This sex poem sparked outrage in 1970s Britain – but who triumphed in the courtroom?

Debate over sexuality and tolerance continues today, but modern Britain is generally accepting. For the first time in history, LGBTQ people are legally safe and free. However, this was not always the case. From 1533, when the first civil sodomy law was passed, until the mid-twentieth century, same-sex acts between men were illegal in England. The last men executed for sodomy were hanged in 1835. Even in the 1950s, more than 1,000 men were imprisoned each year for homosexual acts.

By the 1970s, attitudes were shifting. The 1957 Wolfenden Report had paved the way for the legalization of homosexuality in 1967. Yet, the fight for equality was far from over. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of a court case that severely challenged society’s acceptance of homosexuality. It also tested the legal definitions of blasphemy in the United Kingdom.

On June 3, 1976, the newspaper Gay News published a poem by James Kirkup titled The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name. The title referenced a famous line from Lord Alfred Douglas’s 1892 poem Two Loves. Gay News was founded four years earlier by members of the Gay Liberation Front and the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Its goal was to campaign for gay rights while exploring gay culture and art. The editors decided to publish Kirkup’s poem because he was an established and respected poet, not just a provocateur.

The poem was written from the perspective of a Roman centurion present at Christ’s crucifixion. It portrayed Jesus as having sexual relations with John the Baptist, his disciples, and other men, including Pontius Pilate. The verse concluded with a graphic description of the centurion performing sex acts with Jesus’s body after it was taken down from the cross. The poem was illustrated with a picture of the crucified Christ, with his genitalia clearly visible. Even today, this verse has the power to shock.

Readers and lawyers asked what the intention of the poem and its publishers was. Did they aim to create offense or suggest that Christ offered salvation to all people? Was it a niche item for a specific audience? There is no doubt that it was a serious piece of work. It did not mock Christian beliefs or undermine religious doctrines. This issue of intention would prove crucial to the outcome of the court case.

Soon after publication, Mary Whitehouse became aware of the verse. For more than twenty years, Whitehouse was Britain’s leading campaigner against what she saw as a moral decline. She was the founder of the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association. She had long led campaigns against what she viewed as a growing tide of permissiveness in the media. She had previously criticized a Danish film about Christ’s sex life and even attacked the children’s show Doctor Who. Whitehouse claimed to dislike homosexuality but said she had no personal issue with gay people.

Seeing the poem as an affront to her Christian faith and that of others, Whitehouse wondered if legal action was possible. Lawyers researched old blasphemy laws. They found that while specific statutes had been repealed, the common law offense of blasphemous libel remained. The last person prosecuted for blasphemy was John William Gott in 1921, who was sentenced to nine months of hard labor for satirical attacks on Christianity.

Legal scrutiny revealed that criticizing Christianity was not illegal. The test for blasphemy depended on the manner in which it was done. If a publication intended to offend those who felt threatened, it could be a crime. Lawyers decided that Gay News had a case to answer. Whitehouse launched a private prosecution for blasphemous libel. The accusation raised complex questions. Was the poem blasphemous because it was unscriptural? The events were fictional and invented centuries after the gospels. The factor likely found offensive by many was the association of Christ with homosexuality.

The case highlighted a divide in British society. It pitted liberal, progressive forces against conservative groups seeking to protect traditional morality. The trial took place around the time of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee and the rise of punk music.

John Mortimer, a leading radical lawyer of the day, led the defense. He was famous for his fictional character Rumpole of the Bailey. Alongside him was Geoffrey Robertson, who would later become a prominent human rights lawyer. They aimed to establish that Gay News was a legitimate publication acting in the public interest. They planned to present expert witnesses to prove the poem was central to modern culture.

The defense argued that Whitehouse was defending a morality that was out of step with the modern world. They framed the case as a repeat of the 1960 trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. In that case, prosecutors questioned whether a wife or servant should be allowed to read the novel. The defense hoped to show that the moralists were silly and out of touch. They believed Britons had earned the right to escape a repressive past.

Evangelical barrister John Smyth led the prosecution. He argued that permissive liberalism had gone too far. He claimed that society was being damaged by immorality. If texts like Kirkup’s poem were shared, Britons might make poor moral choices. This would sweep away Christian morality and endanger individuals’ salvation. These views rested on the belief that Christianity had preserved Britain from turmoil.

The case became a struggle between literary interpretation and literal meaning. The defense argued that artists should have free expression, appealing to the imagination. The prosecution suggested that language had literal meanings and could challenge the cherished beliefs of society.

The trial proved to be far from a fair fight. Judge Alan King-Hamilton seemed to favor the prosecution. At the start, he departed from standard practice. He allowed the prosecution to address the jury in full without the balance of counterargument. When the defense spoke, the judge severely damaged their arguments.

The defense brought in respected witnesses, including journalist Bernard Levin and author Margaret Drabble. However, the judge only allowed them to speak as character witnesses. They could not testify about the poem’s literary merit. He also refused to consider theological arguments that Christ could be interpreted in different ways. He suggested that because the jury had sworn on the New Testament, they would not be sympathetic to such arguments.

In his summing up, Judge King-Hamilton claimed the poem was blasphemous on its face. He ignored arguments about intention and audience. He suggested that the literal meaning of the text trumped its literary context. Gay News and its editor, Denis Lemon, were found guilty of blasphemous libel. The company was fined £1,000. Lemon was fined £500 and sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended.

The defendants appealed. On March 17, 1978, the Court of Appeal quashed Lemon’s suspended sentence. However, it upheld the conviction. The court ruled that the law of blasphemy was developed before the concept of mens rea became essential. This meant that the mental state or intention of the defendant did not need to be considered. The fact that printing the poem was not intended as a criminal act provided no defense.

Readers of Gay News voted overwhelmingly to appeal to the House of Lords. On February 21, 1979, the law lords delivered their judgment. They concluded by a majority of three to two that specific intent was not required. Proving the publication was enough for a conviction under the law of that time.

The confirmation of the conviction was a massive setback for the gay community. It had a chilling effect on gay rights campaigns. Although Gay News did not suffer financially due to a fighting fund, its staff lost confidence. Gay culture also suffered. The National Film Theatre cancelled a season of Gay Cinema, fearing public backlash.

However, there was pushback. The Tom Robinson Band released the song “Glad to be Gay” in 1978. The song referenced the hypocrisy of prosecuting Gay News while newspapers published sexually explicit content regularly.

Despite the setback, human rights legislation later harmonized the age of consent for gay and heterosexual acts. Sexuality became a protected category against discrimination. Many Christians embraced the Gay Christian movement, promoting inclusiveness. Trans rights campaigners also won notable victories in subsequent decades.

The arguments of the prosecution fared poorly in later years. Judge King-Hamilton later expressed regret about the suspended sentence in his autobiography. He admitted the conservative response was an overreaction. A darker shadow hangs over the case due to John Smyth’s actions. Smyth was later revealed to be a serial abuser of adolescent boys. This scandal rocked the Church of England and led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2024.

Mary Whitehouse’s star waned after this case, which was arguably her last major triumph. Her style of moralism was falling out of fashion. As early as 1979, Monty Python’s biblical satire Life of Brian became one of the highest-grossing films in the UK. In the years since, campaigns against media deemed to have gone too far have ceased to use the same tactics. The legal landscape and social attitudes have moved significantly beyond the rigid moralism of the 1970s.