Religious protest over gay rights
The House of Lords have voted for the backing of new government regulations making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in relation to the provision of goods or services. The vote, which took place at 7.30pm on 9 January, occurred against a backdrop of Christian, Muslim and Jewish protesters outside parliament demonstrating against these new laws. Despite vocal opposition from several religious groups, peers supported the introduction of these laws by 199 to 68. The government plans to introduce these regulations across England, Scotland and Wales in April, having already come into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January.
A wide range of churches and other religious groups have strongly criticised the sexual orientation regulations, saying that they will undermine freedom of religion and conscience and could have a serious impact on faith schools, charities and adoption agencies.
One of the most contentious areas of the sexual orientation regulations is that of accommodation, whereby owners of larger guest-houses, hotels or boarding houses can now be sued if they refuse to allow a gay couple to rent a room with a double bed for the reason that this may cause offence to the hotel’s other guests. Consequently, many Christians feel they will be at risk of legal action in the event that Christian guest-house owners refuse to allow same-sex couples to share a bedroom. Thomas Cordrey, a barrister with the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, said, “Christians must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong”.
One argument that has been propagated is that these regulations will affect the individual who wants to practise his faith in his daily life, and that this new regime would mean that a choice would have to be made between God and state, penalising someone who had moral objections to homosexuality. However, Lord Smith, former Labour culture secretary, defended the new legislation, stating that: “People have the right to believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong, but I do not believe they have the right to put their beliefs into action.”
A petition, which has been signed by 10,000 Christians, will be handed to the Queen, aiming to persuade her to use her “position and power” to stop the Government. A judicial review has been granted for March after claims from many Christian groups that these regulations interfere with their right to act according to their own beliefs and moral philosophy. A spokesperson from the York University Christian Union said that the YUCU were unable to comment but stated that “all people are welcome [to the YUCU meetings] regardless of their sexual orientation”.
The Trade Union Congress has urged the Government to stand firm and resist demands made by religious groups to tone down the regulations. Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary said, “No one should be denied a room in a hotel or the right to adopt simply because of their sexual orientation, but this is what some religious leaders believe should happen and they are pressurising the Government to continue to allow lesbians and gay men to be treated as second-class citizens.”
Goodricke College LGBT representative Malcolm Connolly said: “I was nearly refused entry into a swimming pool when I went with my boyfriend, on the basis that there were public showers. We were only granted access as a concession after talking to the manager”. Rose Rickford, the SU LGBT Officer, stated that members of LGBT are only “demanding equal rights”, thus “refusing services on the basis of sexuality is no different from refusal on the basis of race”. She has welcomed these regulations, saying that they are an important step forward for the rights of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community. Nevertheless, the National Secular Society, which supports the measures, admits that “the real battle” would be the implementation of the legislation. Stonewall, a gay rights group, has been blamed by religious groups for creating a false picture by citing unlikely examples. The campaign, which has been strongly supported by the Daily Mail, has stirred up a degree of homophobia which this gay rights group is appalled at. The change in the law is a recognition of equality,in the same way as racial, sexual or religious discrimination has been condemned.
3 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Related Posts
Popular This Week
Polls
Loading ...
Marriage, a religious institution?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace, by a ship captain and the most beautiful and holy place I can imagine to pledge their vows of love and fidelity and the promise to be there through thick and thin, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car and the best man and woman are readily available for one of the most holy of events in ones life; holy matrimony. Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look to awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual white Anglo-Saxon citizens. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that it slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our countries history we should then know that whenever we veer off from what the beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution says, it is eventually changed for reasons of being unfair. Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not to be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
Why do religious groups focus on homosexuality as a sin. Plenty of other passage from the bible are ignored. See http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/drlaura/bl_drlaura009.htm for examples
If anybody is interested, the Dean of York will be speaking to the New Generation Society on Thursday 8th February, 7.30-8.30pm. He will be addressing the topic “The role of religion in public life for the 21st Century”.
Numbers are limited, but non-members are welcome so please contact info@n-g-s.org.uk to reserve a ticket.