What is a True Baha’i Marriage?

A Baha’i wrote that same-sex marriage is never possible because of the following quotation by Abdu’l-Baha: “The marriage of the Baha’is means that both man and woman must become spiritually and physically united, so that they may have eternal unity throughout all the divine worlds and improve the spiritual life of each other. This is Baha’i matrimony.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v2, p. 326)

This Baha’i had interpreted the phrase “both man and woman” as meaning ‘only’ a man and woman is ‘possible’ whereas I read the sentence meaning that Baha’i marriage is based on equality between the partners to “improve the spiritual life of each other.” I read this as meaning ‘any man and any woman’ rather than inserting into this the idea that this is only possible between a man and a woman. It might seem to be a nuance to some but to me it is important not to insert ideas into what Abdul-Baha wrote because this is Baha’i Scripture.

In looking for more context I came across two other English translations of the same text – Selections from the Writings of Abdul-Baha, (1978, page 118 (section 86) ) used “husband and wife” and Baha’i World Faith (1976, p. 372) used “the two parties,” so then I went looking for the original.

The Baha’i World Faith translation seems closest to the original (see the image below) where the areas marked in light blue translate (jehatyn, tarafayn) as two sides or two parties.

An excerpt in Muntakhabát Makátib-i-Hadrat (Selections from the Writings of) from Abdul-Baha on definitions of a Bahai Marriage.
Click to view this in new window for a larger view.
The Persian original is here: bahai.org/fa/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha

“Bahá’í marriage is union and cordial affection between the two parties.
They must, however, exercise the utmost care and become acquainted with each other’s character.
This eternal bond should be made secure by a firm covenant, and the intention should be to foster harmony, fellowship and unity and to attain everlasting life. . . . In a true Bahá’í marriage the two parties must become fully united both spiritually and physically, so that they may attain eternal
union throughout all the worlds of God, and improve the spiritual life of each other. This is Bahá’í matrimony.” (Baha’i World Faith, 1976, page 372)

If Abdul-Baha had written “both man and woman must become spiritually and physically united,” to me the text refers to marriage partners because there is nothing explicit to exclude who can be married to whom. And it fits with the Baha’i principles of equality and justice, and because the focus of the text was on stressing that marriage is for helping partners support each other. If Abdul-Baha had intended to reduce the scope of marriage to just being between one man and one woman then the text would have stated this explicitly.

I have a second reason for not interpreting ‘Abdul-Baha’s text here as excluding the possibility of same-sex marriage and that is because, during Abdul-Baha’s own life-time, there would have been Baha’is with more than one spouse because of the culture of the times. And Baha’u’llah had three wives, and so I couldn’t imagine that Abdul-Baha would have defined Baha’i marriage in a prescriptive way because—even within his own lifetime—marriage progressed as a partnership of increasing equality as more women were allowed more opportunities.

However, the Universal House of Justice, the head of the Baha’i community, has written: “It is clear from the Bahá’í laws and principles concerning marriage and sexual conduct that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and therefore it is not possible to recognize a same-sex union within the Bahá’í community.” Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated June 5, 2018, to an individual

And there is an earlier statement: “You are, of course, well aware of the explicit Bahá’í standard. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and sexual relations are only permissible between husband and wife. These points are laid down in the writings of Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi and are not subject to change by the Universal House of Justice.” 
(Secretariat of the Universal House of Justice, letter dated 9 May 2014 https://bahai-library.com/uhj_attitude_changes_homosexuality)

The Universal House of Justice makes policy for the Baha’i community and their current policy is that a Baha’i same-sex marriage is not possible.
However is it explicit in the writings of the Bab. Baha’u’llah or Abdul-Baha that same-sex marriage is not possible? I omit the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi here because they are not part of unchangeable Baha’i Scripture. These letters have a lesser authority than anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself and the advice in some of these letters, such as the instruction not to practice any form of birth control, is not part of Baha’i policy today.

The 2014 statement refers to “the explicit Bahá’í standard. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman … ” but they do not state that this is explicitly written, just that these points are laid out. I realise for most readers this means the same thing but there’s a shade of difference. It is important because Abdu’l-Baha in the Tablet on religious law and the House of Justice, explicitly states that the laws concerning marriage are up to the Houses of Justice to determine because these fall within cultural laws. Here is why I do not think any of Abdul-Baha’s writings would explicitly exclude same-sex marriage:

“You have asked concerning the wisdom of referring some important laws to the House of Justice. . . . the broader issues that are the foundation of the religious law are explicitly stated, but subsidiary matters are left to the House of Justice.

The wisdom of this is that time does not stand still: change and transformation are essential attributes and necessities of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice implements decisions accordingly. . . . The Supreme House of Justice will issue rulings and laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is under the guardianship, protection and care of the Ancient Beauty. Whatever it may decide must be obeyed, as a God-given duty, indisputable, incumbent, and imperative for everybody. There is no recourse from it, for anyone. . . .

Briefly, this is the purpose and wisdom of referring ‘cultural laws’ to the House of Justice. Similarly, in Islamic religious law, not every ordinance was explicitly revealed; not even a thousandth part. Although all important questions were mentioned, undoubtedly half a million laws were never mentioned. Later the divines drew their conclusions on the basis of fundamental principles, with individual divines drawing conflicting conclusions from the original religious law, and these were enforced. . . .

As for the matter of marriage, this falls entirely within the ‘cultural laws.’ Nevertheless, its preconditions are found in the Law of God, and its fundamentals are evident. However those unions between relatives that are not explicitly treated, are referred to the House of Justice, which will give a ruling based on the culture, medical requirements, wisdom, and the capacity of human nature. . . .

In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes in this respect, is the decisive decree, it is God’s sharp sword. No one may transgress that limit. . . . whenever a difficulty may arise in relation to the local context of an issue, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice can issue a new national ruling on the national case and instance, in the light of local contingencies. ‘Consultation with all, wards off danger.’ This is because the House of Justice is entitled to abrogate what it itself has decided. . . . In brief, the foundation of this most great dispensation has been designed in such a way that its laws can remain appropriate to and consonant with all ages and eras, unlike the bygone religious laws, whose implementation is unattainable and impossible today. . . .”

(Tablet on religious law and the House of Justice by Abdu’l-Baha. Translation by Sen McGlinn. The whole tablet is here and at the end are references to the sources and other translations.)

As I see it Abdul-Baha makes it explicit that the rules of marriage fall under the authority of the Houses of Justice to determine because these will be laws that change as culture changes. As Baha’is, we have to obey the current ruling of the Universal House of Justice which states that same-sex marriage is not possible.
What can we do? And what does this mean in relation to the Writings of Abdul-Baha? I see this as a policy made by the Universal House based on their understanding that they do not see same-sex marriage as being possible. A future Universal House of Justice could come to another ruling if there is nothing in Baha’i Scripture that explicitly makes same-sex marriage impossible.

While Abdul-Baha wrote: “As for the matter of marriage, this falls entirely within the ‘cultural laws.’ Nevertheless, its preconditions are found in the Law of God, and its fundamentals are evident,” this cannot mean that marriage as it existed in ‘Abdul-Baha’s day is unchangeable, because polygamy was common. I think the “preconditions” are that marriage is for companionship and support and love and for the possibility of raising children.

The Universal House of Justice is free to make law and policy without any restriction and so if they state “it is in the Writings” and it isn’t, their authority is just as valid. But, and this is the thing for me, their policies may not be added to the book—meaning that their policies cannot determine what is in the Baha’i Writings. So even if the Universal House of Justice states that their policy of not allowing same-sex marriage is something they can’t change, another Universal House of Justice is free to come to another understanding.

If there was anything explicit in the Baha’i Writings defining marriage as not being possible for a same-sex couple, it would have been shown by now. That the Universal House of Justice states that same-sex marriage is not possible is, in my view, problematic because this excludes a class of individuals and families from the Baha’i community. To me, that goes against the Baha’i principles of equality, justice, and the oneness of humanity, and it means that I can only make my LGBTQ friends feel respected and welcome in my heart and home.

One day, I hope, it will be possible for me to say I am a Baha’i without having to add, “and I stand for equality for our LGBTQ friends,” because there’s nothing that I have found in the Baha’i writings in support of discrimination.

The current policy of the Universal House of Justice is: “If persons involved in homosexual relationships express an interest in the Faith, they should not be instructed by Bahá’í institutions to separate so that they may enroll in the Bahá’í community, for this action by any institution may conflict with civil law. The Bahá’í position should be patiently explained to such persons, who should also be given to understand that although in their hearts they may accept Bahá’u’lláh, they cannot join the Bahá’í community in the current condition of their relationship. They will then be free to draw their own conclusions and act accordingly. Within this context, the question you pose about the possibility of the removal of administrative rights should, therefore, not arise.” (Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, March 5, 1999, to an individual)

In 2018, the House of Justice wrote in a similar vein:
“It would only be reasonable in such instances for a person to resolve any fundamental contradiction for himself or herself before deciding whether to make the commitment to join the Bahá’í community. An example of this would be someone who holds a political post and shows interest in the Cause. … The same principle would also apply to an individual involved in a same-sex marriage.” (From a letter dated 21 October 2018 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly)

I create my own community of inclusiveness within my home and heart. And I am truly blessed. My LGBTQ friends “improve (my) spiritual life.”

While doing some research for this blog I came across this:
“I’d be ready to introduce myself to the Bahai community in my locality were it not for one potential problem. . . I’m a gay man who’s married to a gay man.
I understand that homosexuality is forbidden, but I’ve also read conflicting things about the position being nuanced or even reversed. What’s the real deal? The past number of years of my marriage have been the happiest, most productive of my life. If the Bahai position on my sexuality is as black and white as I initially thought, I’ll move on happy that I learned something new and expanded my spiritual horizons. If things are more subtle, I’m open to further discussion.”
reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/ll769z/a_question_that_could_land_me_in_trouble/

“In a true Bahai marriage the two parties must become fully united both spiritually and physically, so that they may attain eternal union throughout all the worlds of God, and improve the spiritual life of each other.”
– Abdul-Baha, Bahai World Faith, 1976, page 372
The Baha’i pictured above lost his voting rights a year after he legally married the love of his life. They raised a wonderful son
and have grandchildren,
and today the Baha’i community still does not welcome them.

I was banned from reddit.com/r/bahai a few years ago, and when I asked for a reason none was given, instead the moderators then made a complaint to the reddit community that I had threatened them. So there you go – that’s how toxic some Baha’is are on the topic of homosexuality!
I understand, to some degree, the fear. Baha’is do go around stating that disagreeing with any policy of the Universal House of Justice is the same as taking some sort of action or worse, you get called a Covenant Breaker.
I am certainly shunned by some Baha’is and once a community I lived in, was told that I had resigned my Baha’I membership based on gossip that claimed that here on my blog I had said that I had resigned.

