Same-sex couples urged to test Cayman marriage law

| 09/05/2017 | 236 Comments
Cayman News Service

Dr Leonardo Raznovich

(CNS): A legal expert is urging same-sex Caymanian couples who want to get married to put the local legislation to the test as he believes there is no lawful prohibition to same-sex marriages in either the Constitution or the Marriage Law. Dr Leo Raznovich, a former Truman Bodden Law School professor, said members of the LGBT community in Cayman should stand up for their rights and test the legislation because the language of the law doesn’t really ban gay marriage. He is also offering to help couples who are willing to give it a try. His suggestion comes in the wake of a landmark ruling in Bermuda that has paved the way for same-sex marriage there.

Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, took their case to the Supreme Court in Bermuda, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy and protected their right to marry, and the judge ruled in the couple’s favour.

Raznovich said local gay couples here need to bring the discrimination they face to the attention of the courts in Cayman because Section 14 of the Constitution of the Cayman Islands does not prohibit same-sex marriage. It simply tells the government that it must “respect the right of every unmarried man and woman of marriageable age as determined by law to freely to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family”, according to the legal expert who won his own legal case to remain in Cayman as a dependent of his husband.

“The Marriage Law does not prohibit same-sex marriage either,” he told CNS. “It simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Because this is not a prohibition either, there is no case of incompatibility but a case of interpretation.”

He explained that the Cayman Islands Constitution prohibits discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation, and the lack of express prohibition in the Constitution and local legislation to same-sex marriage triggers sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution. These refer to duty of the authority not to act against the law and to read any law that is ambiguous in a manner that is compatible with the Bill of Rights.

This all means that local courts should also find that preventing the marriage of a consenting same-sex couple of legal age that meet all of the usual criteria is discriminatory and someone needs to test the legislation in court.

“It is time for gay and lesbian Caymanian couples to stand for their rights to marry in the jurisdiction,” he said, as he issued an invitation to contact him about building a case. “The Constitution of the Cayman Islands is fully on their side. Anybody wanting to challenge the legislation in court, please get in touch because I know people in the community who would be willing to financially support such a course of action.”

With just over two weeks until polling day, what public open discussion there has been on the campaign trail about gay rights or marriage has been largely confined to those who are vehemently opposed and others who believe the issue was returned to the bottom of the government agenda after the failed referendum motion earlier this year.

Raznovich has pointed out, however, that any attempts by a future government to directly articulate or spell out a prohibition against same-sex unions in the law would also breach the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

“If next government tries to change the local legislation so that it prohibits same-sex marriage, in order to stop the effect of sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution to apply without bringing about civil unions as an alternative to marriage for same-sex couples, the governor has the constitutional duty to veto that legislation because it would be contrary to the Constitution of the Cayman Islands and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights,” he added.

Given the situation in Bermuda and what he believes is the combined effect of the law and Constitution in Cayman, Raznovich said the LGBT community should seize the opportunity now to challenge the discrimination they face.

Anyone wanting to discuss the issue can contact Raznovich at

Find the Marriage Law and the Constitution in the CNS Library

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (236)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. kman says:

    thank you for those of you who continue to support and empower the LGBT community in the Cayman Islands- the issue at hand is not imposing our beliefs or taking away the Christians beliefs, this is about equality. As a young gay Camanian I should have the right to marry(whom ever I chose) and know that my country will recognized what marriage means to me.

    Gentle reminder! when blacks couldn’t vote or had no rights- how quick we forget, and so fast to judge.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are also supported by the Cayman Islands Human Rights Commission. The Commission stated on 23 June 2016 that:

      “[The Cayman Islands] are required, by law, to make provision for same-sex couples to have their relationships legally recognised (although that recognition does not have to be by ‘marriage’). Any suggestion that Cayman’s current legal framework is sufficient to survive a legal challenge in the Court on same-sex unions is wrong as a matter of law.”

      Here is the link:

    • Anonymous says:

      The Cayman Islands is in breach of both Cayman Islands law and international law binding on the jurisdiction. It is, without question, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been extended to the Cayman Islands. Left unresolved, this situation could have profound consequences for this country. If this hits the international news it will have significant impacts. Many banks, hedge funds and financial institutions may be precluded from doing business here, due to their strict policies on these issues. The legal and financial services industry is critical to the long-term prosperity of these islands. People need to stop digging theirs heads in the sands and saying they don’t like it and accept the fact that the Cayman Islands government is in breach of the law. It needs to be resolved, not just because the LGBT community wants it, but because it is a catastrophic state of affairs for a country to persist in breaching local and international law. From an external perspective, who in their right mind would do business in a jurisdiction that fails to uphold their own laws? It creates too much uncertainty.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please don’t compare your choice of homosexuality to the struggles of being black. There is no coalition between the too.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is a complete resemblance with the discrimination against the homosexual lifestyle now and blacks and women throughout history which at the time had no freedom or right to vote. No difference, same bigotry.

