Russia Considers Anti-gay Laws

Putin and the Ghost of Alexander I

    The Anglican Archbishop of York (the English church’s second-in-command, third if you count the Queen), made recent headlines attending investiture of Uganda’s newest anti-gay bishop (one wonders when such things became a priority?).  In the United States, American Evangelicals and Roman Catholics tire of being compared to the Klan and to Uganda, while Uganda continues to publicly thank them for their essential financial support.  Now Putin has come out against the gays as well, but he might just be playing an old Russian game.

    The Russian DUMA is considering legislation to counter the so-called gay agenda (sound familiar?)… that would impose fines of $16,000 for organizing public pro-gay events or disseminating information on the LGBTQ identity and lifestyle to children.

    Putin is an intelligent and a capable politician.  I am often comforted that he is in control, but the game he has been playing of late is merely a rerun that Russia has seen before.  Spymaster turned democrat, turned nationalist, Putin’s latest persona is hauntingly reminiscent of Alexander I, Tsar of Russia, Modernist Reformer, mentee-turned-foe of Napoleon, and finally, God’s ordained defender of Christendom and tradition, turned repressor of civil rights. 

    The 19^th Century Russian Empire struggled with change to adapt to Modern social, economic and faith trends infiltrating from the West (especially republican France).  Alexander’s reign encompassed periods of intense nationalism, religious conservatism and the repression of freedom and civil rights.  Perhaps Putin is being tempted to emulate Alexander I in attempting to co-opt the Russian church and “tradition” in a struggle to overcome and supplant the indigenous spirituality, economy and culture of a great and modernizing people. 

    Alexander I stylized himself the restorer of the Christian church and champion of Christian values (including the divine right of kings) against the forces of liberalism and republicanism as represented by progressive France.  He led a conservative coalition of oft bemused emperors seeking to suppress freedom and civil rights in all of Europe – the so-called Holy Alliance (1815-1848).  Wikipedia sums up the coalition’s intent “… to instill the divine right of kings and Christian values in European political life … promis[ing] to act on the basis of ‘justice, love and peace’ … in order to ‘perpetuate the [traditional] mundane institutions and adjust their imperfection.’”

    The London Guardian indicates much the same language and tone in current opposition against Russia’s gays, “[the anti-gay legislation] has been hailed by public figures and Russia’s dominant Orthodox church.  It is widely seen as part of an official drive to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to western liberalism, which the Kremlin and church see as corrupting youth and by extension contributing to a wave of protest against Putin’s rule.”

Roe v. Wade and Gay Rights

Courtesy Wake Forest School of Law

Roe v. Wade and Gay Rights

Why it matters!

     22 January, 2013 marks the 40^th Anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision in the USA recognizing a woman’s right to an abortion and an American’s Right to Privacy – a cornerstone of LGBTQ rights in the United States.  Is this anniversary important for the LGBT community?  You bet!

    I would guess that many queer men and women would state that abortion rights matter primarily because we understand how difficult it is to live under the “conservative religious patriarchy” or with our rejection for having failed to live up to often unrealistic, even hypocritical religious expectations, ethics and realities.

      While we do not necessarily understand the complications of hetero-pregnancy, we do understand hurt, suffering, potential rejection, blame, fear and all of the other complex feelings and situational complications surrounding sexuality, difficult personal decisions, and the need to take responsibility for ones’ own life and move beyond the consequences.  While we have opinions, we have traditionally hesitated to express moral judgment.  We tend to be accepting, come what may.

    However, Roe v Wade did more than recognize abortion rights, RvW recognized the individual’s right to privacy and the implied right to private fulfillment regardless of the dominant public morality.  The Economist quotes the court’s decision as follows:  "the penumbras of the Bill of Rights" enshrine "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy". It found that this right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" (Full Court Press, 22 Jan 2013).

    Without this right to privacy, there would be no Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.  Lawrence is the monumental court case that legalized sodomy or the right to private fulfillment free from outside interference.  Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, “"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." 

    In his landmark court decision declaring California’s Prop 8 anti-same-sex marriage amendment unconstitutional, Justice Vaughn R. Walker indirectly references RvW and directly refers to Lawrence and an individual’s right to privacy, “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse (Lawrence) … The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship.”

Focus on James Dobson

    One of our contributors, Jacob Reitan, recently was arrested while attending a protest against intolerance at the Colorado headquarters of Focus on the Family (FOTF).

    Personally, having been raised in the Evangelical tradition, I have long held Dr. James Dobson, the founder of FOTF, in high regard.

    In 1977, suspicious of both reason and science, many Evangelicals had lost the ability to incorporate the modern world and its new behavioral sciences into viable Bible-centered lifestyles, and needed Dobson's then - "new" focus to assist them.

     Dobson was effective in bringing sound child-development theories and mental-health issues to the attention of the Evangelical churches, an din providing essential family-counseling resources to church libraries and pastoral staffs.

    As Evangelicals, we sorely needed someone like Dobson to promote rational discussions within our congregations regarding emotions, sexuality, mental illness, and child development.

    A radical shift occurred in Dobson's ministry in 1982, however, when President Ronald Reagan appointed him to a special commission on pornography.

    To some observers, Dobson began to lose focus on his initial ministerial aims, spending an increasing amount of on-air time discussing politics, a trend that only worsened during the great abortion wars of the late '80s.

    By 2005, "Focus on the Family" more readily could have been called "Focus on Washington."

    Instead of teaching Christians how to incorporate up-to-date psychological and counseling principles into their spiritual and family lives, Dobson now seemed intent upon injecting his personal spiritual view into their politics.

    Where once we might have looked to him for help in understanding what it means to be a queer Christian or to have a gay child, he now simply informed us that gays do not fit his political agenda.

    Dobson gave up his former professionally objective position, and assumed a personal political stance.

    It is important to realize today, as we deal with FOTF as a political force, that Dobson still retains credibility with moderate Evangelicals because of that sorely needed assistance he once gave to them in their personal lives.

    The only way for Americans of every stripe to survive to present culture wars is for all sides to agree reasonably to disagree, and to honor that old American ideal:  freedom of (and from) personal religion.

    With this in mind, Dobson's ministry could become effective again by refocusing, this time away from politics, with a return to his original calling and vision.


originally published 13-26 May, 2005
Lavender Magazine, v 11, no 260
Minneapolis, Minnesota