Anyway, these are individuals who live in fear, and I can be a Baha’i and still express my views as long as I am clear that these have no authority other than personal opinion. There is a good reason for this – so the Baha’i principle that we must investigate the Baha’i Writings for ourselves remains and we avoid a clergy class telling the community how to interpret. The authority of the Universal House of Justice is to rule how the Baha’i community functions and today this means excluding membership to rainbow couples and families.

I would feel less upset about the ‘elephant in the room’ (the prejudice not the wonderful LGBTQ community) if Baha’is would be honest to seekers and just say, sorry sooner or later you will be told you are diseased or worse. Today’s policies of the Universal House appear more restrictive than in earlier decades when many communities could take the position of don’t ask, don’t pry. This 2021 letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice holds the view that homosexuality is condemned in the Baha’i Writings.
“Of course, the prohibition on homosexual relations is set forth in paragraph 107 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Further, in a Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh writes: “Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy, and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful.”
Likewise, number 49 of the “Questions and Answers” in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas: “The Most Holy Book refers to penalties for various acts such as adultery and sodomy. The original term (“liváṭ”) used in Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings that has been translated as “sodomy” would have clearly been understood at the time as a prohibition against homosexual practices. Furthermore, the above references and other authoritative Bahá’í writings make evident that sexual relations are confined to a man and a woman who are married to each other. Any other sexual act—of which homosexual relations are but one expression—is prohibited for Bahá’ís. If there were any doubt as to Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings on homosexuality, it would be definitively dispelled by the Guardian’s authorized interpretations of His Writings.
As one of the extracts in the enclosed compilation explains, Shoghi Effendi’s manuscript notes for the codification of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas—which are in his own handwriting—include “homosexuality” among the list of prohibitions and clearly cross-reference this entry to the specific term in paragraph 107 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.”
6 January 2021, by the Department of the Secretariat of the Universal House of Justice.

So, the best I can do as just a Baha’i is to do my own research and state things like:
1. Baha’u’llah’s paragraph 107 refers to pederasty –
see: justabahai.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/mainly-about-homosexuality and justabahai.wordpress.com/2011/bahaullah-the-subject-of-boys

2. The Universal House of Justice may not interpret what liwat means but they may rule and make policy based on their own understandings of this word. See my blog on some context for the text on liwat here:
justabahai.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/a-bahai-view-of-homosexuality-and-gay-rights/#liwaat
On the authority of the Universal House of Justice see:
justabahai.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/the-authority/ and on critiquing policy –
justabahai.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/express-critical-thought/

3. In the “Questions and Answers” the point is that it is up to the Universal House of Justice to make a decision and this is not part of unchangeable Baha’i law. justabahai.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/homophobia/#liwaat

4. The argument of “make evident” is circular because it presents anti-LGBTQ+ arguments and then says these ‘make evident’ that same-sex marriage is not possible. To make it evident, explicit examples of the Baha’i Writings need to be shown. See this discussion on liwat as meaning homosexuality – https://justabahai.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/flexibility/

5. There is an assumption that Shoghi Effendi’s unpublished manuscript notes were intended for publication by Shoghi Effendi himself (There are examples – bylaws of the LSA and NSA, the Egyptian NSA codification of Baha’i law – showing that Shoghi Effendi might have intended elected institutions to publish law codification).
There is another assumption that a handwritten word in an unpublished handwritten draft next to another word means an endorsement. If Shoghi Effendi left no further note nor indication of why he penciled in this word – it could have been to question the connection, for example. I do not think Shoghi Effendi was unaware of the difference between the Persian cultural practice of ‘boy slaves’ [“Ḥukm-i-Ghilmán” the word Shogh Effendi had pencilled] as nothing like the contemporary practice of homosexuality in the 1950s, since Shoghi Effendi was an acquaintance of out-of-the-closet Baha’i, Mark Tobey.
No institution has the authority to publish anything in Shoghi Effendi’s name if he didn’t consider it ready for publication and so the list of prohibitions published must be seen as authored by the Universal House of Justice. Here is the relevant text: “The Research Department at the Bahá’í World Centre has confirmed that the Guardian’s manuscript notes for the Codification of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, which includes in the list of prohibitions the word “homosexuality”, are in his own handwriting in English. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi’s handwritten notes in Persian clearly cross-referenced this entry to the specific term in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas concerning “the subject of boys” (Ḥukm-i-Ghilmán).”, 2010 bahai-library.com/uhj_homosexuality_uganda

So I disagree with the interpretations of Baha’i Scripture as expressed in the 2021 letter by Department of the Secretariat of the Universal House of Justice (see my numbered points as to why), but I am free to disagree as long as I make it clear these are just my personal interpretations with no authority whatsoever, and I state that the Universal House of Justice has the authority to decide that homosexual relations are prohibited in the Baha’i community. I just hope that one day a future House of Justice might take another perspective, so we have more diversity within the Baha’i community.

NARTH is anti-gay

1 March 2022 Screenshot from wikipedia about NARTH which no longer exists and is decredited.
“NARTH’s promotion of conversion therapy as a scientifically supported therapeutic method is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[5]”
Footnote 5 leads to: Spitzer, R. L. (1981).
“The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues”. American Journal of Psychiatry. 138 (2): 210–15. doi:10.1176/ajp.138.2.210. PMID 7457641.

On the 27th of February a Bahai commented on my 2011 blog: “NARTH is not anti-gay but studies and uses an approach to psychotherapy for individuals choosing to address same sex attractions.”

First, I went to look at my own references to NARTH because implied in his comment was the idea that NARTH was worth defending.

As you can see in the screenshot, NARTH ceased to exist in about 2014.

What has changed significantly between my 2011 blog and 2022 is that more countries have made laws criminalizing conversation therapy (NARTH’s main aim was to ‘cure’ gays). So I was surprised that this Bahai, who appears to have an interest or career in therapy (it isn’t clear to me if he is a registered professional), lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa), which passed a law prohibiting conversion therapy a week before his comment (see: the 18 Feb 2022 NZ Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill)

This law now protects teens and children from those who wish to ‘treat’ their homosexuality. The bigger message here is that sexuality itself doesn’t need to be put into some sort of ‘correct’ category.

Moral values are about actions and behaviour, and I would argue that values should be based on protection of the vulnerable (here LGBTQ+ teens) so that justice and equality prevail.

So why would a Bahai object to me writing that NARTH is anti-gay? He either thinks conversion therapy is ok, or he thinks that it isn’t anti-gay to state that “homosexuality is a treatable mental illness and that a person’s sexual orientation can be changed through therapy.” (cited as the aim of NARTH

narth.com aim on the WayBack Machine, 15 April 2012

on the same wikipedia page as in wikipedia screenshot.
Haldeman, Douglas C. (December 1999). “The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy”“. Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. 4.
D Haldeman takes the view of ‘treatment’)

Any organization that seeks to ‘treat’ something means that they see something ‘wrong.’ It is obvious to me that any organization that aims to ‘treat’ homosexuality is certainly anti-gay.

A seemingly kind or well-meaning perspective is still prejudice, as in the stance many religions take to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Taking a position of wanting to help, makes it harder for the victim to say, “so you think I am damaged.”

Screenshot of NARTH: accessed 14 March 2022

The damage and stress are from the prejudices in society. Damage and stress are also from individuals (therapists, parents, … ) who think there is something wrong with identifying as LGBTQ+.

In 2012 I wrote the blog On the psychopathology of homosexuality, citing how NARTH supplied biased data to the Professor of Psychiatry, Robert Spitzer. The data claimed to be proof that homosexuality was curable, and Spitzer did not check the data for bias. (Details about this are here).

It is shocking that in 2001 Spitzer didn’t do this, because any ‘data’ showing that African American identity could be cured would surely have been seen as ludicrous. It shows the depth of prejudice against homosexuality that a researcher didn’t even bother to notice that NARTH and EXDOUS were both organizations aimed at ‘treatment.’ – It is like relying on data from the Klu Klux Klan. If you think I am being too harsh, I think even one teen suicide due to a world that thinks homosexuality is something that needs treatment, matters.

From 2008-2011 the Bahai community was identified on the NARTH homepage as members, along with other religious organizations (See this screenshot). In 2011 NARTH changed the layout of their homepage to remove the names of these organizations. I have not seen anything. penned by the Bahai community dis-associating themselves from NARTH. ((See this screenshot indicating close association with Bahai professionals from 1994 onwards). NARTH no longer exists, but from this individual’s comment on my blog, it seems that in 2022 there is at least one Bahai who is defending NARTH’s mission.

If even just one Bahai speaks of NARTH as if it is not anti-gay – then it shows that the culture this individual mixes in sees something so wrong with homosexuality that they think a therapy of repression is a scientific approach. I am reminded almost on a daily basis that the Bahai community presents itself as seeing something wrong with homosexuality, but these days I rarely hear Bahais saying that LGBTQ+ individuals need treatment. It hurts me that a religion I care deeply about has members that promote discrimination against our LGBTQ+ members.

The Baha’i community has a history of promoting the idea that homosexuality needs ‘treatment’ and the North American BNASAA (Bahá’í Network on Aids, Sexuality, Addictions, and Abuse) referred to NARTH as a resource on its page on sexuality (See this screenshot for one example). In 2012 a Bahai, Lynne Schreiber, travelled across the U.S. with the support of the Baha’i community giving presentations on overcoming homosexuality. Her article citing NARTH and EXODUS International as resources was widely circulated by Baha’is giving advice to communities in the USA.

In 2021 BNASAA was rebranded to the title, The Open Circle Network (https://opencirclenetwork.org) and now there is no mention of homosexuality on this website. I hope they no longer promote the idea that there is something wrong with identifying as LGBTQ+ but I am not interested enough in their ‘new mission,’ given their history of associating sexuality with abuse and addiction, to ask.

It is common Bahai practice to discriminate against gays and lesbians because the Universal House of Justice will not allow any legally married gay or lesbian to join the community. Because of this law, discrimination practiced by Bahais varies from calling homosexuality diseased (!!) to a pretense that there is no discrimination against lesbians or gays.

But this Bahai practice of discrimination doesn’t mean it is permanent principle. A future Universal House of Justice is free to change its own law, that same sex marriage is not recognized. (See how polygamous marriages are treated)

However while Bahais promote the idea that there is something aberrant about homosexuality (that it needs ‘treatment’), it is unlikely that the Universal House of Justice will make any laws that treat our LGBTQ+ with equality. Step by step, individuals need to show that our rainbow families are part and parcel of the diversity of humanity.