        • You are right that discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation and discrimination against on the basis of the colour of their skin are fully analogous:

          One’s sexual orientation (be it asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual) is not a choice and it cannot be changed.

          The colour of one’s skin is not a choice and it cannot be changed.

          Therefore, just as no one should suffer discrimination or persecution on the basis of the colour of their skin, no one should suffer discrimination or persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation.

  2. Leviticus 11-12 says:

    Better stop conch season before god comes down from heaven to wipe us all out for our disobeying his word.

  3. Apparently the Bermuda constitution permits their highest court to change laws directly. (Unless the matter has been reported inadequately). Following our 2009 constitution our highest court can declare a law to be “incompatible” with the constitution and then the legislature must find a way of remedying it. But while this is going on the original law is to be followed. It is also true that our legislature and government might be bound by the results of a people-initiated referendum whose outcome could conflict with a court ruling.

    • Anonymous says:

      Bishop Sykes, this is not a matter of incompatibility. Dr. Raznovich does not speak of incompatibility. Dr. Raznovich correctly speaks of an issue with interpretation. Dr. Raznovich does so because there is no express prohibition to same-sex marriage under Cayman Islands law. It establishes the right for opposite sex couples to marry, but that is not the same as an express prohibition. There is no prohibition under the Marriage Law or under the Cayman Constitution. As such, there is no “incompatibility” but rather Sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution and relevant case law kick-in. The effect of which is to require the Cayman Court to give effect to the right to non-discrimation under Section 16 and to “interpret” the law in way compatible with those fundamental rights. Result = same-sex marriage.

      So, you are misreading Dr. Raznovich’s analysis. The point is one of interpretation not incompatibility.

      • Nicholas JG Sykes says:

        I would like to discuss with you this point as I consider incompatibility to be very much an issue. But it is my practice not to engage with anonymous persons nor to do so anonymously myself. If you would like to continue this conversation I will have to request you shed your anonymity and perhaps give me a call or email … otherwise I am afraid we will have to leave the matter there.
        Bishop Nicholas

    • Anonymous says:

      You can’t hold a binding referendum on a matter regarding the bill of rights. That’s in the Cayman Islands Constitution. So go ahead and have one, but it would be a waste of time and money because it would mean nothing in a court of law; as worthless as the one in Bermuda last year.

  4. Anonymous says:

    So who is he really concerned for? His own situation or those of Caymanian gay couples? Until his situation came about, I have not heard from any gay Caymanians that they were concerned or felt discriminated because marriage between a couple of the same gender was not recognized under Cayman law. In fact, I know gay couples who have chosen to relocate to Cayman and they live happily as a couple without needing a Government stamp that it is official. I am sure they put other measures in place to secure their financial situation as a couple, just like a heterosexual couple who chose not to get married would do. I also never heard of any children at school being bullied because of them being gay. In fact I believe that it is a lot easier for them to be gay in the school system in Cayman than it would be in many other countries.

  5. P. Tosh says:

    Got to recognise it.

    • Anonymous says:

      If they win, who will perform the ceremony. Surely none of the pastors, so that leaves civil registrars. Will they, or won’t they?

      • Anonymous says:

        Well they’ll just fire them if they don’t do their job.

        • Anonymous says:

          You would never force a muslim to serve pork or indeed bake a gay wedding cake.
          Why the hypocrisy?
          It is simple. The answer is because you hate Christians.
          Hate Christians and you hate God, their Father. I would really advise you to tread with wisdom bearing in mind we all have a date with Our Creator.

      • Anonymous says:

        The Governor has the right to appoint, and the Governor is in support of Cayman’s compliance with its human rights obligations. If no such persons are so appointed now, they are sure to be appointed.

      • Anonymous says:

        The civil registrars will have to.

  6. Cayman Dawkins says:

    At some point in time, Cayman will have to recognise that the Christian God never existed and you have all been praying to nothing. If you hear voices speaking to you, you are mad. Go see a doctor.

    I don’t respect your beliefs just like you don’t believe in the other plethora of made up sky fairies.

    A child who believes in Santa is cute an adult who does is odd. I’ve seen plenty of gays but no gods, apart from Thor in the avengers movie. Therefore I’m more inclined to think homosexuals should be treated fairly.

