Religion and Politics

As Barack Obama makes history by becoming America’s first African-American president, the election took other more conservative turns. Same-sex marriage bans were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. Arkansas also passed a measure that would bar homosexual couples from adopting children. (South Dakota did however reject an abortion ban for the second time in two years, 55 to 45.) It was precisely the black and Hispanic voters coming out to vote for Obama, who supported the bans on same-sex marriage. More specifically, the New York Times has reported that 70% of black voters in California supported the ban. California has been marrying couples since June. Now, the marriages will stop, but couples and the city of San Francisco (as well as other cities) have filed lawsuits to challenge the bans (particularly the famous Proposition 8). One of the legal questions is the status of marriages, which have been conducted since June. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that “sponsors of Proposition 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages” but 18,000 couples have been married there already since the June 16 California Court ruling. An interesting question is whether Proposition 8 is an ‘amendment’ or a complete revision of the Constitution and its basic provisions. Bob Egelko wrote for the Chronicle, therefore, that “the plaintiffs argued that the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority – gays and lesbians – while stripping judges of their power to protect that group.” In a very expensive election year, it has also been reported that over 73 million was spent on building support for the ban. In fact, the support for the ban has been reported to be based on “deep religious feelings” particularly among ethnic minorities. It was remarkable to see that Proposition 8 had significantly more support than John McCain. In any case, election day turned out to be a victory for both conservatives and liberals. Those people caught in the middle – African-American gay couples (for example) probably don’t know quite what to think about the country’s direction. In sum, thirty states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Europride 2008 took place from July 25 to August 3 in Stockholm, Sweden. This past week, EUObserver.com published an article titled, “Anti-gay Bigotry Spans European Cultures,” which looked at the contrast between gay-friendly societies and governments in Europe and the “frequent reports of violent, homophobic attacks” that nevertheless still take place. The article points out that Europride 2008 was “marked by the attempted murder of a homosexual couple strolling peacefully in a quiet Stockholm street on the night of 28 July.” The reason for this blog is that the article also looks at the situation of homosexuality from the perspective of morality and religion. For example, the Turkish court decision last year to close down an Istanbul LGBT-rights group was based on arguments of morality (and law?) – although not necessary religion or the role of religion in the state. This trend of separating religion from morality has serious consequences for countries, which opt for secular government but do not necessarily restrict specific branches of government, which may disguise their religious verdicts with judgments about morality and what is “best” for society. The article further looks at the issue of gay rights from the perspective of human rights but notes that civil servants and politicians may not actually decide what rights specifically constitute human rights. In fact, and just as the article points out, religious feelings often “discourage frank debate.” A recently proposed EU directive would “put discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation on an equal footing with race, gender, and disability.”  The key difference between these forms of discrimination is the ease with which religion and religious sentiments can be used as justification for acts of individuals, decisions of courts, or government directives. To state an obvious example, it is hardly possible to use religious orthodoxy as a justification for racial discrimination.