Letter
to an Evangelical Leader on Exploring "Gay Rights"
Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate
Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
616 N.
Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15206
gagnon@pts.edu
Aug. 7, 2007
For a print copy use the
PDF version here.
In late June 2007 an evangelical leader (whose identity I
am not at liberty to disclose, at least at present) contacted me with
the following questions about "what rights [I] believe that gay and
lesbian people should have":
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
I read with great interest your statement about the possibilities that
you see inherent if a bill concerning "Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes"
passes Congress ["Let
the 'Sexual Orientation Hate' Bill Pass and Invite Your Own Oppression,"
May 2, 2007].
What I would like to know from you is what rights you believe that gay
and lesbian people should have. Do you believe that conditions for
firing the person on the basis of sexual orientation should be
allowed? Do you believe that discrimination in housing should be
allowed? Do you believe that gay and lesbian people should be ready
to endure slurs and name-calling?
Understanding that you want to express love to gay and lesbian people,
how is this done if their dignity as human beings is not protected? I
think you would concur that their dignity as human beings should be
protected and I would like to know what kind of protection gay and
lesbian people could have to that end. I now know what you are
against. Could you please tell me what you are for?
I am sure you want the dignity and humanity of gay and lesbian people
to be preserved. Do you think there is any need for special
legislation to guard them against unfair discrimination and, if so,
how would you define unfair discrimination? I would be most
interested in what positive measures you could propose to protect
their rights as citizens.
When the Civil Rights Bill was passed, there were many who said that
the bill was totally unnecessary. However, the argument in favor of
the Civil Rights Bill was that local courts and local juries could not
be depended upon to deal fairly with the violation of the rights of
African-Americans. For instance, a community in the deep South where
racism was particularly prevalent might not be able to put together a
jury that would condemn a white person for physically abusing a black
person, or, as we know historically, killing a black person. The idea
of the Civil Rights Bill was that even if the local courts could not
mete out justice that the case could be appealed to the federal
government to secure the justice that the local government did not
provide. Does it not seem reasonable that there are some communities
where hostility towards gay and lesbian people is such that a gay
person who is physically abused would not be able to secure justice,
and therefore, the prejudice of the community would keep fair judgment
from being passed? In such a case, appeal could be made to a federal
court. Do you think this is something that should be given fair
consideration?
I am most interested in your point of view.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxx
Here is the response that I sent on June 21, 2007:
Hi xxxxxx,
So glad to hear from
you. In fact, it's very nice to hear from you. Thanks for your questions
and thoughts on the subject of legislation. It is so hard to detect tone
from written correspondence. I wasn't sure whether you were miffed with
my remarks on hate crime legislation but have worked hard to respond
civilly (which you have done, by the way) or whether you genuinely
aren't sure yourself about what to do with hate crime legislation and
are seeking my advice.
Currently we live in a
society where the vast majority of citizens who do not want to see the
government provide incentives for homosexual practice are already
thoroughly intimidated not to say or do anything that might get them
labeled a homophobe or bigot, or that might hurt their career, lose
their job, or land them in legal action even if they express a view that
homosexual practice is wrong in a polite manner. Someone like me is far
more likely in today's political climate to face discrimination in the
workplace and the educational system, along with weekly (and sometimes
daily) verbal abuse than is any gay activist. The last Democratic
presidential candidate actually had a piece published in The Advocate
(Sept. 3, 1996) where he declared opposition to "gay marriage" to be
"hatred," "ignorance," and "bigotry" that political leaders must "win
the fight" against and "roll over." And he almost got elected. As you
know, this has now become mainstream—indeed, virtually
mandatory—rhetoric in the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, even
in some sectors of the Republican Party (certainly in the Northeast).
I don't know of any
cases where someone who assaulted or violently attacked self-identified
gays and lesbians 'got away with it,' do you?—assuming, of course, the
perpetrator of the crime could be identified and apprehended. We're
talking about a national media that is so pro-homosex in its orientation
that the slightest injury done to gay and lesbian persons would be
trumpeted coast-to-coast. Nor do I read of cases of genuine
discrimination in the workplace or in housing that go unpunished. Again,
it is far more likely in this country that a person will lose his or her
job for declaring homosexual practice to be a sin than for having "gay
pride" celebrations in the workplace. A child is far more likely to be
vilified for not jumping on the GLBT bandwagon than for "coming out" as
homosexual.