    Marriage has nothing to do with an invisible man in the sky. Marriage existed in Pagan Socities long before some Jewish Carpenter.

    It’s about time the church and its bigoted beliefs were cast into the sea.

    Your beliefs have as much value as a 8 year old belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. I’m sorry to tell you this but there is no such thing as GOD!! Grow up and discard your ridiculous beliefs! Welcome to the 21st century where rationality exists and secularism rules.

    And while I don’t respect your beliefs or views I respect your right to free speech. That is partly to do with the hypocritical anger that I see spewing from your mouths when you profess that your religion is one of love but in reality like all religions it’s one of dominance and control. Plus I love your rubbisg predictions about the end of society… do you get tired being wrong so often?

    Secretly you know that your position is becoming less and less main stream and you are scared. Your control and dominance over society is weakening and eventually you will disappear into meaningless and when that happens no one will shed a tear… sad but true.

    So scream about “Caymanian society” and your right to believe in leprechauns and unicorns and how these views need to be respected and people will nod and ignore you because you are shouting into a hurricane.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, you are right . there is no God.
      And yes, that is the reason why your woman never calls out to him … ever.

      Run along now – victory is yours…and you are a real man. Feel inadequate no longer.


    • Anonymous says:

      I’m not sure this is helpful, nor do I think it will convince anyone who believes differently of your viewpoint. You have to meet people where they are, respect that they have a different point of view, and help them understand why you hold a different one. Mocking someone else just leads that person to dismiss everything you have to say without consideration.

    • Just Saying says:

      Heavenly Father have mercy on us. I didn’t realize there were so many demons in Cayman. I pray that when the day comes that you realize you have nothing, then is when you will know that God is all you need. However, that day is when you will no doubt be laying on your back looking up. I pray that God will have mercy on your hateful soul and to all those who gave you the thumbs up. John 3:16

    • Anonymous says:

      Screw you! Unicorns and leprechauns are real! :p

  7. Anonymous says:

    Gays and Lesbians support each other.
    Jamaicans and other Nationalities help their fellow man.
    Even the Jordanian has half his family or friends here already.

    Caymanians are so divided against each other. They just cannot try to help or see another Caymanian make it. The minute you get to the top and just when you think you will climb out of the bucket. It’s at that moment you realized those were not outstretched hands to help you up, but were reaching to grab you down.

    Moral of this story.
    The more divided we become. The easier a person can walk off a plane and get “favors” or demand to change laws or what have you to accommodate them over Locals. To keep thinking this type of outsiders have “Cayman” at their best interest will be to our detriment. This is another one of those “them versus us” situation about to happen.

    We will always have something shoved down our throats. Pun Intended.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not a pun. More of a double entendre.

    • Anonymous says:

      11.18 that missive was a slap in the face of Cayman gays…who says your ” not off the plane” view is how it should be? I suspect your view arises from the fact you have probably never been on a plane,you just get a wet dream seeing one whilst your secret oral BDSM fetish plays in your mind. Oh, and how is that “not off the plane” wife beating, child abuse, preacher fiddlings working for you? Suspect you approve of that!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Well, go ahead and waste your money on a case you cannot possibly win. But before you do so I would strongly advise you to speak with one of our own experts, Dr.Steve McField, who explained on Radio Cayman this morning that such a challenge would be futile under the present laws here in the Cayman Islands. Maybe Dr.Raznovich has a more accurate understanding of our laws than Dr.McField? But why is this foreign gentleman urging others to spend their money and ruin themselves financially? Why not put his money where his mouth is, or at the very least bankroll the legal challenge he is advocating for? How sure is he really that such a challenge would not fail?

    • Anonymous says:

      From the article: “Anybody wanting to challenge the legislation in court, please get in touch because I know people in the community who would be willing to financially support such a course of action.”

    • JTB says:

      Dr Raznovich is already married so he can’t marry his husband again, in Cayman or anywhere.

      He has already ‘put his money where his mouth is’ by successfully appealing the government’s refusal to recognise his marriage and status as his husband’s dependant for immigration purposes.

      I would always trust the legal analysis of Dr Raznovich over ‘Dr’ McField.

      • Anonymous says:

        “I would always trust …..” – what a curious statement. One wonders exactly what that is based on. Blind faith?.Your punctuation marks (‘Dr’) may provide a clue. A little prejudice,perhaps? (It can only weaken your argument or hasn’t that occurred to you yet? Maybe you ‘ain’t old enough.) Anyway, you are referencing two separate issues i.e. Dr Raznovich’s immigration status and whether same-sex marriage is permissibly under the current legislation, something he appears convinced is. ‘Dr.’ (sic) McField is convinced it is not. Are you a lawyer? if so, can you explain this difference of opinion? Thank you.