For me, it is learning not to be afraid to say loud and proud that I see our LGBTQ+ community as part of the diversity of humanity. I am lucky. I have this blog where I can state this. I don’t say this in any Bahai community, because the prejudice is so strong that instead of addressing the issue (the discrimination), I would be falsely accused of disobeying the House of Justice. The House of Justice is not instructing Bahais to act with prejudice nor to make statements of exclusion against LGBTQ+ identity.

Their current practice of excluding same sex couples and their children from joining the Bahai community implies discrimination, and I can see why Bahais might think that is the only possible response, but any Bahai is free to treat a gay or lesbian with absolute respect and value. Respect is telling the truth, and admitting that gays and lesbians can’t join the community on an equal basis. Dishonesty is saying there isn’t discrimination.

That is why I socialize outside of the Bahai community because my social world includes the magic of those who identify as LGBTQ+. I wish each individual was treated with equality under Bahai law, but I can still be a Bahai and counter the view that homosexuality needs ‘treatment.’ There is nothing wrong with me saying that my own interpretation of Baha’u’llah’s and Abdul-Baha’s Teachings shows no support for any discrimination against an individual who identifies as LGBTQ+. There’s nothing to stop me saying that in my opinion, no one is born with an orientation that needs treatment. And there’s nothing wrong with me stating that NARTH and any other organization that seeks to ‘treat’ homosexuality goes against human rights. That’s better than just saying NARTH is anti-gay, isn’t it?

Love and Legalism – a tale of two Baha’i communities

One of these is a Bahai. Would his family be welcome in your Bahai community?

Abby’s story:
I was raised a Baha’i, so that is definitely why it took me so long to come out.

Added to that are my many happy experiences in the Baha’i community, which explains why I am still happy to call myself a Baha’i today, living with my same-sex partner and my children.

I was always attracted to women but knew it was a no go.

I married a man because that’s what I was supposed to do.

The LSA became aware of my “lifestyle” years ago because my ex-husband went to the Assembly to complain about me.

They told him to mind his own business, but I didn’t know this until after my meeting with them. I was extremely anxious about meeting with the LSA, and had no idea they would be so incredibly loving and accepting. It seemed clear to me that they were open to learning and desperately did not want me to feel unloved or unaccepted. It is a struggle for them, as they know the laws, but they also know me and I suppose this forced them to open their eyes on this subject. I told the LSA that I refuse to hide or pretend to be something I am not and felt doing so was dishonest and against the Faith. I pointed out that heterosexual Baha’is who are single or dating do not have their chastity questioned, and unless they are in my bedroom have no idea what is going on… That as Baha’is we are encouraged to be loving and the only “law” pertains to chastity. Except the marriage part… They also know that I would like to marry my partner. Not sure I’ll still have my voting rights then though!

And now because I live with my partner, I was offered a meeting to “deepen” on the writings on the subject but I declined. I have read everything, needless to say, being born, raised and currently still a Baha’i. If I didn’t love Baha’u’llah so much I would leave the Faith, and I told the LSA I would leave if they felt I was doing wrong by the Faith. They said absolutely no way should I leave the Faith. Another member of the LSA told me they are still babies with this subject and would like to be enlightened. I thought that was great.

For me, if the LSA had reacted negatively I would have left. We are supposed to love everyone and accept everyone. For me, Bahá’ís who judge or are homophobic are committing a greater sin than me, loving the most incredible human being I’ve ever known. But it is their issue and whatever I do is between me and God, I’m OK with that. If the LSA felt I was harming the Faith I would leave.

It’s very frustrating because I think individuals who don’t have any LGBT friends have bizarre ideas in their heads, and don’t think of us as regular, boring, loving, normal, fellow human beings. I’m not willing to live my life alone when I haven’t been convinced that Baha’u’llah believes this is what I should do.

The fact that my LGBT friends are loving and accepting of everyone, yet many Bahá’ís cannot be, is a contradiction of the Faith and my friends are the ones who are unprejudiced and all loving. I love all diversity in the world and this is just another. So many people miss out on knowing some beautiful human beings by judging what they don’t know.
I think my story is as positive as it can be for this time. I would love to I go to Feast with my partner and be active with her, but until the UHJ changes things I will keep my relationship with the faith at home. There are also some individuals in my local community who have shown in their behaviour that they do not welcome me as a lesbian.

“…homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled or overcome.” Letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 12 January 1973; cited in Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, pp. 110-111; also cited in Lights of Guidance, #1222, published in 1983, p. 365

“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and sexual relations are only permissible between husband and wife.” Department of secretariat letter from the Universal House of Justice, 9 May 2014 The The full letter is here

If the UHJ published a more positive view on this subject, I wouldn’t care what the rest of the community thought. It would be great to enlighten Baha’is unfamiliar with “ordinary” LGBT people. The LSA said I should not let anything keep me from attending the Feast. I feel if the UHJ changed the law there would be no leg for anyone to stand on and they would have to look at their own prejudices. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there are other LGBT people in the community who are not out.

I’ve been to Baha’i functions in the last few years, and a few Feasts, and feel quite close to some members of my LSA and my local community. I do have children that I am raising Baha’i. I live the life, so to speak (in service to others, love and acceptance and celebration of everyone). Unfortunately, my ex-husband is preachy towards my children about the evils of homosexuality. I have to tell them to not judge the Faith by their father and focus on the beautiful, amazing Baha’is we have in our community.

The LSA has encouraged me to go to feast and suggested I go to a cluster that the ex isn’t at. And they have asked what they could do to help support me, if there was anything. They are very loving.

Being able to share this with others gives me goosebumps and makes me smile.

Julia’s story:
I have been a Baha’i for some 30 years now, and I always tended to keep things pretty clear and honest, but my honesty got me into trouble. I told my daughters about my sexuality on the day I left the marital home and moved in with Granuaile, and I sent a letter to my LSA because I knew my husband had been in touch with them and given his side of the story. Then a member of the LSA, who has been a close friend of the family, asked me to come and see her. First privately, but also as a representative of the LSA. We had a nice chat but then she told me that her main concern with all this was the fact that her 16-year-old son could find out that I am living with a woman! How could people be so cruel? And that from someone I thought of as my friend. Another LSA member told me that I could no longer be a member of the Baha’i community if I was a lesbian. I was devastated. Baha’is who had been close friends stopped speaking to me, and my daughter, also a Baha’i, said that I could not visit her nor the grandchildren.

I have certainly come to realise that if you rock anybody’s boat most people react in some kind of strange way. What are they afraid of? As I told everybody, family and LSA alike, I had to do something for myself and now am happy and asked them to be happy with me. My daughters even said they wanted their fat, smoking mother back. (On this note I have to say that I have lost quite a bit of weight – which I needed to do anyway – and also gave up smoking in the last year – all since I have met my partner.)

The calendar of events, until then a regular e-mail sent to all in the community, stopped being sent to me. I was just dropped as the “old friend” they used to call me. I lived for my community and would have really appreciated a phone call or e-mail occasionally to see how I was – but nothing. It was as if I was dead. My partner’s friends were much more loving and understanding.

Then months later, the NSA asked a member of the pastoral care committee to contact me to find out what was going on. I had a lovely long chat with her on the phone. I tried to explain what my innermost thoughts about the Faith were, and that nobody had the right to tell me that I could or could not have these thoughts – I will always be a Baha’i in my heart – even if the NSA was threatening to take away my administrative rights. I was sent a letter from the NSA a few weeks later which stated: “You should be aware that if you do not take steps to align your life with the standards set out in the Holy Writings then the National Assembly will be left with no other option but to seriously consider removing your administrative rights. This is something that the Assembly very much wishes to avoid and it therefore lovingly invites you to reconsider your position; in this regard, it warmly offers you an opportunity to discuss your situation with a representative of the National Assembly whom you trust.”

Almost a year after this all began an LSA member phoned me saying that he had a “heavy heart” as he hadn’t spoken to me and he was a close friend as well as a fellow Baha’i. Then he said that his heavy heart was because he wanted to tell me where I had gone wrong because he was concerned about the well-being of my soul. I asked him why he was not concerned about me in the last year when I could really have done with a bit of friendly support.

At about the same time I had a friendly chat with an NSA member, and then a few weeks later I received a call from a local Baha’i reminding me that the NSA was going to meet in the next couple of days and had my case on the agenda, and wanted a response from me. So I sent a letter stating that I still believed in Baha’u’llah but could not go back to a life that felt dishonest to me, and that I was not going to leave the only person who is a support for me. In reply to that the NSA wrote a letter removing my administrative rights.

So there we have it – I am no longer a Baha’i in good standing.

I cannot contact the UHJ myself.

I cannot attend feasts, etc.

On the upside – the NSA wanted to know what happened in my 30 years of marriage because I hinted that it was not a happy time for me. I have very mixed feelings about being a “second class Baha’i” and have to think long and hard as to what I want to do now.

What was once a loving and caring community has turned into the total opposite and it seems they feel that, by sticking their heads in the sand, the “problem” will go away – or the NSA will deal with it. Somebody once said to look at the LSA/NSA as loving parents – well I cannot see any love anywhere – on the contrary.

These two stories show how two LSAs (Local Spiritual Assemblies) in differing western countries treated a lesbian member of their community in similar situations. Pope Francis recently made some statements on the topic of same sex marriage, about this never being possible within the Catholic Church. This is similar to the Universal House of Justice’s own statements, however there’s one big difference. In the same statement Pope Francis talks of pastors engaging in a careful process of “discernment” with regard to individual cases and helping people reach decisions in conscience about the fashion in which the law applies to their circumstances. The blog “Pope Francis lets the world in on the Church’s best-kept secret” by John L. Allen Jr. explains it like this: “Yes, the Church has laws, and it takes them very seriously. But even more than law it has flesh-and-blood people, and it takes their circumstances and struggles seriously too.
At one stage, Pope Francis writes that the divorced and remarried can find themselves in situations ‘which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications, leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.’” (8 April 2016)

Instead of a pastoral service or priests, the Baha’i community has the elected Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA). In the stories above we saw that one LSA chose compassion and aimed to see the picture from the point of the individual, and some even saw it as an opportunity to learn. The other LSA appears to have used Baha’i law like a stick with stern counseling which the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) later reinforced with punitive action. I found the letter which stated that her voting rights were removed from that NSA particularly shocking because of these words “The principle reason for doing [this] is because such an arrangement is publicly in breach of Baha’i law and therefore your administrative rights are removed to protect the good name of the Faith.” If public impressions are the real issue, the fact is that in most western countries, religious examples of tolerance and compassion on such issues bring good publicity, not shame. They also noted that she is not allowed to host “devotional meetings nor any of the core activities related to the Plan” nor host Holy Days, teach children’s classes and a long list of other exclusions. Non-Baha’is are not excluded as much as this. I will work on a separate blog about what Shoghi Effendi wrote concerning the use and purpose of the removal of administrative rights, as it is clear to me that here it is being used to discriminate and exclude. At the same time, an NSA is free to be as harsh as they wish in the way they choose to apply Baha’i law, but the purpose of my blog will be to show that Baha’i law can be used like “choice wine,” to quote Baha’u’llah – using law with discernment without breaking any of the Baha’i principles.