So I guess I don't
accept your main implied premise (if I have understood you correctly);
namely, that there is significant likelihood that if we don't pass
federal hate crime legislation, then a significant number of homosexual
persons are going to be physically assaulted, denied employment, and
denied housing without adequate redress from the justice system. The
current laws on the books, coupled with today's dominant cultural
outrage against any reservation about homosexual "rights" (certainly
among society's elite power brokers), are more than enough protection. I
do, however, see a tremendous amount of harassment and persecution
coming from the government itself against persons and institutions that
hold the scriptural position on homosexual practice if "sexual
orientation" legislation becomes ensconced in federal law. That's the
difference: not only will persons and private institutions do harm to
those who take a scriptural position but the government itself will step
in to aid the harassment.
You repeatedly ask me
below what we should do, legally, to protect the dignity and humanity of
persons who not only experience same-sex attractions but also identify
themselves as persons who affirm a homosexual life (which is what I take
the label "gay" to be). Implementation of federal "sexual orientation"
legislation will not enhance the dignity of persons experiencing
same-sex attractions. Rather, it will—if we believe the apostle Paul's
view of homosexual practice—lead to a further self-dishonoring of the
human that God has created them to be and increase the risk for some of
not inheriting God's kingdom. Why? For the simple reason that such
legislation will promote homosexual practice—starting with heavy
indoctrination of children in kindergarten and moving on through the
entire educational system and future employment (certainly in any
white-collar positions). The church, as you know better than I, doesn't
operate in a cultural vacuum. It too will be, and already has been,
affected by cultural shifts, further crippling the message of the
gospel. Knowing that you are concerned for the salvation of all persons,
I ask you: How should we respond to the threat
against the dignity and eternal destinies of persons who experience
same-sex attractions?
And how should we
respond to the political and legal threat against the dignity of our
children, who when they declare gently their agreement with Scripture's
stance on a male-female prerequisite for sexual bonds are told not just
by fringe persons but by official channels of authority that they (and
the parents whom they love and respect) are hateful, ignorant bigots?
And will not this damage to their dignity ultimately extend to an
attenuation of their educational opportunities and career advancement?
I don't think anyone
should be treated in a humiliating or hateful fashion. I also believe
that making "sexual orientation" a specially protected federal category
will, over the long haul, reduce the level of dignity for a larger
number of persons, and do society far greater harm, than not to have
such "sexual orientation" in federal law.
I don't know if you saw
my other recent piece on hate crimes ("Putting
One's Money Where One's Mouth Is," Presbyweb.com, May 30,
2007) in which I noted the following:
Just a couple of weeks ago two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake
South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges
for posting and distributing at their high school fliers containing
anti-homosex comments and showing two men kissing. A state attorney
for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, is reported as saying: "You can be
charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an
action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based
on a person's race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual
orientation" (emphasis added). Another state attorney for McHenry
County, Lou Bianchi, is reported as saying: "This is a classic case of
the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law
against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of
activity." See reports
here and
here for further information on this story. The
Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for assault (i.e., a
threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily
harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, "disorderly
conduct," or "harassment by telephone" or "electronic communications."
"Disorderly conduct" is defined in
Illinois law as a person who "does any act in such unreasonable
manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach
of the peace" (emphasis added).
My understanding is
that the girls in question were not exactly speaking the truth in love.
But which is the greater injustice here? It seems to me that the felony
hate crimes charges are the greater abuse here. This is what hate crimes
laws with sexual orientation clauses lead to.
Up till now I have
dealt generally with your questions. Now I will try to address as best I
can four specific issues that you raised:
1. Physical abuse
2. Employment discrimination
3. Housing discrimination
4. Slurs and name-calling
1. Physical
abuse. Of course we are all agreed that physical abuse
of anyone for any reason is wrong. (Here I'm not addressing the right of
the state to punish offenders or to protect itself against foreign
threats or the right of individuals to protect themselves from imminent
bodily harm.) Laws are in place everywhere covering such offenses, with
appropriate penalties. As I said above I don't know of any cases where
physical abuse to a "gay" or lesbian person has not been prosecuted.
This is not to say that it never happens anywhere anytime; it is rather
to say that there is no evidence that a major problem exists in the
United States today as regards prosecuting cases where physical abuse of
homosexual persons is involved.
