Well, hallelujah! The religious right won the US election for George Bush. Inspired by the prospect of queers and perverts sullying the holy institution of marriage, they came out in force – praise the lawd – and won the day for the Republican administration, with a hefty show of force. Have mercy!

Whether a John Kerry presidency would have made any substantive difference in relation to the war in Iraq, or to US foreign policy in general, is a moot point. But there are areas in which a Kerry presidency would certainly have altered things significantly from what is now in store for us – or more particularly for Americans.
In practical political terms, you could say that gay activists got it badly wrong, pushing the issue of gay marriage in the last year of the Presidency. They are perfectly entitled to have their unions properly recognised by the State: I support that cause unequivocally. They are also perfectly entitled to make an issue of it, however and whenever they want to.
The problem now, however, is that their own cause has been horribly damaged by the re-election of Bush. It isn’t just that the administration can argue that they have a mandate to screw the queers – which they do. The real killer is that they may well be in a position to make a number of potentially vital appointments to the Supreme Court during the President’s new term of office, weighting the court even more heavily in favour of religiously driven conservatism. Thus, any attempt to combat discrimination against gays via that route seems doomed for the foreseeable future.
Americans – lots of them – are deeply depressed at the outcome. Forget about the ritual talk about uniting behind the President. The country has seldom been as divided. There is a feeling among liberal Americans that this is no longer their country. Homosexuals in particular are feeling thoroughly alienated. I met an Irish American mother of a gay guy last week. She said that he was thinking of coming over here to live. It’s a nice thought that Ireland might be seen as a bastion of enlightenment and tolerance – but I wouldn’t bet that it will stay that way.
The result of the US election, and the manner in which it was achieved, may well be seen as the signal for a revival of that old time Irish religiosity. Coincidentally or otherwise, there have already been moves in that direction.
She might not appreciate the link, but the Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, started the push last week with a speech in which she talked about the bankruptcy of sex and shopping culture. Fair enough. She went on to suggest that it might be time for people to begin tiptoeing back to the Church as a way of regaining lost moral values.
There is an insidious aspect to this line that needs to be challenged. In Ireland, at the foundation of the State, the Catholic Church bullied its way into being seen as the only possible source of guidance or truth on matters of morality. As they defend it.
The clergy vilified unmarried mothers, stole their children and used them for cheap labour in institutions that were an Irish version of the gulag. They looked down their noses at gays, denounced people from the pulpit and generally abused their position of power in the most reprehensible way.
And then came the scandal of sex abuse. It emerged that the Church leaders had not just been tolerating corruption within their own ranks but that they had engaged in a massive and systematic cover-up of the sex abuse perpetrated by priests. And we are being advised to tiptoe back to the institution run by these very people?
Now I know that there are good individuals in the church, and lots of them. And I also know that there are decent, hard-working and committed priests and nuns who have given their lives to the idea of service. No argument. But, all of that said, there is no basis whatsoever for thinking that the Catholic Church – or any other church for that matter – has any kind of special prerogative in relation to moral values.
The bigwigs of the Church appropriated the idea of morality and used it to enforce their own rotten agenda. However, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that people who do not believe in God are any less capable of behaving in a moral way. Indeed there is a very strong argument that, as a result of the dogma to which they adhere, devotees of the cult of Christianity and Catholicism in particular are likely to be less capable of making truly balanced and informed moral judgements than people who are not weighed down by any such baggage.
They still think, for example, that there is something immoral about gay sex. Anyone who imagines otherwise just doesn’t get it. It is fundamental. They believe that gay blokes are committing a sin every time they give it to one another. In this they are wrong. But it is a belief that is not going to change.
They also, of course, believe in the fundamental inferiority of women. How else do you explain their opposition to women taking up any positions of real power in the Church? And how ‘moral’ is that?
Far from tiptoeing back to the church, we should be asking the hard questions about the nature of belief – any belief – in God. And we should also be asking about the entire edifice of organised religion and the way in which the Churches tend to support and reinforce discrimination, especially against women. If we don’t stay alert and vigilant, they’ll be tip toeing back into positions of power and influence, from which they can begin to roll back the advances that were fought for and achieved over the past thirty years. Like in the US.
On a different theme we should also be looking at the family law courts and the way in which they support and reinforce discrimination against men.
We’ll get back to this.b