no illusions: the Church of England risks being wiped out.  WHY, frankly, is any MP in a highly secular country seeking to deny me my basic civic right to marry, in 2012, based on a passage of the Bible that he happens to believe in?

I am an atheist who believes that aspects of the Bible give us extremely powerful moral guidance.  Seen as a whole ("What would Jesus do?") I have no doubt it can offer wonderful, compassionate, loving and inspiring direction.  I also believe, though, that these qualities can exist just as well in people who do not believe in a deity, and that frequently atheists can be more "Christ like" in their deeds than some so-called Christians. 

The purpose of this post is not to bash all Christians or to mock their belief.  What it seeks to do is to highlight the problems of using the Bible as your bible.  Mixing your literal application of faith with law making is fraught with problems, particularly given the fact that faith is inherently open to differing interpretation over time, and the situation is made worse when there is selective quoting.  Of course some MPs will be guided by their Christian faith in the decisions they make.  If they think that their interpretation of this faith speaks for the country at large (or even for all Christians), or they "quote" it as the main reason to deny people rights of itself, however, I believe they are making a mistake.

Advice

The next time some wise-arse quotes Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 at you and says that the Bible makes clear homosexuality is a sin, hand them a bacon sarnie and point them in the direction of this blog post.  Their argument is flawed from start to finish.  And they shouldn't wear poly-cotton.  Not because of Leviticus, but because it doesn't breathe half as well.

The tattoo refers to the Leviticus "ban" on homosexual acts

* For the avoidance of doubt, the NRC is not affiliated to the much more inclusive and open United Reform Church.