2. Employment
discrimination. This is a less clear-cut situation. For
one thing, I think that you would agree that Christian institutions
should have the right not to employ, and the right to terminate, faculty
and administrative personnel who engage in serial, unrepentant
homosexual practice—just as they have the right to do so if such
employees engage in active adult incest, polyamory, adultery, or
fornication. Now most activists for homosexual unions would argue that
this is "discrimination," bigotry in the guise of religion, and should
be banned. They would argue that a religious institution shouldn't be
allowed to fire, or not hire, persons simply because they are female or
black; so why should homosexual persons be denied employment in
religious institutions simply because they are in a homosexual
relationship. Of course, I would respond that this is a different
matter, since being a woman or a particular ethnicity is not in the
first instance an impulse to do something, much less an impulse to do
something that God expressly forbids. Well, you may say, sexual
orientation employment non-discrimination acts could contain religious
exemption clauses. But we all know that such clauses would likely be
offered only as part of a bait and switch tactic. If "sexual
orientation" is to be specially protected alongside race and sex there
will be almost immediate repercussions even for private religious
institutions—like the withholding of federally funded student loans for
Christian institutions that have moral turpitude clauses forbidding
homosexual practice.
Even beyond religious
institutions I have questions. I believe that Scripture regards
homosexual practice with at least as great a severity as, and likely
greater severity than, it regards consensual adult incest and adultery,
and certainly adult consensual polyamorous bonds (of course, Jesus
revoked the exemption that Moses had given men for polygamous
arrangements but had never given women). Are there some secular
white-collar positions that should be denied to employees who trumpet
the fact of having ongoing sexual relations with an adult who is a close
blood relation (say, a parent or sibling), or of actively engaging in
adulterous affairs? Let's say you own a small professional business. Do
you have the right to terminate someone who brings his sexual partner,
who happens to be his mother or sister or mistress, to company
gatherings? I don't know what latitude the states give on such things,
do you?
In other words, are
there any secular employment situations where there ought to be
a right to not hire, or a right to terminate, someone who actively
engages in, and flaunts, egregious immoral (but not necessarily
criminal) behavior? What do you think? You might say that people
fornicate all the time and don't get fired. Agreed. But Scripture
doesn't put homosexual practice merely on the level of sex outside of
marriage. It puts it on the level of adult incest and adultery. Probably
for most secular positions, especially blue collar positions, virtually
anything should go. But I know this: you can be terminated, and
certainly won't be hired, in most Fortune 500 companies if you make
overtly racist comments (e.g., being a "skinhead Nazi" would certainly
get you disqualified from most upper-level management positions). So
there is a moral test of sorts already in place. The question is not
whether to have a morals test, it seems to me, but where to draw the
line.
If one has in mind a
situation of someone who experiences same-sex attractions, who is quiet
and doesn't adopt a high-profile advocacy stance (like pushing for a
corporate GLBT advocacy group) and who doesn't insist that the company
give at least implicit validation of his or her same-sex sexual
relationship (say, at company gatherings where spouses are invited),
then it is easier to be sympathetic to a non-discrimination policy. But
if one has in mind the opposite of this—high-profile, abrasive,
determined to change the entire company ethos to cater to his or her
immorality—then the whole matter becomes more problematic.
In the end, federal
employment "non-discrimination" acts with "sexual orientation" clauses
will do far more harm than any potential good. The corporate world, like
individuals generally, currently participate in a society that at the
highest levels generally expresses great intolerance for any
anti-homosex message, no matter how caring. I also don't see a great
deal of clear employment discrimination against overtly homosexual
persons occurring in society today. But ENDAs (employment
non-discrimination acts) with sexual orientation clauses will endanger
the rights of everyone who is known in the workplace to have
strong reservations about the affirmation of homosexual unions. They
become, in effect, employment discrimination acts against those who
won't embrace a diversity policy around homosexual behavior.
Shouldn't we try to
avoid that? Shouldn't an employee have the right to lobby against having
GLBT advocacy groups within a corporation? A right not to have "coming
out" celebrations at one's workstation? A right not to be subjected to
"sensitivity training" that pushes the acceptability of homosexual
practice and declares to be bigots those who disagree? A right not
consider "homosexual/bisexual orientation" as an affirmative rights
category in the hiring process? Yet just to cover their tracks and avoid
future sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits corporations will feel
the pressure to implement such affirmative action programs. A close
friend of mine who is a corporate executive has had his career stalled
and even had some veiled threats made regarding continued employment
because he refused to allow same-sex sexual orientation to be an
affirmative action criterion in hiring junior executives. Is this
something you want to see more of in the future? I don't.
3. Housing
discrimination. The issues here are similar. In cases
where there is no problem with active, self-affirming adulterers,
polygamists, or participants in consensual adult incest having housing
(e.g., in public housing or large privately owned apartment complexes),
then there should be no problem in persons participating in
self-affirming homosexual practice having housing. But, again, a
religious institution should be able to deny dormitory accommodations to
students who are known to be engaging in a homosexual relationship (just
as with students who are shacking up in a known fornicating, adulterous,
or incestuous bond). What if a person is renting a room in his or her
own home? Shouldn't that person have some right to deny housing to
persons that the renter can reasonably ascertain will be used by the
tenants to engage in immoral (if legal) sexual practices? To take a more
obvious example: Can you think of any housing situations where it might
be appropriate to "discriminate" against a skinhead Nazi? If so, then
you have a morals test of sorts. Finally, what was said above about the
problems that a sexual orientation law would bring in the area of
employment applies here as well.