This matters greatly to me because there’s not only the pain experienced by Julia and the pain I feel in reading her story, but also the problem of those who feel they are doing the right thing by the Baha’i teachings in reporting her to the LSA and the NSA, in excluding her because she is a lesbian, backbiting about her in the community (I’ve omitted this part of her story because it is so awful), not to mention all those others in her community who see this happening and go along with it, either because they think exclusion is right or because they are afraid to say anything.

Which Baha’i community would you want to be a member of? Which type of Baha’i community has a future in today’s world? Baha’is often don’t like me asking such questions because they argue that the Baha’i community shouldn’t be influenced by fads or trends, and that five letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi decades ago are all the guidance we need. I believe that Baha’u’llah’s religion is structured to change with the times, and that it is intended for all peoples – not just those who like things to stay the same or want to exclude people because they represent an aspect of diversity that they are unfamiliar with.

“…the broader issues that are the foundation of the religious law are explicitly stated, but subsidiary matters are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that time does not stand still: change and transformation are essential attributes and necessities of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice implements decisions accordingly.”
Abdu’l-Baha, Tablet on on religious law and the House of Justice, provisional translation.

“Gays can’t marry, and that’s not discrimination”

I’ve heard this and similar phrases from a Baha’i so often now, I could brush this off as a cliché if it weren’t for the fact that in most Baha’i communities gays are still treated differently. For example, Udo Schaefer in his 2009 book, “Bahá’í Ethics in Light of Scripture: Doctrinal fundamentals, volume 2” writes that “…a homosexual relationship, … by definition transgresses the will of God and is intrinsically immoral,” (page 213) whereas actually morality or immorality depends on what is done, whether the couple is married (of course marriage doesn’t necessarily make a relationship moral), whether there is a breach of trust or other harm to others.

According this author of a book on Bahai Ethics, immorality is treated as a given for a homosexual couple, while I assume, for a heterosexual couple, it is a possibility that can be avoided. The differences might seem like nothing to a straight person, whose identity is never associated with anything called ‘immorality.’ In fact many a Baha’i has said to me that they do not discriminate and to prove this they say “I have gay friends” or “I have employed gays” but “gay Bahais can’t marry.”

If a Bahai says to you, “marriage is only between a man and woman” – and you don’t say anything, then that Bahai assumes, quite reasonably, that you agree that gays do not have the same rights and responsibilities as any other person, and that it is OK for a Bahai to say so as a matter of fact. If you didn’t agree, you would have said something. You would have at least said something about Baha’u’llah’s teachings being for all of humanity and not just for the straights in society.
Even making a plea for compassion would have indicated that you didn’t agree with a blanket statement that excludes a significant minority.

Such blanket statements made express a prejudice, and a position of power in straight dominated society. Saying to someone, ‘you cannot,’ and then saying ‘this is not discrimination’ is worse than saying, ‘well I do see that this is discrmination, but…’

If people hear Bahais saying that gays are diseased or immoral or “deviant” (Schaefer, Ethics, Vol. 2 p. 205) and other Bahais do not challenge this, they will assume that the norm in that Bahai community is that gays are not given to be given the same respect as any one else.

Some say we are members of the Baha’i community first and then gay, black, First Nation, Māori, or women after this. This only applies in so far as these minority groups are not discriminated against in the Bahai community. But where there is in fact discrimination, those discriminated against will naturally say, first of all, I am me, and possibly a member of the Baha’i community after that.

So how can a Baha’i community make the focus more on equality, on the individual irrespective of their orientation? To start with, remove all negative public mention of homosexuality. In North America it would mean renaming “BNASAA” (the “Bahá’í Network on Aids, Sexuality, Addictions and Abuse” ((www.bnasaa.org. Accessed 11 August 2013.) which lumps homosexuality with illnesses. In doing this they could focus on their target group, those with illness, and their material which only presents homosexuality from a viewpoint of being problematic can be removed. Since when is sexuality an illness? Bahais need to stop putting homosexuality into the category of ‘illness’ or ‘disability.’ A proactive position would be for communities to state that individuals of all creeds, races and oriention are treated with equality. This would inform gays and those opposed to discrimination on principle that this Bahai community is working at removing discrimination against gays. After all a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states that “Bahá’ís should certainly not belong to clubs or societies that practice any form of discrimination.” (From a letter of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of South America, April 23, 1957).

““Prejudice against homosexuals is a part of any system that labels it an illness”” D.W. Click to view the whole cartoon. Click to read in a pop up window.

What is so sad is that Bahais use the argument ‘gays can’t marry’ as justification for creating otherness whereas it shouldn’t even be part of the discussion to start with.

A legal disability is not a moral disabilty. So if a person is gay, they and their boyfriend or girlfriend should be given the same respect that would be given to a straight Bahai. And a gay person’s identity to be viewed as a valued ““[d]iversity of hues, form and shape, [which] “enricheth and adorneth the garden and heighteneth the effect thereof.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 291)

Gay Bahais are judged in ways that blacks used to be judged. Gay Bahais often hide their sexuality in order “to pass” and so avoid this prejudice. And who could blame them?
Sometimes they criticise those gay Bahais who are more open. A gay Bahai even wrote, when another gay Bahai lost his voting rights, that it was his own fault for being too open.

But Baha’u’llah wrote, “Be thou of the people of hell-fire, but be not a hypocrite.“
Cited in a compilation on Trustworthiness. Also in Compilation of compilations, Volume 2, page 337

The parallels with race and racism are close. A mixed marriage was once considered impossible and immoral.

If Bahai communities are going to live up to the U.H.J.’s 2010 request:
““Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. … a Baha´i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.“
(Letter from the U.H.J. to individual, 27 October 2010) they first need to realise that there is prejudice against gays and to deal with it proactively. Looking the other way only keeps the prejudice unchallenged. A minimum would be a policy of “compassion,” if “equality” is too big a step for that community.

A bad example was in June 2013, when the Bahais of Springfield, Missouri, responded to a survey on prejudice and social conduct for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Citizens’ Task Force. The Bahai community chose not to support adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city non-discrimination policy. What is unique here is that the results of this survey were published.

I’m sure that the Bahais on that L.S.A., when making those choices to represent the community, thought that by voting for no change, they were being neutral. The other option, which they did not vote for was for more effort to reduce discrimination against homosexuals in regards to work and housing. I will write another blog (when I have better access to the internet) on the details of this case because there are many lessons to be learnt here.

The biggest mistake the L.S.A. made as I see it, was to think that a stance of no change was the same as not discriminating. For someone from a majority point of view where their own lifestyle or values are not under attack or criticism, the status quo often seems neutral. After all, their kids are not laughed at for having different parents or refused housing because of the fear that the neighbours might complain.

There’s plenty in the Bahais writings and teachings to support a stance where Bahais should bend over backwards to help minorities in society. ““Be ye the helpers of every victim of oppression, the patrons of the disadvantaged.“ (Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 3)

So what are you doing as an individual to help reduce the discrimination in your Bahai community (and then in society)?

At the next feast, I suggest that some of you play a role as gay Bahais and ask the community for support.

Ask frank questions of each other, and investigate why a gay Bahai or a gay visitor might not feel welcome. Discuss how you can reframe your language so that any individual who doesn’t fit the framework of married and straight, can feel more comfortable.

If you dare, discuss sexuality. It is not the same as sex and has nothing to do with a misuse of power over minors (pederasty), which is what Baha’u’llah described as shameful.

Discuss how you will react when a person who is in a same sex marriage wishes to join. Discuss what the options are for Bahai children who find they are gay and the community be supportive.

Be clear about what you as a community should not do in these situations.
And keep Baha’u’llah’s teachings in mind – teachings such as :

– the value of the inputs of minorities (“Consider the flowers of a garden: though differing in kind, colour, form and shape, yet, inasmuch as they are refreshed by the waters of one spring, revived by the breath of one wind, invigorated by the rays of one sun, this diversity increaseth their charm, and addeth unto their beauty. Thus when that unifying force, the penetrating influence of the Word of God, taketh effect, the difference of customs, manners, habits, ideas, opinions and dispositions embellisheth the world of humanity. This diversity, this difference is like the naturally created dissimilarity and variety of the limbs and organs of the human body, for each one contributeth to the beauty, efficiency and perfection of the whole.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 291, my emphasis),

– and of individuals (“Each leaf has its own particular identity … its own individuality as a leaf“ – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 285)

– being true to yourself (“True loss is for him whose days have been spent in utter ignorance of his self.“) – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 156,
“Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God”Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 149
“The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice, is for man to free himself from idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye” Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 156

– that we are created through love, for love (“I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee,“) Baha’u’llah, The Arabic Hidden Words, nr 3., (“Love is …the vital bond inherent … in the realities of things.“ Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 27)

– shunning hypocrisy, “Say: Honesty, virtue, wisdom and a saintly character redound to the exaltation of man, while dishonesty, imposture, ignorance and hypocrisy lead to his abasement. By My life! Man’s distinction lieth not in ornaments or wealth, but rather in virtuous behaviour and true understanding.“ Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 57

– and that social and religious laws change. (“…things are useful in accordance with the exigencies of the time. Time changes, and when time changes the laws have to change. But remember, these are not of importance; they are the accidentals of religion.” ‘Abdul-Baha, From the middle of a talk given at to congregation in the synagogue, the Temple Emanuel, (Emmanu-El) in San Francisco, 1912, in Star of the West Vol. 3, No. 13, p. 3, which corresponds to The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 365. See my blog for more context for this quotation.)

Time changes… an interview with a young American Baha’i

He spent 4 years hanging out with Baha’is and then signed his declaration card 2 months before this interview took place.

What was your first exposure to the Baha’is? Were you openly gay then?

“I first met a Baha’i via my boyfriend in college. His best friend is married to a Baha’i and we would go over their house for couples game night. So yes, I was openly gay from my very first contact with the Baha’i community. At some point we got into a conversation about religion, and they were really good conversations!

