U

ntil recently we rarely had kissing scenes on screen, and when we did blurred images have been used as a desperate attempt to protect public morality, which critics worry is currently heading for the gutter.

Then following the outcry earlier this year on the increased visibility of sexual minorities, the supposedly devout among us have been pressing much further through legal channels to bring about a more strait-laced society.

Following the fairly successful push for the law on pornography, among the latest efforts is a judicial review request to change provisions on sexual relations in the Criminal Code (KUHP), so that consensual same-sex intercourse and casual or extramarital sex become crimes.

As the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community is allegedly “spreading propaganda to make it seem as if casual sex or same-sex relationships are OK”, the law should take a stance, as the issue “has entered the public sphere”, says Rita Hendrawaty, one of the plaintiffs and a chairperson of the Family Love Alliance (AILA) organization.

Advocates for state action against perceived threats to the family, including academics grouped in the Civilized Indonesia movement, cite many reasons to be worried about threats to Asian, Indonesian and religious values. The LGBT community has been accused of actively inveigling young people, including those on campus, into their orientation, which is seen as violating the beliefs of the faithful. Images and films flaunting images deemed pornographic have been blamed for continuous reports of rape and murder, with even minors involved as perpetrators. The logic in preventing things getting worse, it seems, is to impose Victorian-era or strict religious codes on society, by dragging the state further into people’s bedrooms.

The wider public should speak up on whether this is indeed how they view Indonesia’s future. A revision to the KUHP has been deliberated for years; the plaintiffs hope their efforts can speed things up regarding fundamental issues “to save the nation’s morality”, they say.

Laws should be designed to be effective, however. Our religious leaders remind us daily of the cardinal sins including adultery. But while priests and clerics have been exposed as having committed sexual abuse, most shockingly of minors of both the same or different sex, hardly any of these powerful figures have been brought before the courts.

Those opposed to sexual violence also seek a state role in the prevention of, and protection from, sexual violence. They have also been pushing for a wider definition of rape, for instance, to even enable wives to sue husbands for nonconsensual intercourse, and also to recognize date rape.

But a wider range of society must be brought into the discussion about whether we want the state to regulate the private affairs of consenting adults.

The legal review should hear diverse opinions on whether Indonesians want a nanny state to ensure we all tread the straight and narrow — and whether it is worth the effort when so much violence in unbalanced relationships, whether inside or outside marriage or between straight and gay couples, goes unaddressed.