        • JTB says:

          Dr Raznovich has more degrees than a thermometer and was a professor of law.

          Steve McField’s doctorate is an honorary one and his expertise in constitutional law is questionable at best.

          • Anonymous says:

            Blimey, is that your rebuttal? I could drive a ten-ton Mack truck through it if I had you on the witness stand. Look, sportsfan, get real, and drop the adolescent reference to the thermometer, as well as any further pathetic attempts to denigrate ‘Steve McField’s’ (not even a “Mr.” – have you no respect for a distinguished Caymanian lawyer?) legal standing with corny phrases like “questionable at best”. You clearly are at sea. (And there’s a full stop after “Dr.”.)

    • Anonymous says:

      So you are the expert now 8.53? My goodness, so many of those in so many subjects in Cayman and most without a law degree. Any kind of degree in fact/

      • Anonymous says:

        Caymanians ain’t as dumb as you think and you ain’t as smart as you think, sportsfan. I do wish people wouldn’t come here and try telling Caymanians what to think but instead stay put and sort out their own country’s mess (which, duh, is probably why they are here to begin with). Your “expert” enquiry is as hilarious as it is nonsensical. And check your posts before sending “in fact/”.

    • Anonymous says:

      100% sure.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Dr Steve McField” “Expert” “Law”

      ROTFLMFAO…can’t speak…hurts too much…

      • Anonymous says:

        It is breach of protocol to refer to someone who has been conferred an honorary Phd as “Dr.”

      • Anonymous says:

        That’s probably because you’ve put your foot in your mouth, sportsfan.

      • Anonymous says:

        You ain’t nothing not even a hound dog.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ever heard of Lincoln’s Inn? Look it up. It’s where Steve qualified as a barrister. Surprised? Probably not. You’re living in 1960s Selma, dude.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Caymanians have long accepted those of us that are gay. Are there some of us that are homophobic?..sure they are but aren’t they people of like mind in his country as well?..To come here and call us homophobic and bigots just because our customs, culture and laws do not permit same sex marriages is wrong XXXX.

    Every country has laws that restrict certain freedoms and without laws Cayman and most countries would be in total chaos.

    Some of my best friends are gay and I love them just the same as my heterosexual friends. I love my country and I love my people be they black, white, gay or heterosexual.

    I am not against same sex marriage if that is what the majority of our country wants. This,however, in my opinion is something I believe represents a major change in our culture, our laws and our traditions and should be put to a referendum. XXXX

    • Anonymous says:

      I, for one, am not calling you homophobic or bigoted, and I apologize for anyone who is. It’s not productive. And while we don’t have any data on the subject in Cayman (like we do for other Caribbean countries) I do think you’re right that while some of us may be homophobic, many more of us are loving and respectful and tolerant, if not accepting.

      I don’t think, however, that matters of equal human dignity or respect should never be put to a referendum. It is our responsibility to each other to treat each other fairly and with respect, and where our laws fail to do so, we each have an obligation to work to change them. Whether our fellow man is entitled to equal respect and dignity under the law shouldn’t be something that gets put to a vote — it should be a given.

      Sure, laws by their nature restrict freedoms. But should we be unduly restricting the freedoms of one group of people — to love the person they love, and to enter into a committed relationship with that person — when we don’t restrict those freedoms for the rest? I’m not so sure that’s right.

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t think, however, that matters of equal human dignity or respect should *ever be put to a referendum.

      • Caymanian says:

        I like all others speaking am not homophobic. I too have family and friends who are gay however I stand and say that the term “Marriage” is a union based in religion between a man and a woman. That said I believe a Civil Union could be created that allows same sex couples to LEGALLY be bound by a similar convention and be offered the same rights and benefits.

        I believe that is something a bit more palatable to our culture that a union with the word marriage attached to it.

        It would be something performed not by a priest or religious figure but a JP.

        That’s my opinion….not sure how others feel about it. Cayman is a highly religious community hell we can’t even shop for milk for our babies on Sunday!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Tell it likes it is. No wrong in that.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Some of my best friends are gay” written without any irony whatsoever.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Most of you just don’t get it.

    Yes, Cayman’s religious society and churches do actively discriminate against people.

    For example, my pastor refused to marry my girlfriend and I because we had a child out of wedlock.

    My pastor also refuses to marry couples who are known to be living together in the absence of marriage.

    My pastor also refuses to christen children born to unmarried parents.

    Lastly, it will be a COLD WINTRY day in HELL before my pastor marries two people of the same sex – and I will defend his right in that regard to the bitter end.

