National Humanist organisations and many prominent Humanists voiced their strong opposition to Clause 28 in the Local Government Bill before it became enshrined in law as Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
Humanist News, the journal of the British Humanist Association, gave opposition to the clause front page treatment and included reaction from Professor Sir Hermann Bondi, then BHA President and Master of Churchill College, Cambridge. Condemning the clause, Sir Hermann said “too many religions regard human sexuality as a bad feature – one barely to be tolerated, then only in a very highly defined and prescribed manner. But it is an enormously important characteristic of human beings, which finds many different kinds of expression. To say that we know that only one is ‘right’ shows a degree of intolerance which I find most objectionable.” Humanist peer and playwright Lord Ted Willis told Humanist News that he was saddened by the Lords’ narrow vote to retain the clause: “I strongly object to the stigma given to homosexuals and homosexuality in this clause [...] I think that this is the first step on the road to an intolerant society.” In his editorial comment, Humanist News editor Martin Horwood said that bigotry had been met by Britain’s lesbian and gay community “with bravery and remarkable humour”, but “in the worst tradition of political scapegoating, the Government has chosen this moment to fuel the bigotry.” Mr Horwood concluded: “We have a moral duty to defend the lesbian and gay community openly against this act of intolerance.”
The National Secular Society denounced the clause and lent its support to the Stop the Clause Campaign. In a letter to the campaign sent on behalf of the NSS, its President, Barbara Smoker, wrote: “The National Secular Society, which has always opposed both censorship and legal and social discrimination against minorities, wishes to record its support (as a sympathetic, but non-gay, long established organisation) for your campaign against the threat of Clause 28”.
During the debate on the clause in the House of Lords, Humanist peers Baroness Blackstone (now a BHA Vice-President), Lord Houghton, Lord McIntosh, Lord Peston and Lord Willis all voiced their opposition. As reported in Gay Times (February 1988), Baroness Blackstone said the clause reflected “attitudes about sexuality about which we should be ashamed and which the political leadership of this country has an obligation to try to alter”. Lord Houghton said the clause was the product of “persistent endeavour” in the House of Commons “to suppress more liberal attitudes and thoughts about sexuality and morals in general”. Lord McIntosh said the clause posed a risk of “a backlash against homosexuality”, and Lord Peston said the clause was “almost unique in its combination of illiberality and nonsense”. He went on to say “This is a nasty and vindictive clause. I am fearful that the nasty and vindictive people who promote it, and who have misled others, regard it not simply as a clause but as the first step in a general attack on homosexuality in our society.” Lord Peston’s speech was interrupted by Roman Catholic peer the Earl of Longford, who pointed out that homosexual activity was “forbidden both by Christian and Jewish teaching”. “Some of us”, replied Lord Peston, “believe that in the past 2,000 years there have been some developments in human thought and human moral values and therefore are not ashamed to take a different view.” Lord Willis, who attempted to have the whole clause deleted, said: “It seems homosexuals are fair game for the bigots, and we are now dealing with an open season [...] many noble Lords must know that where homosexual people gather in pubs and clubs they get chased out, they get beaten up and they get pelted by louts and yobbos. The tone and content of the clause continue to leave open that possibility.”