Dr. Asangba Tzüdir
The Supreme Court earlier this year in July had reserved its verdict after hearing a number of petitions challenging Section 377 of the IPC which states that, “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Back in 2009, considered as a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court described Section 377 as a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. Following this, religious groups moved the Supreme Court for a direction against the verdict. The Supreme Court in 2013 overruled the Delhi High Court’s order and reinforced criminalisation of homosexuality. This judgment was highly criticised by the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) community in India and it was seen as a setback for human rights.
In January 2018, the Supreme Court said, a larger group of judges would re-consider the previous judgment and examine the constitutional validity of Section 377. Looking back at their 2013 verdict, the Supreme Court added that it will decide on a curative petition by five persons. Justice Dipak Misra had made a further observation that the earlier decision required reconsideration because of the constitutional issues involved and thus appropriate to send it to a larger group. The top court had then said, “the section of people who exercise their choice should not remain in a state of fear,” and this gave hope to thousands of homosexual couples in love in the country along with millions of their supporters. But a five-judge bench in July this year reserved its verdict. But finally, as reported in The Hindu, Sept. 6, 2018, the Supreme Court said that Section 377 will not apply to consensual same-sex acts and added that part of IPC’s Section 377 as irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary. And following which, the apex court decriminalised homosexuality by partially striking down the provisions of Section 377 stating that the section would not apply to same-sex acts between homosexuals, heterosexuals, lesbians and other sexual minorities but would apply to bestiality and sexual acts without consent by one of them.
In our own Christian dominated den, following the decriminalisation verdict, the Chakhesang Baptist Church Council (CBCC) took the first stand in saying that “homosexual acts/behaviour between consenting adults is morally unacceptable because it violates the aim of human sexuality which is the procreation and the union of love, which is accomplished in the union between men and women in marriage,” and therefore, “Legality not equal to moral acceptability.” CBCC made it very clear that the Church “will continue to uphold the Biblical teachings that recognise, promote and protect marriage between men and women as the basis of the family and the primary cell of society” adding that “homosexual practices are incompatible with obedience to the will of God as are all other sinful practices.” However, it stands by God’s teaching that He loves the sinner but not the sin and that “it will continue to witness the love of Christ to all people regardless of different sexual orientations with utmost understanding, compassion, sensitivity and dignity.”
It may come as a surprise to many to see that there are only a few passages in the Bible that talks about homosexuality as can be seen in the Book of Leviticus 18 and 20; Romans 1: 18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10. A careful understanding of what these passages intends to say is desired so that the ‘will of God’ is not misinterpreted. What can be summed up from these passages is that – homosexual desire is not what God intended and which is a serious sin; and such relationships and ‘wrong’ desires only shows deviance from God. From the Biblical and Christian point of view, these Biblical texts should not be read or interpreted in the light of ‘prohibitions’ and doing so will have implications on the larger Biblical understanding of ‘love’ and ‘sin.’
The decriminalisation was finally made based on ‘human rights violations,’ even as the Bible offers a different perspective. Considering the Biblical perspectives, the CBCC may be right in saying that “legality not equal to moral acceptability” within the domain of ‘sin, wrong and prohibitions’ but there’s much more to it than just the issue of legality not amounting to moral acceptance. Though CBCC concludes that, “it will continue to witness the love of Christ to all people regardless of different sexual orientations with utmost understanding, compassion, sensitivity and dignity,” looking at this issue, more often, the Church is also caught in a dilemma between ‘sin, prohibitions, restrictions’ and God’s all embracing Love for sinners and not the sin.
In this strain, the Church may be against the decriminalisation, and is not in a position to openly play an imposing role, but it should continue to ‘embrace’ all based on love, yet, without negating or accepting the idea or an act of ‘sin’ or ‘wrongdoing.’ The Church has and should continue to prayerfully and lovingly educate by way of giving proper Biblical orientation.
(Dr. Asangba Tzudir is a Freelance Editing and Research Consultant. He contributes a weekly guest editorial to The Morung Express. Comments can be mailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
