How can gay rights exist without the seperation of church and state? Well...they can't.

A 17th century painting of Mahmud and Ayaz. The love of the Sultan (in red) for his Turkic slave (in green) is part of Islamic legend. Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art

In Hillary Clinton’s recent speech to the United Nations she delivered America’s most comprehensive endorsement of gay rights to date.  ‘No practice or tradition trumps the human rights granted to all’. Indeed, the UN itself passed its first ever resolution recognising the human rights of gay people worldwide by 23 votes to 19 this year. For many years the emphasis in this issue has been placed on the notion of rights. There is a fundamental lack of clarity here.  The term ‘human rights’ is consistently bandied about in popular culture but we must ask ourselves forthrightly what exactly a ‘right’ is and where it comes from. Currently, in many countries ‘rights’ must fit within the parameters of religious doctrine or in the specific case of some Muslim countries, Sharia Law. Therefore the notion of a ‘right’ in one culture may well differ significantly to that in another. Only when the interplay between government policy and religion can be clarified can we begin to see the necessity of a concrete separation of church and state, which has to be the biggest obstacle of all with regard to LGBT tolerance. Gay rights or a lack of gay rights are a direct consequence of this relationship. 

A ‘human right’ is a right that is believed to belong to every person. The whole notion of human rights is something that is constantly evolving to encompass more and more groups. In the early nineteenth century these rights did not extend to those embroiled in slavery. Until the second half of the twentieth century these rights did not extend to black people in many countries. Amnesty International would argue that women’s rights are paltry or non-existent in several Muslim countries (excluding more progressive states such as Turkey of course). For example, stoning still exists as a form of punishment (for women) in cases of adultery in Iran. The countries which endorse the most extensive human rights are the countries which are the most secular. These countries may have religious citizens but their governments create their agenda on a non-religious framework. France has a complete separation of church and state. Many liberals criticize the French model as going too far in the sense that its government is almost trying to neutralise any hint of religiosity by banning the public wearing of the burqa. The British government recognised civil partnerships several years ago while the Church of England dithered on the issue. The Irish government, for so long in thrall to the whip of the Catholic Church, has undergone a seismic shift away from that formerly potent influence. Who would have thought in sixties Ireland that one day divorce would be legalised in this country, let alone civil partnerships! The Catholic influence still manages to sway government policy on abortion however. Ireland is among a very small handful of European countries that has remained steadfast on this issue. 

What we see here is a very clear pattern: the greater the separation of church and state, the greater the extension of human rights. Ireland is a perfect example of this. With the collapse of the Catholic Church’s power in the second half of the twentieth century, we have seen an enormous increase in rights for all people in this country (the right to divorce, the right to be homosexual, the protection of children’s rights). The United States also follows this model. As late as 1952, homosexuality was still listed as a disorder in the American Psychiatric Association. Things began to change with the increase in distance between religiosity and policy and scientific evidence that homosexuality is a healthy interplay of biology and environment and therefore a normal variant of sexuality. 

The major problem is that the countries in which gay rights are at their most negligible are the countries in which there remains an active relationship between church and state. This is very true in the case of several Middle Eastern Islamic countries.  Just as the discrimination of gay people in historic  Europe stemmed from the teachings of the Bible, so the redundancy of rights in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran stem from the teachings of the Qu’ran. In her speech, Hillary Clinton calls on all countries to recognise the rights of gay people. However she also states that our religions ‘are a source of inspiration and compassion toward our fellow human beings’. There is a serious dichotomy at play here. It is not possible to have rights for gay people while also following strictly the teachings of Catholicism or Islam. Both of these religions are very clear on their stance towards homosexuality. While the two religions accept that same sex desires exist naturally, they both severely condemn the carrying out of any homosexual activity. The Qu’ran says "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to". Following from this, countries which derive their laws from the Qu’ran such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauretania, Sudan and Yemen all still carry the death penalty for homosexual activity. Since the 1979 revolution The Boroumand Foundation has recorded 107 executions of citizens for homosexual activity in Iran. Many human rights organisations would put this figure in the thousands.  This policy is in accordance with Sharia law. Therefore how could a country like this possibly even consider giving ‘rights’ to gay people if it remains strictly religious? The absolute vilification of homosexual activity is entrenched in the doctrine which in turn feeds the law. The Bible says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB). However, Christian countries, with the exception of a few such as Uganda, don’t derive their laws (on homosexuality) from scripture any longer of course. Therefore, if we want human rights for gay people we cannot rely on a country whose government policy and laws derive heavily from the teachings of the Qu’ran or the Bible. This is why Hillary Clinton’s focus in her address to the United Nations is misplaced. She and others talk endlessly of rights for homosexuals. Rather the focus should be on encouraging the aforementioned countries’ governments to steadily erode their relationship to religion. Western countries have succeeded in granting human rights to gay people through a progressive attrition of religion’s role in determining their government’s policies and laws. Rights for gay people will never exist in countries such as Iran until they abandon religious dogma. This has successfully been achieved in Europe and look at the fulfilment and happiness it has brought to hundreds of thousands of people across this continent. This could not have been achieved without the bravery and willingness of leaders to abandon Christian teaching on this issue. Rights cannot be tackled until the church/state problem is dealt with. 

The perennial liberal question arises as to how we can support gay rights while being against Islamophobia.  It can be difficult to resolve the inherent conflict between advocating human rights and appearing derogatory towards another cultures belief system (I suppose the quote from Clinton above was her attempt to ingratiate herself with the religious right). Not for a moment am I suggesting that Islam is redundant. What I am suggesting is that there doesn’t need to be a dilemma here. What could be advocated is a system where religious beliefs are respected but government social policy is exempt from the tentacles of dogma. As Gary Younge said in a 2010 Guardian article, ‘Gay rights are human rights...they should be subordinated to no religion’. If Hillary Clinton and the US State Department want to truly progress the liberal agenda and further the rights of gay people then this is the issue they should be tackling, especially in countries such as Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Instead she says ‘it is rare that our religions are in conflict with the protection of human rights’. This could not be further from the truth.