Reasonable Religion? Religious Homophobia Causes Real Harm
In one case, a man who lived with his partner for 25 years had to fight his partner's parents for something as simple as visitation rights:
In 2005 [Patrick] Atkins collapsed while on a business trip to Atlanta. He had a ruptured aneurysm and later suffered a stroke while hospitalized. When [Brett] Conrad arrived in Atlanta Atkins' family directed the hospital to refuse him access to the ailing 47-year old, the Indianapolis Star reports. He was allowed by sympathetic hospital staff to sneak in after hours and after Atkins parents had left.
When Atkins was moved to a nursing home Conrad again was forced to sneak in to see the man with whom he had spend more than half his life. Later that year Conrad filed for guardianship of Atkins. But the now severely disabled man's parents quickly moved their son to their home and have refused to allow Conrad access to him.
For the past two years Conrad has been battling the Atkins family in court. Legal documents obtained by the Star show that Atkins' mother, Jeanne Atkins, believes homosexuality is a sin and refuses to acknowledge the men's relationship.
In June the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Conrad must have visitation rights. "Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners - longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents - and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle," the ruling said.
Source: 365Gay
The parents continue to make all decisions about Atkins' medical care and they are appealing this court ruling. Problems like this simply wouldn't occur — or they would be far less common — if gays were allowed to marry. Proposals for a "separate but equal" status of "civil unions" aren't enough; to combat the negative effects of religious bigotry it's necessary for gay couples to have the exact same legal and social status as heterosexual couples. No one should be permitted to split up and harm a gay couple like the parents above simply because they believe ancient, bigoted superstitions.
In another case, a church is denying a memorial service to a Navy veteran because the man was gay and his partner wanted to attend:
Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service but no one hinted of problems while planning it, said his sister, Kathleen Wright.
"But when the obituary came out in the paper and listed his life partner as one of the survivors, I truly believe the big-pocket parishioners called the church and said, 'Why are you having a funeral for a gay person?'" Wright said Friday. "It's a slap in the face. It's like, `Oh, we're sorry he died, but he's gay so we can't help you.'" ...
Wright said a minister knew that Sinclair was gay because when he went to the hospital the night her brother died, she introduced him to Sinclair's partner. ...The service at Moore Funeral Home turned out to be a celebration of Sinclair's life, although the church's cancellation lingered in some minds, Seelig said. "That's where they are misguided," Seelig said. "They preach love, but they don't act it out."
Source: Houston Chronicle
I'm sure that this church does act out the love they preach in a wide variety of circumstances. What needs to be recognized here, however, is that the love they preach is less important than their hostility towards homosexuality. Gays who do not repent are so awful that they cannot be accorded the same decency, respect, and love as other human beings. In some places, like the country of Georgia, they aren't even always accorded the right to live:
“Violence is an everyday thing if a person is an outright homosexual,” one told me. “The response from family members when someone comes out as gay is usually negative, including being kicked out of the house, being locked up in a room or being taken to psychiatrists. It’s only a community of maybe 150 to 200 people who are ‘out,’ but it’s not stable. There is no regular place for homosexuals. If a place becomes known to be gay-friendly, homophobic people come in and try to stop it.”
Afterward, I went out onto the street to ask people what they thought about this new organization for Georgian homosexuals. Surprisingly, most of the women I spoke to thought it was wonderful, although I quickly realized that they had no idea what I was talking about. “It’s good there is an organization that will enable them to get help,” said one middle-aged shopper. “Maybe they can be cured of this sickness.”
The men were somewhat less forgiving. “It goes against God’s law,” went one response. “I think it would be better if they were dead.”
Source: The St. Petersburg Times
Anti-gay Christians in America aren't likely to say such things, but how often is it because they sincerely don't believe it and how often is it because such statements just can't be made publicly without severe censure? Hopefully the numbers aren't large, but it's hard not to be worried that there are far too many people like that out there in America. It hasn't been that long, after all, since open, public homosexuality has been very acceptable almost anywhere in America, much less television and the movies.
Once again, this is why full legal equality is necessary — including in marriage. Churches and religious institutions can have a tremendous amount of power over people's lives and they have a right to preach, encourage, and endorse hateful discrimination. Only the government has sufficient power to counter this and guarantee people some measure of equality and decency in their lives. In particular, it requires a staunchly secular government to be able to create secular, neutral spaces where religion-based bigotry has no official status and little power.
The government cannot and should not hover over their every move, of course, but the government can establish certain minimum standards by not adopting the bigotry of so many religious believers. Treating gays as fully equal sends the message that gays are not inferior and that homosexuality is not a legitimate basis for hate, bigotry, or discrimination. People would be free to ignore this message in their private and religious lives, obviously, but the legal and social consequences to others would be sharply limited. That is precisely what government should be doing.
Efforts by Christian Nationalists to undermine secularism in America are, in part, an effort to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It's easier for a fully secular government to refuse to adopt the bigoted doctrines of a religious sect as a basis for public policy. Secular government can readily pursue policies based on secular, rational, and empirical evidence about what is good for the people. The more religious a government is, however, the harder it is to ensure people's freedom from religious doctrines — bigoted or otherwise.


If a preacher is preaching homophobia from the pulpit and a member of the congregation takes him too seriously and goes and injures or kills a gay person, should the preacher share any responsibility regarding hate speech laws?
Absolutely cases like this are a huge reason gays should be able to marry. There are documents that would allow someone power in medical situations (nonfamily members)–I wonder if they had anything like that?
I agree with the compassionate judge. And my heart goes out to the partner who has to deal with these people. It’s fine if they don’t respect their son’s lifestyle; but they should acknowledge it’s _his_ lifestyle and not theirs. What control freaks to want to dictate something like that. I can’t image alienating my child’s partner–even if I personally despited him/her–from seeing my child incapacitated or dying (or attending a memorial service, etc.). This is the person they chose–I don’t have to respect the choice–but I have to respect that it was THEIR choice to make and not mine.
I understand the family’s view; but this is not the time to flex your control-freak muscles. In fact, it’s never the time to do that. They can condemn the relationship and still recognize it’s not their job to police their son’s choices just because they think they can. According to their religion, he’s got a one-way ticket to Hell whether his partner visits or not. And it’s not like they’re going to have conjugal visits–so she’s not advocating or promoting gay-ness. And I’m sure her all-knowing god will be able to see into her heart and recognize she still hates gays enough to make it into Heaven, even if she doesn’t try to stop this man from visiting his dying life partner.
Austin, great article. You have been on a roll lately. Keep it up.
I’ve been coming to a conclusion recently that battling homophobia is one of the most vital parts of the promotion of humanism and drive for reason. I think more and more reasonable straight people are coming to this conclusion.
Three of the most powerful symbols for me: the rainbow, the null, and the UN flag–symbolizing respectively tolerance, reason and world peace. Long may they wave!
Disagreeing with a particular point of view is not homophobia. This in an example of the ‘tunnelthink’ that exists within the gay community.
Who says that disagreeing with a particular point of view constitutes homophobia, Dave? I think that the family’s actions are what’s being pointed to as homophobia.
That is true.
It is also irrelevant because the incidents described above are not mere “disagreement with a particular point of view.”
People need to learn how protection rackets work. They are quite simply, scare them, save them, and rape them.
Homophobia, commie phobia, atheist phobia, food phobia, and all the rest are ways for crooks to con people out of their power or money. What we really need is a protection racket phobia.