Kinisha Forbes and Kirsten Lettsome of the British Virgin
Islands (BVI) are two brave women.
Anguilla seems to have none like them.
In 2011 they entered a civil partnership in the United Kingdom. They were issued a marriage certificate once
the UK’s same-sex couples law came into effect.
The couple are now back in the BVI.
They began a court action against the Attorney-General for a declaration
that their marriage is valid under BVI law and that prohibiting same-sex
marriage in the Territory is unconstitutional.
The BVI Christian Council applied to
the Court to be added to the case as a third party so it could file briefs and
argue against the claimants. After
initially allowing the Council to intervene, the judge has now struck them from
the case, ruling that their application had no realistic prospect of
success. Besides, given the pressure on
the court system in the BVI, it is important to make the best use of its
resources.
The matter is complicated by two recent
developments. First, the Privy Council
on 14 March 2022 in two appeals from Bermuda and the Cayman Islands ruled that
the prohibitions on same-sex marriage in those two Territories were compliant
with their Constitutions. So, unless
there is some major difference between the Constitutions of the BVI and those
other two Territories, the precedents are against Ms Forbes and Ms Lettsome.
The second complication is the recent
Private Member’s Bill laid in the House of Lords by Labour Party peer and
gay-rights activist, Lord Michael Cashman.
The Bill seeks to make same-sex marriage lawful in all British Overseas
Territories where it is currently unlawful.
That would include the BVI and Anguilla.
No one has asked for my opinion, but
I am going to give it anyway. The Privy
Council has the power to pass any law it wishes for the Overseas Territories
without being obliged to consult them. However,
all right-thinking Anguillians are opposed to the UK imposing domestic laws on
the Overseas Territories without our express consent. If we are really in a partnership for
progress with the United Kingdom, such a unilateral step seems a little
offensive.
If our Territories are backward in
respecting human rights, someone among us needs to engage our people in a
campaign of public information. We must
raise the levels of social consciousness and general education among our
people. It is our responsibility to
encourage more liberal attitudes of live and let live. It is not appropriate in the twenty-first century
for Britain to dictate to us in this way, no matter how well-meaning the
impulse was.
Additionally, it is for our gays and
lesbians to agitate for their rights if they want them. Freedom, democracy, and human rights cannot
be taken for granted. They must continually
be fought for. If our LGBTQ community
came out of the closet and demanded equality, they would get it – albeit perhaps
only after an almighty struggle. If they
prefer to keep silent, they will continue to be marginalised and discriminated
against.
It is true that the UK has used legislation
and Orders in Council in the past to amend our domestic law. For example, within the last twenty-five
years they decriminalised anal intercourse and abolished the death penalty in
the Overseas Territories including Anguilla.
However, the difference there was that we asked them to do so. They took this action at the request of our
Heads of Government. It was not
unilaterally imposed on us. The Minutes of
the relevant Heads of Government meetings in London reveal that the Heads in
effect told the FCO that they did not dare bring up these two reforms in their
local parliaments. The evangelicals and
other extremists would raise a political storm.
It would create major problems if local politicians attempted to usher
such Bills through the local Assemblies.
So, as a favour to, and at the
request of, our Heads of Government, the FCO put the relevant Orders in Council
before the Privy Council. Once signed, anal
intercourse became no longer a matter for the Criminal law, and the sentence of
hanging was no longer available for a local court to impose. There was no outcry from any of the Overseas
Territories. At our request, the Privy
Council had intervened to assist us in two touchy matters we were afraid to
address.
What is the source and origin of our
backward attitude to gay marriage? On
what basis do the self-righteous among us fight so vehemently against our gay
and lesbian brothers’ and sisters’ desire to have a normal family life? The answer is that some of us in the British
Overseas Territories are stuck in a time warp.
The barbaric moral rules of the Middle Eastern Bronze Age as adumbrated
in the Old Testament Books are still taught in many of our third millennium churches
and schools as God’s sacred word. In many
of our infant schools, “creationism” is taught instead of evolution of species. Instead of elementary geology, our primary
schools teach that God created the earth on 23 October, 4004 BCE. At odd times during the day, our ears are
assaulted on the airwaves by religious extremists preaching that Sodom and
Gomorrah are about to rain down on us.
An apt response to these fanatics of
the airwaves comes to mind. It is an old
one, but a good one. It is worthy of repetition. A reminder may even help to bring home that
it is nonsense they are preaching:
Dear
Evangelical Association,
Thank
you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I
try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states
it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I
do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and
how to best follow them.
When
I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour
for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is
my neighbours. They claim the odour is
not pleasing to them. Should I smite
them?
I
would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?
I
know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of
menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24).
The problem is, how do I tell? I
have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev
25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided
they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Kittitians but not St Martiners. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own a St Martiner?
I
have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put
to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?
A
friend of mine feels that even though eating lobster is an abomination (Lev
11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev
21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my
sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to
be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most
of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their
temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
I
know from Lev 11:8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but
may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My
uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19
by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a
lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev
24:16). Couldn’t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev 20:14)
I
know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank
you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Our
problem in Anguilla is that we jumped from the childish credulity of worshiping
Bronze Age barbaric gods of circa 1350 BCE, revitalised by the Gospels and the
Koran, into the electronic and digital age without having stopped off at the
Enlightenment Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The
enlightened among us must confront religious extremists whenever they stick
their faces above the parapet. We must
oppose their twisted rantings for the sake of the mental health of our children
and grandchildren, if for nothing else.
The
barbaric knifing of Salman Rushdie in New York at the command of the late Afghan
Ayatollah is not peculiarly Muslim behaviour.
Christians among us in earlier centuries behaved in the same murderous
way. During the Reformation period in
Europe (1500 to 1700 approximately), Catholics murdered millions of Protestants
while Protestants murdered millions of Catholics in retaliation. In the same way, for centuries the Sunni
majority militants murdered Shia minority Muslims.
Most of us
who were brought up Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist, have
culturally evolved away from such madness.
Only Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostalists, and Suni Muslims are left today
to wallow in ancient, murderous, religion-inspired hatreds.
