EDITORIAL - Personal and representative viewpoints

We should not wish to deny any individual, including the Honourable Minister of the Environment, Dr Denis Lowe, his or her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of conscience that includes, according to section 19, the right to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Accordingly, the Minister is free to believe in the Biblical way of life and publicly to declare his intention “with (sic) or without the Legislature” to support what he calls “the advance of a legislative call for same-sex marriage”. Indeed, he may even pray in aid his equally guaranteed right to freedom of expression that enables him to communicate ideas and information without interference.

But Mr Lowe is more than an individual solely. He is also a Parliamentary representative with a constituency comprising diverse individuals, no doubt of varying colours, creeds, political beliefs, social origins and sexual orientations. We do not think that as the duly elected representative for such a constituency Mr Lowe would want to be perceived as discriminating against any one of them simply because his lifestyle and perceptions does not comport with theirs.

So that while, in keeping with his beliefs, he may avoid the consumption of animals that do not both chew their cud and have a divided hoof, or the touching of their carcasses or even refuse to cut his hair at the sides, or not pick up the grapes that have fallen in his vineyard – if he has one, Mr Lowe might spare a thought for those of his constituents who yearn legally to enjoy for eternity the companionship of their loved ones.

One does not have to support the concept of same sex marriage in order to appreciate that those of homosexual orientation should not be denied what is essentially a human right to form a union based on mutual love and respect.

This apart, we emphatically agree with the Honourable Minister of Industry, Mr Donville Inniss who has asserted that the entire issue of same sex marriage in Barbados is a non-issue”. While his assertion is premised on the basis that there are far more exigent issues demanding discussion in the public domain, we make our claim on the basis that any such proposal, of whose initiation we remain unaware, is legally impracticable under our current dispensation and thus a non-starter.

First, legislation will have to be enacted to reverse the established common law rule that marriage is a bond between a man who was born a man and a woman who was born a woman. Further, there would also have to be a repeal of the existing provisions that criminalise the male sex act and serious indecency between women if there is to be the required consummation of such a marriage so as to avoid its nullification. It should be recalled that both these acts might be committed even in private between two consenting partners.

While we believe that Mr Lowe’s views on same sex marriage and same sex relations in general may indeed be shared by most Barbadians of a certain age, we suspect that this attitude does not pervade the entire society and that most younger Barbadians are much more tolerant in these contexts.

Another of Mr Inniss’ counterarguments was that individuals ought not to be judged according to their perceived or imagined sexual orientation, and though he did not add this, “but on the content of their character”. He thereby hit the nail on the proverbial head. Apart from those few brave souls that have declared their sexual orientation, all other such designations are based purely on rumour, hearsay and malice.

We can do better than this.