For about 6 months it was just good conversation. Then I learned about progressive revelation and asked how Buddhism fits when there is no direct concept of God.
What that conversation revealed to me about the nature of God and the importance of context over absolute truth really made an impression on me. So now this was more than just good conversation. It was something worth serious investigation.”

Tell me more about your religious background and your experience growing up and coming out.

“Long story short: My family are Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was one of those kids you could point to and say he’ll probably be gay.
I wasn’t effeminate, but I didn’t like rough play as a child and loved dolls and horses. I first realized it at age 11. Started actively fighting it at age 13 with the help of my parents. Stopped fighting and came out at 19 and I was celibate for two more years.

Coming out was no fun. When I officially came out at 19, my parents were disappointed but couldn’t do much since I was celibate. When I was excommunicated from the Jehovah’s Witnesses community at 20, however, it was a different story. I didn’t talk to my family for 6 months to avoid bringing shame on them. When I finally did tell them they moved from the next state over and blackmailed me into moving in with them, threatening to stop paying for school if I didn’t, and they tried taking me back to church. They imposed a curfew on me. They outed me to my extended family, half of whom now pretend I’m a ghost when we’re in the same room together. No talking, No eye contact. I couldn’t have a civil conversation with my mother for 8 months when she found out. Five years on, and I now have a fairly productive relationship with my parents where we talk about our work and so on, and avoid mentioning my sexuality except that every 6 months or so, there’s an argument about why I’m still gay.

Luckily I had supportive friends and a supportive university psychiatrist when I came out.

Participating in a LGBT bible study at the Methodist ministry on campus did a lot to help me resolve my spiritual issues, as my life was falling apart with the battles I was having at home.“

So what happened next in your journey?
“I spent the next two years learning all I could about the Faith. At first it was mostly focused on theology and there were several other obstacles I had to overcome such as women on the U.H.J., the nature of ‘infallibility’, and the marriage laws, along with reconciling Baha’i beliefs with my fundamentalist Christian background. I used the book “Responding: 101 questions often asked of Baha’is” as the basis for many long conversations. Even though I was asking difficult questions and was confrontational at times, I never felt my questions were unwelcome or out of bounds. Each Baha’i I spoke with saw my sincerity and was eager to engage and to share their experiences and opinions along with explaining the official Baha’i position. Even when the answers were unsatisfactory to me and we continued to disagree, they did not dismiss me but respected my conscience and continued inviting me to participate in their community. As a scientist from a fundamentalist background this made a big impression on me.

Of course the Faith’s stance on homosexuality was probably my biggest obstacle. If it weren’t for that issue I probably would’ve declared 6 months after learning about the Baha’i Faith. But my biggest fear was of getting involved in another religious community and then having to endure the excommunication and shunning I had experienced as a Witness. This fear kept my investigation, earnest though it was, somewhat academic for a long time. Some of the texts on the subject are quite harsh in their wording, especially letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. But there was so much that was good about this Faith and the Baha’is I knew.

Eventually two things helped me to allay my concerns. First, exposing myself to different Baha’i perspectives online helped me to understand the Baha’i definition of infallibility and how it applies to the Baha’i writings. Combined with the Baha’i principle that science and faith should be complimentary, and understanding the different roles of the Guardianship and the U.H.J., most of my concerns about homosexuality were allayed. Second was the quality of the Baha’is I met in the community. Over time I came to realize that even if I was not able to have a Baha’i marriage, I would still be welcome in the community and it would be a place where I could feel safe raising my kids. Not all Baha’is would agree with me but that’s OK. The quickest path to truth is unity in diversity. And the Baha’is showed me that I was more than welcome to be a part of that.

Some other things happened along the way including 2 trips to the Wilmette temple and several frank conversations with LGBT Baha’is of various stripes. I decided to publicly declare my faith in Baha’u’llah in February of 2013.“

You said that roughly a third of the population in your city area are openly gay individuals. Why do you think this is so high?
“This is a metropolis in a culturally conservative part of the county, so gay people move here because it’s easier to live openly.“

What sort of impact do you think this has on your Baha’i community and in your view how has this affected how you are accepted as an openly gay man and a Baha’i?
“I think it means that the Baha’i community is familiar with the LGBT community and there’s less prejudice and ignorance than there probably is in other places. Also they see multiple definitions of what it means to be gay. It’s not just parties and bathhouses, we come in as many varieties and lifestyles as straight people. So there is less suspicion among the straight Baha’is and less doubt about my intentions and morality. It means Baha’is in my community can see the possibility of me leading a Baha’i lifestyle as a gay man.

They may not agree, but they see the possibility and respect my conscience. And, frankly, many of them show that they are happy to see me actively participating in the community. They realize this is a contentious issue that leaves people feeling as if the GLBT community is outside the scope of the Baha’i community. And that doesn’t sit well with them. They recognize the need to have more GLBT people involved in the community. Also the fact that I’m active in the community helps others to see aspects to my personality outside of my sexuality and this lightens any discord that might be caused by my sexuality.

I was blessed in that all three Baha’is I initially had contact with identified as GLBT, even though I didn’t know it at the time. So my initial exposure to the community was sensitive to my concerns as an openly gay seeker. One of the things I did before enrolling was to make an effort to get to know as many GLBT Baha’is as possible. Within my own local Baha’i community there’s a wide spectrum: one gay man is married to a woman; one bisexual woman is married to a man; there’s a single gay who keeps his gay and Baha’i identities separate, while being out to the important people in his life; another Baha’i is a closeted gay; and now there’s me. I also came across a Baha’i from another community who is in a same-sex marriage who is active in his community and served on his LSA for a time. I also familiarized myself with the stories of gay Baha’is who did not have positive experiences with the Faith. Having all these perspectives helped me to have a representative view of what the gay Baha’i experience could be like and whether I could see a place for not only myself but also my future family in this community.

I had one of these friends raise my concerns with the local LSA, since she was secretary at the time, and I got a very nice response from them as a seeker. The gist of the response from the LSA was this: “Baha’i law is Baha’i law, and it is our job to enforce it. However, we are not in the business of prying if you’re not flagrantly making us look bad. And even if you choose not to enrol there is still much you can benefit from and we would love to have your contributions to our community.” This made me feel very welcome and helped alleviate some of the pressure I felt to resolve all my conflicts before getting involved with the community. The Baha’is didn’t seem to be nearly as concerned as I was whether I had the “right” beliefs. They were most concerned that I was actively involved in my journey and that the community would benefit from what I had to offer for however long I chose to associate with the Baha’is. After this I started becoming more actively involved in the Baha’i community. Before I declared I had attended talks, devotionals, deepenings, and even a Baha’i feast.“

So given what you have said about the diversity of those in your community, I guess you knew that identifying openly as being gay wasn’t seen as a bad thing and wouldn’t be considered being flagrant.
“Nope. I knew same-sex marriage was a controversial topic. But homosexuality in itself was not something rejected by the community. It might cause some temporary discomfort as people reminded themselves about Baha’u’llah’s teachings on prejudice, equality and inclusion, especially since many come from an evangelical or Baptist background. The general mood seems to be that being openly gay may be awkward but most Baha’is in my community show that they are actively working to overcome this. There’s a bit of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude with the LGBT Baha’is who were raised in the community, which is understandable given where we are on this issue in the wider culture.
But it’s something that many in the community both straight and gay are working to improve. The important thing is that the community is not looking for black and white reasons to include or exclude, but rather they are looking at how you apply the Baha’i principles in your life. They look for the fruits and judge that rather than with whom or how you express yourself.“

So you mean some Baha’is did say to you that being gay wasn’t OK or said that Baha’u’llah forbade it?
“No one said anything as direct as this, but the feeling is there. I still live in a conservative part of the country and many Baha’is come from conservative religious and cultural traditions. That’s why being active in the community is so important for me. It gives others a chance to see evidence of my commitment to Baha’u’llah and that the majority of my life – any gay person’s life – is spent outside the bedroom. Some Baha’is in my community believe that Baha’is can’t have a same sex marriage and some are uncomfortable with this, while others feel it’s perfectly justified.

However, nobody is pressuring me to date women or play more football or anything.
At least here in the States, most people who live in bigger cities are comfortable enough around gay people and have enough exposure to be able to see us and not automatically think of sex, regardless of whether they support or oppose civil or religious gay marriage.
To give you an impression of the wider Baha’i community in my area here’s a story I submitted to the “gaybahai.net” forum:

Recently I told a Persian Baha’i colleague that I was gay. He’s an older gentleman, and during the Fast we’d been going on walks during our lunch hour once or twice a week. I’d found our walks very encouraging and uplifting so then I decided to open up to him.

I started by telling him about a sermon I had listened to by the founder of the Gay Christian Network, Justin Lee, on how God is an artist and why I thought that illustration fits well with Baha’i ideas. We all have different potentialities to develop the assortment of virtues/colors. And while there are rules to painting, sometimes they have to be broken to create a masterpiece. And God’s primary concern isn’t maintaining the letter of the law, but in creating masterpieces. I would definitely recommend checking it out here.

I then asked him for his thoughts on marriage and whether we focus too much on romance here in the West. After talking about that for about 10 minutes he asked me if I had a girlfriend, like I figured he would. I told him I had a boyfriend and that things are going well. He was surprised by the revelation but he took it in stride. No theological debates, no prejudiced comments or looks, no insistence that I’m sick or in need of therapy or that I should try dating women.
He reiterated that science and religion must agree so he expects the UHJ to rule on this eventually and that until then we must strive to adhere to the laws we do have and that, at the end of the day, whatever we do, we must be able to answer to our God with our heads held high. To which I agreed and added that I do expect to be able to have a Baha’i marriage someday based on what I know of the Writings and science and my own personal experience. And that even if I can’t have a Baha’i wedding I do intend to apply Baha’i principles to my union, whatever it is called. Even if I cannot adhere to the letter of the law, keeping with the spirit of it will only help me and those in the community who see.

We then continued our walk and our conversation about marriage and the purpose of laws. It was a great conversation. While I’m working on a need-to-know basis with my sexuality I have never been closeted in my interactions with the Baha’i community. And, in general, people have either been openly supportive or politely neutral. I’ve never felt judged or treated differently after people found out.

Now would this Baha’i support gay marriage on a ballot? I don’t know. But what I do know is that he is committed to his faith, while at the same time being open to learning from the experiences of others and adjusting his perspectives as new information comes along. He is why I have faith that the Baha’i community will eventually find its way through this issue.

