“The government has a clear task not to enlarge the ability for anyone to
discriminate against homosexuals – the law could easily be made unenforceable
if they do – but we are sure that is the intent of these misguided fanatical
homophobes.”
For more information please contact:
Press Officer
Martin Reynolds
01633 215841
martin.reynolds1@virgin.net
House of Lords Briefing Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 Briefing from the Lesbian and Gay Christian
Movement (LGCM)
General
1. LGCM has around 4,000 members and supporters and can count on the support of
many distinguished theologians and academics. It represents one of several
bodies within the Churches which believe (see its Statement of Conviction) that
“human sexuality in all its richness is a gift of God, gladly to be accepted,
enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in
accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ“; and that “it is
entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of
the same sex, but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual
relationship”. Our members and supporters are of differing orientations, but
all subscribe to this conviction.
2. The Northern Ireland Regulations are a vital step towards protecting the
private lives of many gay and lesbian people in the Province, and establishing
their equality within society. Too often they now suffer prejudice and
homophobia, “justified” by what others see as religious dogma in this area. The
Regulations foreshadow legislation designed to attack similar social problems
in the rest of the United Kingdom and therefore it is vital that they be
resoundingly endorsed and the Parliamentary challenges to them rejected.
3. Despite the clamour from some Christian circles, we believe that the
Regulations will not damage the Gospel and its preaching, but will instead
create a public environment of non-judgmental inclusion and reflection, where
Christ’s call can be heard among those too long condemned by the “unco’ guid”.
This, we maintain, was at the heart of our Lord’s own ministry, life and
sacrifice.
Criticisms and their response
4. Several religious groupings have made inaccurate - even distressing - claims
about the intention and effect of the laws. In doing so they have ignored the
rights and protections being given to other groups, especially on grounds of
religion or belief, and the limits upon discrimination in those areas.
These rights will be complemented, not overridden, by the new laws.
5. For instance it has been claimed that “Christian businesses”, including B
and Bs, should receive exemptions on grounds of conscience. But such exemptions
are not allowed in the laws on religious discrimination. If B
and B owners, or “Christian garages”, cannot discriminate against Satanists,
Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, why should they be allowed to do so on grounds
of (apparent or actual) sexual orientation?
6. Secondly, it has been claimed that churches will be put at risk of legal
pursuit if they express their condemnation of same-sex activity as “morally
wrong”. But Regulation 16 gives a wide ‘doctrinal exemption’ for churches and
other religious organisations to discriminate in membership, “activities by the
organisation, or on its behalf or under its auspices”, as well as over the use
of their premises. [ The only exception is for primarily
commercial activities.] Churches will not therefore be obliged to bless civil
partnerships, nor be subject to legal action for preaching a hell-fire
doctrine. However, this exemption will allow them to ban the
children of same-sex families from all church activities, and to refuse any
recognition to even a surviving civil partner at a funeral or memorial service
7. Thirdly, it has been claimed that “faith schools” will not be able to
inculcate their own (anti-homosexual) “ethos”, and
will have to “promote” homosexual behaviour as equal to
(Christian) marriage. But there will be no bar to school authorities
deciding the content of their religious education, or shaping the syllabus on
personal/sexual education, subject to the continued right of parents to
withdraw their children. However, it will be necessary, and right, to
explain that the law regards civil partnerships, for example, as legally
parallel to marriage, and why, and the general obligation on all education
authorities to work against discrimination [Reg. 11] will govern this area.
If schools were not bound, they could penalise already vulnerable youngsters
not just by rejection or expulsion but by discrimination such as refusing to
allow them to take part in sports etc. The huge problem of homophobic
bullying would in effect be expressly legitimised.
8. Last, it is claimed that religious charities would be forced to act
against their principles or disband. But such charities will be able to
go on discriminating in pursuit of their charitable instruments [Reg. 26].
This is parallel to the similar provision in the law banning religious
discrimination. Charities using public money to deliver health or
other social services will rightly be bound by the general rule in that use.
One lobbying group has claimed that old people’s homes run by religious
charities should be able to deny accommodation to an elderly same-sex couple
(even civil partners). This assertion has only to be stated to demonstrate its
outrageous lack of all Christian charity.
Richard Kirker
Chief Executive
Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement [LGCM]
Oxford House, Derbyshire Street, London, E2 6HG
Office Tel & Fax 020 7739 1249
www.lgcm.org.uk
lgcm@lgcm.org.uk
Registered
Charity No 1048842.