A number of the issues
that I am raising hinge on how bad one defines homosexual practice, even
of a committed monogamous sort. If someone thinks it is not a sin, then
that person will have one answer. If someone thinks it is a sin, but no
worse than, say, a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage
(this is, I suspect, where you belong), then that person may have a
different answer. And if someone thinks that a committed homosexual
relationship is akin in severity to a committed incestuous relationship
between a man and his mother or a woman and her brother (this is my
position because I believe it is Scripture's position), then that person
may have a quite different answer about public policy than the previous
two cases mentioned above.
4. Slurs and
name-calling. I think that we are all agreed that name-calling
is wrong. To call a homosexual person a "faggot," for example, is wrong.
But the question here is: Should there be a criminal penalty for doing
so? I don't believe so. Should it be grounds for termination of one's
employment? In many places it already is, which means that many places
do have a morals test in place. They are just selective about which
moral standards count. I certainly think the use of racial epithets in
the workplace is grounds for termination. I'd be surprised if you
thought differently. (But, again, is there something incongruous about
feeling it is right to fire someone who uses a racial slur but not right
to fire someone who is engaged in gross sexual immorality?) Another
complicating factor is that there isn't common agreement about the
parameters of what defines slurs and name-calling against homosexual
persons. I've been accused often of hate speech though I would
vigorously disagree with that characterization. So who's going to draw
the line? Most likely persons who think a comparison of homosexual
practice with adult consensual incest or adultery is hate speech will
draw the line. I guess I would ask you what kind of laws, if any, do you
think should be imposed here? Doesn't this violate free speech
protection in the United States? Won't it eventually lead to prosecution
of those who proclaim that homosexual practice is sin?
A complicating factor
in all this is that, as I have said, sexual orientation is not quite
like race and sex/gender. The latter two are not impulses to immoral
behavior, but homosexual orientation is. So a Christian can't say in
simplistic fashion that whatever protections are given race and gender
must be given to the full range of sexual orientations. Pedosexuality
(pedophilia) is a sexual orientation in the sense that it is a sexual
desire for a certain category of persons, intensely felt, sometimes
exclusively felt, and never a condition that one would ask for if it
were purely a matter of choice. But I don't hear advocates of "sexual
orientation" laws including pedosexuals (pedophiles) in this category—at
least not yet. Why not? Clearly, it is because they know that such laws
convey societal acceptance for the behaviors that arise from the
particular sexual orientation. They exclude pedosexual orientations from
sexual orientation laws because they don't want to validate this
orientation and legally harass persons who oppose the expression of this
orientation. But isn't this tacit acknowledgement of the political and
social effect that sexual orientation laws will have on validating
homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered behavior? I think the answer
here is clear. (Note that my point here is not to equate pedosexuality
with homosexuality in all respects but rather to point out the
inevitable effect that codifying "sexual orientation" in the federal
legal code will have on promoting homosexual practice in society and
eliminating publicly expressed opposition to it.)
I think the bottom-line
on all my remarks above is this:
1) Passage of any
federal law that lifts up "sexual orientation" alongside race and
gender as a specially protected category of persons will ultimately
lead to an official government stance in favor of homosexual behavior
(all the way up to marriage) and against any persons who express
opposition to such behavior as the moral equivalent of racists.
2) Already in many
sectors of society today one is more likely to experience
discrimination and abuse for expressing opposition to homosexual
practice than for engaging in it. This will magnify exponentially with
the passage of each new piece of federal "sexual orientation"
legislation.
3) Most of the
official channels of society are zealous in exposing and rooting out
any perceived oppression of persons who affirm their same-sex
attractions and behavior. The current laws on the book, given this
dominant cultural ethos, are adequate for addressing genuine
oppression of persons who affirm their same-sex attractions and
behaviors.
4) True love does not
work toward reinforcing societal affirmation of behavior that puts the
perpetrator at risk in this life and the next; nor does it work toward
reinforcing societal persecution of persons who lovingly and
truthfully oppose such behavior.
Hope this helps,
Rob
Robert A. J. Gagnon,
Ph.D., is an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary and author of numerous works on Scripture and
homosexuality.