Unlike a lot of religious communities, Baha’is are very much engaged in the non-Baha’i world around them. And that constant interaction with different ideas and perspectives and worldviews helps us to refine our own, to know the limits of what we know for sure. Often this ends up forcing us to narrow the scope of what we know for sure and embrace the constantly shifting shades of gray built into human experience. Admittedly I live in a very gay city, it is number 1 by percentage of the population, last time I checked. So my experience is by no means universal or even typical among Baha’i communities. It probably won’t be for a while yet. But it shows things are getting better. Being exposed to happy, healthy, religious, productive members of society who happen to also be GLBT helps. It doesn’t eliminate the controversy or even change minds necessarily. But by keeping the issue in front of people our presence in the community keeps the conversation open. And that’s the most important thing. People can only endure cognitive dissonance for so long when they are constantly reminded of it.
That’s why it’s so important for us to not only be out, but to stay engaged with our spiritual communities if at all possible. Yes, it means enduring injustice. I’m not saying we should keep allowing people to hurt us. Lord knows how many of us have been scarred on our souls by the “good intentions” of religious people, even Baha’is. I still have family that won’t talk to me since I was excommunicated from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But we can’t let that poison us, poison our relationship with God, poison our relationship with our communities. Ultimately that just hurts us and allows ignorance and injustice to persist that much longer.

Know your limits. But do what you can. Don’t give up. There’s hope.

I share this Baha’is hope that the Bahai community will eventually find a way through. I think there is nothing in Baha’i Scripture to inhibit the possibility of same sex marriage, but for those Bahais who think that there is something in Baha’i Scripture which implies that marriage is restricted to marriage between one man and one woman: here’s a quotation from a talk given by ‘Abdul-Baha:
“Time changes, and when time changes the laws have to change.”

What ‘Abdul-Baha means here is not to change the law, but not to enforce a religious law that is no longer relevant. Religious laws are “the accidentals of religion” and “useful in accordance with the exigencies of the time.” These fall under what Baha’u’llah refers to as social teachings. So if a social teaching or religious law is in conflict with the principle of equality or justice, if we follow ‘Abdul-Baha’s example, we do not enforce it.

The context for this quotation is below:
“In the Taurat there are ten commandments concerning the murderer. Is it possible to carry these out? Can these ten ordinances, concerning the treatment of murderers, be enforced?
Modern times are such that even the question of capital punishment – the one form which some nations have decided to enforce in relation to a murderer – is a mooted question. Wise men are consulting as to its feasibility or otherwise. So everything that is valid is only valid for the time being. The exigency of that time demanded that if a man committed theft to the extent of a dollar they would chop off his hand, but now you cannot cut off a man’s hand for a thousand dollars. You cannot do it; it is impossible. This is true, for it was useful for that time, but things are useful in accordance with the exigencies of the time. Time changes, and when time changes the laws have to change. But remember, these are not of importance; they are the accidentals of religion.”

From the middle of a talk given at to congregation in the synagogue, the Temple Emanuel, (Emmanu-El) in San Francisco on Saturday, October 12, 1912, in Star of the West Vol. 3, No. 13, p. 3, which corresponds to The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 365.
Talks in “Star of the West” are more reliable as a source than Promulgation of Universal Peace because the editor of Promulgation of Universal Peace was sometimes very free in what he added to the text.
Talks in the volumes of “Star of the West” are not authentic scripture unless they can be verified by a Persian version.
There are notes in Mahmud’s diary from p. 299 of Vol 1, which closely reflect the Star of the West version above. Mahmud’s dairy is a personal recollection by Mahmud Zarqani which ‘Abdul-Baha encouraged him to write. It was written during ‘Abdul’-Baha’s lifetime and so it is very likely that Abdul-Baha read this.
One day if Persian notes for the above can be found, then this could be treated as authentically by ‘Abdul-Baha.

Is there homophobia in the Baha’i community?

First Lessons in Relativity
an installation
by Sonja van Kerkhoff

Is there homophobia in the Baha’i community? In April this year Korey started a discussion on a Bahai Facebook group called “homophobia”. This is what he posted:

If you are gay or not, you should forward this as a support of your friends and loved ones that are. Love is not defined by color, belief, or gender.

I am the mother that is not allowed to see the children she gave birth to, took care of and raised. The courts say that I do not fulfill the requirements to be a mother now that I live with another woman.

I am the boy that never finished his degree because every day I was called a Faggot.

I am the girl who was kicked out of her house because I confessed to my mother that I was a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working in the streets because no one wants to hire a transsexual.

I am the sister that tightly hugs her gay brother during long nights of fear and crying.

We are the parents that barried their daughter much sooner than they should have.

I am the man who died alone in a hospital because who was my partner for 27 years, was not allowed access to my room.

I am the orphan that wakes up at night due to nightmares, because I was taken from the only home where I was shown love, simply because I have two fathers.

How I would like to be adopted. I am not amongst those who were lucky.

I took my own life only weeks before I would graduate from college. I wouldn’t take it anymore.

We are the couple that the landlord stood up when he found out we wanted to rent a room for two men.

I am the person that never knows which bathroom to use in order not to be sent to the management office.

I am the survivor of domestic abuse that realized that the support system became cold and distant when they found out that my abusive partner was also a woman.

I am the survivor of domestic abuse that doesn’t have a support system to go to because I am a man.

I am the father that was never able to hug his own child because I grew up with fear to show any affect towards other men.

I am the economics teacher who always wanted to be a sports teacher until someone told her that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the paramedics stopped treating her when they found out I was a transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a better person if society didn’t despise me.

I am the man who left his beliefs aside, not because I stopped believing, but because I was rejected as a person.

I am the warrior who keeps serving its own country but without being able to reveal my own lifestyle because in the army, I am not allowed to be gay.

I am the person who has to hide and keep to myself what this world needs the most: love.

I am the young girl who is embarrassed to confess to her friends that she is a lesbian, because they are constantly making fun of them.

I am the young man tied to a pole, brutally beaten and abandoned because two “macho” men wanted to “teach me a lesson.”

On October 7, 1998, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson took Matthew Shepard to a remote area of the East side of Laramie, where they conducted unimaginable acts of hate. Matthew was tide up to a pole, where he was beaten up and abandoned to the awful weather of a cold fall night. Almost eighteen hours later he was found by a cyclist, who initially confused him for a battered doll. Matthew died October 12 at 12:53 am in a hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.
MURDERED FOR BEING GAY.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HOMOPHOBIA IS WRONG, AND IT KEEPS US AWAY FROM BEING A SOCIETY THAT IS JUST AND UNDERSTANDING, FORWARD THIS WITH THE TITLE ‘HOMOPHOBIA’

Below are the comments I posted in this Facebook discussion.

Most of those who posted took a differing position to mine and most are Bahais, so, based on my responses decide for yourself if there is homophobia in the Baha’i community.

In July all of the discussion was removed and I end this blog with some thoughts on this.

Ironically, Korey, a Christian himself told me privately that he posted this as part of the work he is doing with the United Nations Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS. It was not in response to any particular experience he has had with Bahai’s but rather a message he sent out to various religious organizations. My response below is responds to the first person who responded to the texts in colours above.

My 18 May 2010 response

BB wrote “I am tired of the intimidation.
I’m just tired, of being accused of being hateful, because I think Baha’u’llah is right to forbid same sex relations, and because the Baha’i Faith will not permit same sex marriage to its members.
People deserve to live without violence and hatred.”

First I looked for the signs of intimidation and all I could find was Korey’s list of suggestions for tolerance toward peoples of all persuasions. Then realised, well, the only thing you could be responding to was the word “homophobia” because Korey’s list of suggestions for tolerance doesn’t make any specific reference to the Bahai Faith either.

Then you jump in and state: that “Baha’u’llah is right to forbid same sex relations”, when I would have thought you would be aware that this is not true. Baha’u’llah mentions the shame of sex with children. (link to this reference opens in a new window), but you have taken this a step further to exclude gay relationships. Now I see where the word might ‘homophobia’ apply.

As a Bahai you are telling the world there is no place for same sex equality. You might not hate gays but your act of writing this indicates that you see no problem in discriminating against them. I’m sorry if this comes across so bluntly but you began your post by claiming some form of intimidation and state people shouldn’t have to live with hatred. Where’s the line here?
In the various postings after yours, I see no sign of tolerance, no sign of openness. Where is the love towards all of humanity?

BB continued:
“But people also deserve to state their opinions without being shouted down. The Baha’i approach is one of loving education, to realize that the Law of God is what brings us the greatest happiness, and brings to society the greatest tranquility; the Baha’i approach is not one of hatred and violence, so kindly stop associating the prohibition of same-sex sexual relations, with hatred and causing death.”
My response is, please stop associating same-sex orientation with disease or drug addiction or worse with morality.

BB: “…the appalling lack of moral clarity in society today… In my view, most of society who support same-sex marriage, have not done so thoughtfully. It hasn’t been a process of listening carefully and weighing things, it is being cowed by being bludgeoned…”

You state that the debate (I assume on equal rights for homosexuals) is no longer respectful. My response is to start with yourself, don’t assume that I have not thought thoroughly about why I believe homosexuals are a valuable part of the garden of humanity.

Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in the 1950s shouldn’t be an excuse for this attitude. I don’t see Bahais taking much notice of the letter which informs Bahais that they shouldn’t use birth control (see). It seems to me, that most of those who have posted here, think it is OK to discriminate against homosexuals and so then choose to use these letters as if they are Bahai Law (A link to a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi about the differing authority of these letters.).

The following seems a pretty hateful statement to me:)
BB: “Why would I tell you that behavior is healthy and good for you, when the Manifestation of God says it is not? I won’t lie to you. You may hate what I say, when I repeat the divine laws; but it’s still my job as a Baha’i to vindicate their truth, and to take heat for doing so:”

But, please BB you are lying. Baha’u’llah never wrote this. Never wrote a word that even comes close to this, unless somehow, you think pederasty (sex with children: see source for an elaboration) relates to this. Perhaps in the 1950s Bahais might have made this connection but Baha’u’llah’s Word is not limited by the exigencies of the time (Link to a quotation about flexibility + change in the Will + Testament) and certainly not by my nor your ideas. You mention “popularity” as a false excuse for promoting gay rights, which reminds me of similar arguments made against the suffragettes by those who wanted to keep the status quo.

Here are my reasons for arguing for equality and for trying to see if the current prohibitions on equality for gay couples is something embedded in Baha’i Scripture and therefore not open to change or not.

1. The Bahai Faith is for all of humanity without exceptions or discrimination.

2. The Bahai Faith is able to be flexible and change because that was Baha’u’llah’s intention for having a House of Justice. (see some quotations here)

3. That is it wrong, very wrong, for Baha’i youth to learn at puberty that at best anything other than being straight is a handicap, at worst, this is some sort of ‘disease’ which upsets their family and their friends. If what I write can help stop one Baha’i from committing suicide, then I’m relieved. That’s my main motive for hunting around in the Baha’i Writings to try and see where these ‘homophobic’ ideas Bahais such as yourself state, might come from and see if anything is actually unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I have yet to find a single word.

