Homosexuality and Civil Rights

A recent letter was sent by the Universal House of Justice to an American Baha'i regarding the issue of homosexuality and civil rights. It was brought to my attention when someone sent me a link to an article about it. They knew of my interest in the subject, had presumably read an earlier piece I had written, and let me know. Whoever that was, thanks. (I'd give you a tip of my hat, but I'm not wearing one.)

As the person who wrote that article said, it seems to be the issue of our generation, and so I find myself, once again, addressing it.

The extract from the letter from the Universal House of Justice is as follows:

...With respect to your question concerning the position Bahá'ís are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, we have been asked to convey the following.


The purpose of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Bahá'ís are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Bahá'í is exhorted to be "an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression", and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.


At the same time, you are no doubt aware of the relevant teachings of the Faith that govern the personal conduct of Bahá'ís. The Bahá'í Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted. The teachings of Bahá'u'lláh on personal morality are binding on Bahá'ís, who strive, as best they can, to live up to the high standards He has established.


In attempting to reconcile what may appear to be conflicting obligations, it is important to understand that the Bahá'í community does not seek to impose its values on others, nor does it pass judgment on others on the basis of its own moral standards. It does not see itself as one among competing social groups and organizations, each vying to establish its particular social agenda. In working for social justice, Bahá'ís must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Bahá'í Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage. Such distinctions are unavoidable when addressing any social issue. For example, Bahá'ís actively work for the establishment of world peace but, in the process, do not engage in partisan political activities directed against particular governments.

Now, what does all this mean, in practical terms? I think a few things.

First, it means that prejudice is prejudice and we need to take a stand against it wherever we see it. That seems to me to be the gist of that second paragraph. We are all created noble and are deserving of respect, no matter our skin-colour, background, or life-style choices. Each and every one of us deserves this. It is, as they say, entirely appropriate for us to arise to "the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated".

The third paragraph, however, reminds us of the laws of the Faith. There are many things that are considered moral and acceptable within the general society that are not permitted within the Faith. But, and here's the catch, these laws are only applicable to Baha'is. We are not supposed to, nor do we have the right to try and impose these laws on anyone else. Furthermore, to judge other people, especially in relation to laws to which they are not bound, would be not only rude, but highly unfair, and even "against the spirit of the Faith". Pretty harsh words, if viewed in a particular context.

Then they remind us of the Baha'i definition of marriage, and that it constitutes a union between a man and a woman. There is no question about that. It's pretty simple. They also tell us pretty simply that sexual relations are only allowed within the context of marriage and that homosexual behaviour is not permitted within the Baha'i Faith. But again, these laws are only binding upon Baha'is, and not a judgement against anyone else. To judge others is not permitted.

In the last paragraph they look at the issues facing our society, especially in regard to the gay marriage issue. They point out the need for looking at the various issues in a proper context. We need to be able to distinguish the moral points from the social points.

It is here that I like to look at a real example. There was an elderly gay couple who had been partners for over 40 years. One of them took ill, and was in palliative care in a hospital. Because they were not considered "married", the man's partner was not allowed in to see him, except during public visiting hours, and he was not allowed to be recognized a "next-of-kin", despite the patient's request. This is, without any question, a violation of rights based on a prejudice. It is in circumstances such as this that we should all feel free, and even eager, to rise to defense.

There should be a legal model in which an individual can choose who they wish to have regarded as "next-of-kin", or who they would like to be able have visit them in hospital, as well as a number of other things. (Of course, this gets tricky in terms of estates when there is no will, but that is another matter altogether. And besides, it really is true that we should all have a will.) (Oh, and it also gets tricky when no one is officially listed as being in that position.)
But now we come to another point: what would we call that legal model.

This is where I am not particularly concerned. Whatever the government decides, I am happy with.

I've been told that it is not as simple as I make it out, but I have to wonder why. In terms of the rights of all people, I am fairly adamant, and will stand up for anyone's rights. As for what we call the model for those rights, I could care less. Personally, I believe that calling it a "marriage" is only confusing, and muddles the issue of the religious institution and the civil model. I am all for calling it a civil union, or something similar. This model should serve as giving people all the rights of a married couple, without confusing it with the religious institution.

One more example. I have two friends who are not legally married, but they are considered common-law. They have decided not to get married because neither of them is religious. There is no point, in their opinion, of having a wedding. When one of them was in hospital, the other was allowed to visit as a family member, even though they were not married. As far as taxes and inheritance laws go, they are still considered as married.

But if they were of the same gender, then this would not be true in many areas. To me, this is not fair, and constitutes a clear prejudice.

We have come so far. And the next step really is not all that big.

Many of these rights used to only extend if the couple was married according to the rites and rituals of the land. Then we recognized that many different religious ceremonies were acceptable. Now we allow people these rights even if they are not married according to any specific faith path. It seems to me that the next step is to allow people to decide who they want to have those rights in relation to themselves, no matter who they choose.