Attempts to legally deny the civil and political rights of homosexuals in this country have been introduced sporadically in recent years. One such initiative, the 1977 Dade County, Florida referendum--which made housing discrimination against homosexuals lawful--gained considerable national attention. Less visible, but with potentially broader impact, are the efforts to limit certain rights of homosexuals through the Family Protection Act (FPA), now pending in Congress.
For some time now, the political forces of the New Right have made "family" an umbrella code word to cover their entire social, economic, and even military agenda. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, conservative organizing on the family issue has come to focus on the FPA, which the Christian Right considers the centerpiece of its political program.
The FPA is not nearly as innocuous as its title might suggest. Like most right-wing rhetoric on the subject, it is designed to appeal to the genuine and justified fears of parents in a time of declining moral standards and increasing fragmentation of families. But the proposed law's primary impact on families would be to legally enforce hierarchical sex-role definitions and to deny support and assistance to many low-income families in crisis situations.
One of the more dangerous provisions of the FPA would prohibit the use of federal education funds for classroom materials that depict male and female social roles in ways that don't reflect "the American way of life as it has been historically understood." This would turn back the clock on many of the attempts that have been made to free the next generation of women and men from oppressive expectations and restrictions on the basis of sex.
Other provisions of the act would undermine funding for the prevention and treatment of spouse and child abuse by making any such programs subject to the approval of state legislatures. The FPA would also deny federal funds to any social service agency, such as a daycare center, that engages in political advocacy on behalf of its clients.
The FPA also includes provisions that would violate the basic civil rights of homosexuals. According to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, the FPA could insure that "no person who was a homosexual...could receive any federal funds under such programs as Social Security, veterans' programs or student assistance." The FPA would also deny government legal help to homosexuals in cases that involve their sexual orientation in any way. This would include housing or employment discrimination suits in states or cities that have outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Although presently the FPA has at best only a slight chance of passing, selected provisions of the bill could be put forward as floor amendments to other bills and thereby become law. The anti-homosexual sections of the FPA are as vulnerable as any to this tactic.
Among Christians can be found a polarization of attitudes toward homosexuality. On the one side is the Christian Right, who would deny civil and political rights to homosexuals and exclude them from the life of the church. Homosexuals are frequently condemned by the Right in the most violent and hate-filled language.
On the other side, the gay church movement believes that homosexual practice is entirely compatible with Christian faith. They view their lifestyle as one to be celebrated and given unqualified affirmation in the church.
In weighing the theological and pastoral issues at stake, we cannot agree with either view. While we do not believe that Scripture condones a homosexual lifestyle, we do believe that homosexuals, like anyone else, deserve full human rights. Civil and political rights must not be conditional upon agreement over sexual morality.
The church has much to repent of for its treatment of homosexuals. But uncritical acceptance of homosexuality is not the way to atone for this sin. We believe that pastoral and theological resolution lies neither in condemning the existence of Christians who are homosexual, nor in simply accepting the verdict of a liberal culture that homosexuality is a lifestyle that should be affirmed and celebrated.
Within the Christian community, any approach to homosexuality must consider with seriousness the biblical teachings and assumptions on sexual morality, the mysterious nature of personal sexual orientation, and the need for great pastoral sensitivity toward those who feel they've never had a choice about their homosexuality. Certainly the subject is much more appropriately worked through in pastoral and confidential contexts than debated on the pages of a magazine.
In the public arena, however, the waters are considerably less murky. The first Christian duty is to love. Love doesn't always mean approval, but it must always include justice. And justice demands that the human rights of homosexuals be guaranteed by law and defended against attacks like those in the Family Protection Act.
Joe Roos was publisher of Sojourners when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!