4. It perpetuates discrimination in society and in my view any form of discrimination creates imbalance for those in and out of the circle that has been created. The Baha’i community is missing out on an aspect of diversity. I notice the absence of the orchids in the garden of humanity.

I realise BB in your advice to Pey to contact the Baha’i Network on AIDS, Sexuality, Addictions and Abuse group you probably mean well, but it is like rubbing salt onto a wound.
Pey is not ashamed of being gay, doesn’t need counselling, and obviously from his comments, doesn’t need understanding and confidentiality. He doesn’t have to be in the closet and I hope for the day that more Baha’is are able to live out of the closet too. That depends on the Baha’is and their communities.

Another of my responses to BB about a week later

BB thank you for choosing to take the route of using the Writings in your arguments. I appreciate this. However, I am not taking any issue with anything Shoghi Effendi wrote as interpreter of the Bahai Writings.
Not at all.

In your response you don’t seem to see a distinction between what Shoghi Effendi wrote and the 1000’s of Letters written by secretaries on his behalf. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself that mentions the status of these letters.
However here are three letters written on his behalf which give some indication that they are not the same as Bahai Scripture and do not have the same status as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself:

“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.
He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the British Isles, 25 February 1951, published in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260

What this doesn’t tell us, is whether the ‘authority’ of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian’s executive authority as head of the Faith — meaning, “this is for the addresse” or of the Guardian’s authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning “they become part of the sacred text.”
What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian’s unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian’s secretaries do not share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase “their authority less” seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.

The following letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is addressed to a National Assembly which they then published with the following intro:

“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Assembly on November 16, 1932:

“As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Bahá’ís, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.” ”

Published in the US Bahai Newsletter, No. 71, February 1933, pp. 1-2

The context for most letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi have not been made available. To argue that these letters apply to anyone else other than the addresse, you would need to show that they were clearly intended as such. Even then, any letter does not have the same ‘authority’ as Baha’i Scripture which the Universal House of Justice cannot change.

Another letter states the limits of The Guardian’s role as interpreter and makes a distinction between his own writing and a letter written on his behalf:

“The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.”

17 October 1944, Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 33-34

Here it seems that letters to individuals were not intended to be binding on that individual, but rather advice for that individual.

If we look at what Shoghi Effendi himself wrote about his role as interpreter we can see he was very clear about the limits of his interpretation:

“From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings.
The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá’u’lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 150-51)

The point here is that the arguments you make are all based on what Shoghi Effendi wrote himself and in those cases where Shoghi Effendi was clearly referring to something in the Baha’i writings.

The point I make is what Shoghi Effendi did not write himself, that the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi have another authority. I am not saying the letters are irrelevant but I am saying that they are not part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture, quoting the 3 letters written on his behalf to support this view.

So to what you wrote:
“However, Shoghi Effendi determined that this implies a prohibition on homosexual relations. Having said so, that’s the Baha’i Teaching.”

In the notes section (Note 134, p. 223 in the 1992 edition) of the Kitab-i-Aqdas (The Most Holy Book) the Universal House of Justice or the Research department have written
“Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.” [More is here]

And then just as you have done above, a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is quoted as if this is unchangeable Bahai Scripture.

The notes section of Kitab-i-Adqas are able to be changed because these are penned by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department under their instruction. And so when 6 months after the first publication of the Kitab-i-Adqas, editorial changes were made by the Universal House of Justice (For example major changes to Note 108), this demonstrates clearly that this part of in the Kitab-i-Adqas can be changed.

While it is true that Shoghi Effendi started work on the Kitab-i-Aqdas in his role as official interpreter, he never finished this. I’ve been told that he completed 20 of the 194 sections in the notes [see and I’ve written more on the notes here] but I haven’t found a source for this.

However, I trust the Universal House of Justice. If anything in this book was penned by Shoghi Effendi as official interpreter, then they would have indicated this. The Kitab-i-Aqdas is our book of laws and as lawgiver, the Universal House of Justice, are well able to make and change its own laws.

There is also another way of looking at the status, authority or role of the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and that is at the texts as evidence themselves. Apart from the fact that there is nothing penned by Shoghi Effendi to indicate that these count as interpretation, and that the opposite seems to me more likely: Shoghi Effendi was exact and clear when he wrote in his role as interpretor, would he leave up to various secretaries to pen what Shoghi Effendi would consider unchangeable Scripture? I doubt it.

So to the texts: There are many letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that show the limited knowledge of the writer and, in my view, not the limited knowledge of Shoghi Effendi as The Guardian.

“In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahai Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it.” (9 July 1931, Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi)

Is this expressing the Guardian’s limited knowledge, or the secretary’s?
There are tablets from Abdu’l-Baha [and Baha’u’llah] on this topic.
Do we assume from this that Shoghi Effendi was inconsistent or made a mistake or forgot, or that it doesn’t matter as these are not Shoghi Effendi’s own words but words of another authority.

There are more examples here

So BB, show me where in Shoghi Effendi’s own words as interpreter of Bahai Scripture, he makes any reference to the issue of homosexuality or sexual orientation.

My response to MDB

MDB wrote: “As Bahais we are to obey the laws of the land in which we live. If the law forbids gays to be married then even if that was not forbidden in the Faith, we could not allow it as it would go against the laws of the land. I realize that i may be wrong. Also, even though gay marriages are not recognized in the Faith, gays are free to marry and the Faith cannot in any way prevent that marriage, it simply will not be recognized.”

Yes, as Bahais we must obey the laws of the country.

“Let them proclaim that in whatever country they reside, and however advanced their institutions, or profound their desire to enforce the laws, and apply the principles, enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh, they will, unhesitatingly, subordinate the operation of such laws and the application of such principles to the requirements and legal enactments of their respective governments.
Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 65-66)

Since some countries recognise homosexual marriages and forbid any discrimination, while other countries make being a homosexual a crime, the Bahai practice will vary from one country to another.

Meaning that in countries where not only gays may marry but it would be against the law of that country to discriminate against them, I would understand Bahai law to mean here that gays who are married and join the Bahai Faith would not be discriminated against. It would also mean that in countries where couples have a civil union (not marriage), just is the practice with heterosexual couples, homosexual civil unions would be recognized. And I can imagine that it would make sense for such rulings to be decided by National Spiritual Assemblies because in some countries, even accepting a civil union between a man and a woman as a valid marriage might appear ‘immoral’ in that culture.

The Universal House of Justice wrote:
“As you see, the Baha’i Faith accepts as man and wife couples who prior to becoming Baha’is, have had a valid marriage ceremony, whether this be civil, religious or by tribal custom, even if this has resulted in a polygamous union.
Furthermore, the Faith accepts in certain cases unions which are immoral but accepted by the society in which the people live. In all these cases, because the union is accepted by the Faith, there is no question of a couple’s having a Bahai wedding ceremony subsequently because, as the Guardian says, ‘Bahai marriage is something you perform when you are going to be united for the first time, not long after the union takes place’. If, however, such a couple would like to have a meeting of their friends at which Bahai prayers and readings are said on behalf of their marriage now that they are Bahais, there is no objection to their doing so, although it must be understood that this does not constitute a Bahai marriage ceremony.”

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Peru, June 23, 1969) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 380)

There is also the precedent of allowing those who have more than one spouse to remain married after they become Bahais where it is up to the National Spiritual Assembly to decide on this. It seems that the principle here is that in some cultures or countries, a situation where a Bahai had more than one spouse would be acceptable or perceived as being flexible whereas in another country this would be unacceptable.

It seems to me that rules about marriage would fall under what Abdu’l-Bahai refers to as “daily transactions” in the Will and Testament.
In a provisional translation of a tablet Abdu’l-Baha (in “Amr wa Khalq” volume 4) it seems that ‘social laws’ could be intended to be laws to be decided or adjusted by National Spiritual Assemblies.

“As for marriage, this falls entirely within the social laws.
…In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes on this question, that is in truth the decisive decree…
…For whenever a difficulty may arise and a local decision is required, at that point, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice, can issue a new national ruling on a national case and topic, in the light of local imperatives. To entirely avoid any risks, the rulings that the House of Justice has made, it can also abrogate.”
More of this quotation is here

I am not stating this is the case, just that this seems to be a possibility. That perhaps in the future in some countries same sex marriage could be recognized in order not to break the law of the country or because the National Spiritual Assembly in some countries has decided on this as a policy.

It is possible that the ‘daily transactions’ aspects of Bahai Law is intended to be this flexible. To be applied differently in different countries. I find this a rather exciting idea. A religion where the religious laws work with the diverse cultures of the world. It’s quite a different idea to how we tend to think of religious law, as something set in stone and something that is uniformly applied. Perhaps this is unity in diversity?

Of course I am not saying this is how Bahai law will be applied, just suggesting that this could be a possibility given the examples of polygamous marriages and the examples where until the 1950s in the middle east only men were allowed to be elected to local and national spiritual assemblies.
[See the bottom of this blog for sources for this.]

My response to WW

WW wrote: “religious law doesn’t have to be mentioned by Baha’u’llah if it was part of the prior religious law…
If there was not a change needed in a prior subject, then it didn’t need to be explained further. Man/Woman marriage and standards of chastity were established back in the Jewish chapter of our Faith. ”

In case you don’t consider what is in the Kitab-i-Aqdas as covering this in relation to marriage, here is a quotation from Shoghi Effendi.

“This Book [the Bayan] at once abrogated the laws and ceremonials enjoined by the Qur’án regarding prayer, fasting, marriage, divorce and inheritance, and upheld, in its integrity, the belief in the prophetic mission of Muhammad…”
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 25)

However I do not agree with your statement that it is a Bahai Teaching to accept all previous religious law unless specifically abrogated. First a four quotations:

“…could the Law of the Old Testament be enforced at this epoch and time? No, in the name of God! it would be impossible and impracticable; therefore, most certainly God abrogated the laws of the Old Testament at the time of Christ.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 94)

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the status of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they inculcate, clarifies and correlates their functions, reaffirms their common, their unchangeable and fundamental purpose, reconciles their seemingly divergent claims and doctrines, readily and gratefully recognizes their respective contributions to the gradual unfoldment of one Divine Revelation, unhesitatingly acknowledges itself to be but one link in the chain of continually progressive Revelations, supplements their teachings with such laws and ordinances as conform to the imperative needs, and are dictated by the growing receptivity, of a fast evolving and constantly changing society,…”
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 100)

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries — this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 47)

“Our Exalted Herald — may the life of all else besides Him be offered up for His sake — hath revealed certain laws. However, in the realm of His Revelation these laws were made subject to Our sanction, hence this Wronged One hath put some of them into effect by embodying them in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas in different words. Others We set aside.”
(Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 132)

Aside from the references above to all previous laws being abrogated by the presence of Baha’u’llah’s Revelation, for me an important part of the above quotation are the words “Others [meaning other laws] We set aside.”
I read this to mean other laws for the Universal House of Justice to decide on.

