Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by this author are their own and do not represent the official position of the Barbados Today.
by Dr. Peter Laurie
Oh my Lord, here we go again.
Every time some step is proposed to advance the observance of human rights in Barbados, there is a storm of protest.
Now, of course, everyone, including churches and their members, has the right to speak out on any issue, and, indeed, they should do so: that’s what nourishes a healthy democracy. At the same time, we should examine dispassionately the proposal to legalise same-sex civil unions.
First of all, the laws of Barbados, though they may be based on values that coincide with those of one or more religions (e.g., stealing is wrong), are grounded not in the sacred text of any particular religion but in the fundamental human rights and duties that inform the laws of the state in a secular society such as Barbados.
A religious society, on the other hand, bases its laws explicitly on the prohibitions found in that religion’s sacred text. Thus, in some tribal Islamic societies, Sharia law imposes severe penalties, including death, for activities that would not even be misdemeanours in a secular society.
Bear in mind that a secular society is not an irreligious society. Indeed, it may, like Barbados, be rooted in Christian values while permitting several faiths.
It is a society in which everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice or practise no religion at all.
There are many religious prohibitions that are not reflected in our laws: fornication and adultery are not crimes, divorce is readily available, and a physician may perform an abortion subject to certain restrictions, just to mention a few.
Going further still, Barbados has, since 1981, legalised common law marriages, i.e. by conferring on a man and a woman living together for at least five years ‘without benefit of clergy’ the same rights and obligations as a married couple. No one is protesting about the state officially recognising people ‘living in sin’.
I also know that many Catholics strongly object to the provisions of the 1983 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, but they have accepted the separation of church and state.
So the issue is not whether same-sex relationships are ‘sinful’ or not. This is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the laws of Barbados.
Indeed, history shows us that the scriptures have been used to officially justify such immoral practices as oppression of women, virulent anti-Semitism, the racist enslavement of Africans, and apartheid in South Africa.
Moreover, positions once held by the church on Biblical authority (e.g. in respect of the nature of the universe and the origin of the human species) have been subsequently abandoned in the light of new scientific knowledge.
Science is yet to establish what causes homosexuality, whether genes, prenatal hormones, upbringing or chance. But it seems clear that in the vast majority of cases, homosexuality is a settled and persistent orientation, as has been illustrated by numerous unsuccessful attempts to reverse it through therapy and hormonal treatment.
So why should homosexuals be denied a civil right enjoyed by heterosexuals: to live with a partner in a civil union with all its attendant rights and obligations? And, let’s be clear, this has nothing to do with whether foreigners approve or not. We should legalise same-sex civil unions not because it is expedient or politically correct, but because it is the right thing to do.
Furthermore, it is pointless to argue that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’, because human behaviour has gone beyond ‘what is natural’ in so many respects, from medicine to money. This is what separates us from other animal species. Biology tolerates a wide spectrum of possibilities.
It’s culture that allows people to realise some possibilities while forbidding others.
In any event, we don’t consistently look to nature for moral guidance: in nature, the sick and the feeble are consigned to die; the strong take freely from the weak; and many male mammals are aggressive and promiscuous.
The Catholic Church has accepted civil unions between same-sex couples, and I would like to leave the last word to Catholic Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah, Georgia, in his statement on the 2015 ruling of the US Supreme Court legalising same-sex marriage. He captured the issue perfectly:
“The Catholic Church will always maintain that marriage is a vocation of a man and a woman to faithfully commit themselves, through sacred vows, to a life shared until death which pledges them to complement one another in their development as husband and wife and to be co-creators with God in the procreation of human life.
“This decision of the Supreme Court is primarily a declaration of civil rights and not a redefinition of marriage as the Church teaches.
“Moreover, this judgment does not dispense either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another.
“Nor is it a licence for more venomous language or vile behaviour against those whose opinions differ from our own… We are all God’s children and are commanded to love one another.”
Amen.
Dr. Peter Laurie is a retired permanent secretary and head of the Foreign Service who once served as Barbados’ Ambassador to the United States.