If there was a Bahai teaching that stated that all religious law not specifically abrogated by Baha’u’llah would be applicable, then the Universal House of Justice wouldn’t be able to make law on issues not specifically “mentioned in the book” They couldn’t “gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.
Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.”
(The Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 20, see)

However I do not think it is a Baha’i Teaching otherwise Baha’is would be following these religious laws of the Torah not abogated by Baha’u’llah.

The Torah tells you not to castrate your cat or dog (Lev. 22:24),
to observe the sabbath and to eat matzah on the first night of Passover (Ex. 12:18)
but not after mid-day on the fourteenth of Nissan (Deut. 16:3),
not to work on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:25),
to dwell in booths seven days during Sukkot (Lev. 23:42),
to let the land lie fallow in the Sabbatical year (Ex. 23:11;
Lev. 25:2), never to settle in the land of Egypt (Deut. 17:16),
to make the rapist of a virgin marry her (Deut. 22:28-29),
not to cross-breed cattle of different species (Lev. 19:19),
not to sow grain or herbs in a vineyard (Deut. 22:9),
not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together (Deut.
22:11).

And this video clip “West Wood – Biblical Quotes” makes the point of the dangers of religious law being used out of context, brilliantly. Enjoy! For me, it supports the Baha’i Teaching of progressive revelation.

Later responses to WW

WW wrote: “Pederasty… it is a multi-faceted act. By definition, it must include, in the classical view, 1) youth below the age of consent (usually before puberty) and a grown adult 2) is between two males (more modern view also has two females and 3) may include the act of sodomy. If we agree that the act of Pederasty is forbidden, are we assuming it is only one aspect such as the first part which is forbidden or could it be all 3 aspects are forbidden?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

And unfortunately part of the culture of the times of Baha’u’llah see this article by Jackson Armstron-Ingram

Comparing adult relationships with pedophilia, is in my view, as inappropriate as suggesting that marriage has a connection with rape. When I am discussing homosexuality I am only discussing adult relationships of equality, nothing else.
And my question in response is, what is so threatening about a couple of the same sex being married and raising children? Primarily homosexuality is about orientation not about sex.

Please show me why you have added points 2 and 3 to a definition that only applies to point 1. If this is just your opinion that’s fine, if this is something you think applies to the Baha’i teachings, then please show me with quotations how you see this. If you read the notes of the Kitab-i-Aqdas you’ll see that the definition is as it is known to the rest of the world, pederasty means sex with children, and I agree with Baha’ullah, it is shameful.

WW wrote: “However, it should be noted that Shoghi Effendi never wrote anything contrary to that statement, even after that letter was written. What does that imply? It means either he didn’t know it was written or he was aware of it and agreed.”

My view is that Shoghi Effendi didn’t write about anything on any of the 100s of topics covered by the letters written on his behalf either because he didn’t consider them Scripture to start with or because he considered the areas they covered as being under the auspices of the Universal House of Justice.

I’ll back up my comments with quotations if you ask me to.
It is all here

WW asked “how would you define sodomy?”

I think the important question is what Baha’u’llah would have meant by the use of the word “liwaat”.

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Questions and Answers, #49, is the text: “Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof”
Baha’u’llah’s answer: “The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice.” (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121, 1992 edition)

The question asks about:
zinaa’ (= adultery, fornication) and
liwaat (= sodomy, paederasty) and
sariqa (= theft)

Liwaat is the word used meaning both sodomy and paederasty in Arabic and Persian so it will be up to the UHJ to determine whether this includes homosexuality or not.
In the notes (note 134, page 223) the UHJ at the time of the publication wrote that “the subject of boys had the implication of paederasty.” and state that Shoghi Effendi interpreted this as a prohibition on all homosexuals but further down the only source they give is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I read this there is no source penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Bahai Writings.
However, unless (or until) a future UHJ makes a differing statement this connection made with homosexuality as a prohibition should be seen as their policy (at least that is the case 18 years ago), but this is not the same as a prohibition on homosexuality being penned by Baha’u’llah which is not subject to change.

Another thought on Question #49: In those times the punishment for those crimes was stipulated in Islamic law and not left up to the judge or ruler. So it seems that in Baha’u’llah’s answer he making the punishment for these things at the discretion of the UHJ.

I think it is likely that Baha’u’llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.

“Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power”
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21

Baha’u’llah states that he doesn’t give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.

And on that note while travelling homeward through the U.K. some months ago was this headline in the papers:
“Anger at Pope’s attack on British equality laws”.

The Pope’s argument being that it was against natural law. Interestingly one commenter wrote: “How can the sexual nature of 6-10% of humans be unnatural? How can something which occurs across the world in practically every culture and has been recorded since history itself began to be recorded be unnatural?
It would make more sense to suggest that mountains are unnatural, as they occur far less commonly than gay people.”

And this leads me to a text in an article by Jackson Armstrong-Ingram:

“Both zina and liwat are sexual relations that take place outside of a context in which the long term rights of both participants are regarded. Unlawful sex is literally unprotected sex — it takes place in relationships that are not associated with social supports and long-term obligations. Lawful sex, as defined in the Aqdas, takes place in marriages, which are relationships embedded in a network of familial support and providing for the mutual development of the partners.”

“The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies”

So perhaps it is possible that what Baha’ullah means by the terms, zina and liwaat is any sexual activity that would be considered unnatural or illegal. What is considered unnatural is certainly a cultural question, and so it seems to mean that while Baha’u’llah is clear in the Aqdas about sex with children (paederasty) never ever being ok, he treats question of other areas of “illicit” sex as something the Universal House of Justice would rule on.

This strikes me as prophetic. In his day the idea of homosexual marriage would have been unheard of, and yet, in making other areas of ‘illicit’ something for the Universal House of Justice to rule on, it means they can make and change law on how homosexual partnerships are to be treated.

WW wrote: “I guess the final stance is wanting to take specific words and apply new, modern meanings to them to justify a behavior which was not justified with the prior meanings. “
to which I can respond by saying “I guess the final stance is wanting to take specific words and apply old meanings to them. ”

One either believes Baha’u’llah was a prophet of God with a vision or not.
I’m assuming your use of material from the Koran rather than relating to any of the quotations I referred to from Baha’i Scripture means that these writings are more important to you. That’s fine, but my position is to treat Baha’i Scripture with more importance. We will just have to difer on the issue of sodomy in that case.

Responses to DD + WW

DD thanks for your response.
You refer to the discrimination towards gays by Bahais as allegations. Please take the time to read just a few of these stories before dismissing the suffering of our gay youth >> gaybahai.net/read-stories

Clearly sometimes the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are ignored such as the one advising Bahais not to use any form of birth control, which I quoted in an earlier post on this discussion.

So if Bahais wish to treat these letters as if they have the same level of authority as Bahai Scripture, despite this not being what Shoghi Effendi wanted, then I’d say do this with all those letters in that case, not just the ones that state the homophobic attitudes of the times.

WW wrote: “doesn’t make the prior Revelation any less worthy, just merely outdated.”
I agree, and so my view is that your Islamic idea of the meaning of ‘liwaat’ is more limited or outdated than how I read what Baha’u’llah could have meant in his use of this in the Kitab-i-Adqas. I say “could” because I think the real issue is that it isn’t so clear what is intended by these ‘illicit’ forms of relations. And because it isn’t clear, I do think this is an issue for the UHJ to rule on. Being an issue for them to rule on, means also that this is an issue that is open to change. And that is about sodomy or liwaat, not homosexuality which is not the same thing. My arguments here are about homosexuality as an orientation. As Bahais if we do not discuss things we can’t really understand them. The UHJ has never ever written that Bahais must not question, must not search the Writings to come to understandings and so on.

WW, I realise that you may mean well by hoping that I am earnest, but I am not questioning your honesty or motives. It would make any discussion between people with differing views more fruitful if Baha’is didn’t do this. I’m making this comment not just because you use this, but because very often Baha’is assume I must be wrong if I state things like ‘I can’t find anything in unchangeable Baha’i Scripture that is anti-gay’ or ‘why are Baha’is so keen to up hold the homophobic 1950s attitudes of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi while ignoring other 1950s attitudes such as birth control being wrong’ and then usually resort to making some slanderous remark about my motive or even worse telling me that I am disagreeing with the UHJ or that I am breaking the Covenant. What people are really doing is throwing sticks and stones with their words.

And it is only when I’ m discussing homosexuality that this happens.

It really saddens me that Baha’is seem so homophobic. By homophobic I mean, so often it seems to touch some deep unsecurity or fear. Baha’is who are most likely very open and wonderful in other aspects of their thinking or feeling, come out with comments such as those written by others in this discussion where a young gay Bahai’s suicide was dismissed as “no ones fault that [he] did not listen and follow.” when this person had suffered shunning by his religion and family. My question: what is so threatening that people react like this?

I do not believe Baha’ullah ever intended his religion to be so intolerant, so unfeeling for people of diversity. So my challenge to those of you who read this, is face your fears about homosexuality and you just might find there’s nothing to fear. Please make the Baha’i community a kinder place for homosexuals, even if you think homosexuality is wrong.

And here’s a link to an inspiring article by a gay Baha’i whose parents sound amazing.

July 2010: My response to the moderator for removing the discussion

T thanks for putting an explanation of why you deleted the ‘homophobia’ discussion thread and while I appreciate that you had complaints made to you about this thread and then just before you deleted this someone referred to my use of the writings as:
“attacks on the foundations of the Baha’i Faith” and “frontal assaults“, and I would agree when people resort to calling argumentation attacks or assaults this lowers the tone of discussion. However I would suggest that you delete the posts that resort to name-calling or attacking the credibility of other posters and not delete the whole thread. In deleting the whole thread you are censoring this discussion and as much as I know that many Bahais would like the issue of equality for gays to disappear, this is not going to go away.

I am sad that you deleted the minority voices: the gay Bahais who at my encouragement participated thinking here was a Baha’i forum where they would not be silenced. They didn’t expect a particularly gay-friendly environment but at least they could speak. I realise that your intention was not to silence these voices, but this what has happened. Majority voices will always prevail so the real effect is on the silencing of those for whom it took courage to speak.