    Nevertheless, my pastor is one of the most loving, giving and compassionate individuals I have ever known.

    * Homosexuals and gay rights are the farthest thing from our collective mind when it comes to our religious and cultural standards. It is primarily about upholding standards and the preservation of the family structure.
    (One can scoff at that until the cows come home, but I guarantee the breakdown thereof is the main underlying issue for ALL western countries and cities struggling with societal breakdown, rise in crime and general dysfunction.)

    Again, it is all about the active pursuit to uphold the standards and values deemed beneficial to hold together a community – without a need for governmental and judicial intervention – as is clearly the failing solution being applied in all major western countries. Yes, said standards are largely based on the Bible and Christianity and unfortunately for the offended, their identifiable group appears to be affected. *

    Therefore, who is some PhD, spouse thereof, anonymous CNS poster, activist, immigrant, FCO official, Caymanian, etc. to categorise my pastor as hateful, backward and such?

    Where were / are you on the many other points of “discrimination” as it concerns Caymanian Christian culture? Or are you, once again, selectively righteous individuals that are actually only concerned about matters that affect you personally and interested in “change” that will enhance your place in this society?

    Interestingly, I am not a “saved Christian” by any means, and personally do not fully support every aspect of my culture. This is normal, as we see the USA is literally a nation of 2 halves and even more divided is the UK.
    However, where I respect each country to handle their own affairs in their own time – I also expect the same respect as it concerns the Cayman Islands. Also, one’s culture is one’s culture and it is what it is.

    *In the last 12 months we have seen a horribly flawed man elected as US President and leader of the free world on a platform of wall-building and Muslim-banning.
    We have also seen a UK Brexit referendum via the people on a platform of xenophobia and racism – led by none other than Nigel Farage.
    Compare that with Cayman’s reality where I have witnessed a literal doubling of my country’s population with many IMMIGRANTS of a wide array of races, creed and religions, now at the helm of our national industries and in turn wealth, power and influence.

    The UK and USA (and Argentina) would be burnt to the ground by its own people before such a reality could take place in their countries.

    I can say with no fear of correction that Cayman boasts a superior record in terms of positive analysis by outsiders than the home countries of any critic in this thread, e.g., “a warm and friendly people” .
    Therefore, kindly refrain from the false and myopic accusations of Cayman being a hateful society.

    As I always say, some cultures hate other races and religions – and some cultures just aren’t very fond of gay marriage.

    Sounds fair, and of the 2 options, I’m happy to say mine does not belong to the former.

    – Whodatis

    *Regarding solutions to the non-issue of gay marriage in the Cayman Islands, kindly see previously forwarded perspective here on CNS. I have not the time or interest to repeat at this time.

    ** Kindly take a good and honest audit of your own culture, background and personal bias before replying to this post – if you opt to do so.

    *** Call my culture whatever you want – but please be prepared to accept an equally frank judgement of your own.

    • Anonymous says:

      Whodatis, I’m not sure that anyone is advocating for Cayman to stop being the wonderful place that it is, or that anyone is saying that you pastor or anyone in his parish is a hateful person. I, for one, profoundly respect everyone’s rights to believe and practice their faith. But I don’t understand how extending protections under the law to same-sex couples impairs your ability to practice that faith, or force pastors to marry anyone they don’t want to marry, or fundamentally change society in any way. Doesn’t it just means that gay Caymanian couples would be able to inherit freely, make medical decisions for one another, and enjoy the other privileges that same-sex couples do under the law?

      • Anonymous says:

        enjoy the other privileges that *opposite-sex couples do under the law?

      • Caymanian says:

        It goes against religious beliefs which state Marriage is between a man and a woman. As of now a pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple but it becomes a lot more difficult when the law allows for it because that Pastor now is discriminating because of sexual orientation. The law helps to protect pastors for being forced to do something that is against their religion.

        As I stated elsewhere a Civil Union set up would be a better option as it is performed by a JP not a pastor.

        • Anonymous says:

          I hear you Caymanian, but how do we reconcile the fact that not all religions — not even all Christian religions — believe the same thing with respect to same sex marriage? Also, I honestly don’t think we need to worry about pastors being forced to marry same sex couples — no country where same sex marriage is legal have pastors been forced to marry same sex couples, and most legislation permitting same sex marriage makes it explicitly clear that churches are under no obligation to solemnize same sex marriages. Cayman could do the same.

        • Anonymous says:

          I can understand why civil unions have some appeal as a form of “compromise” to get both sides what they want. And, let’s be clear, civil unions would be a step in the right direction.

          What is problematic about civil unions, though, is that unless they are the only form of legal recognition for a solemnized relationship (whether for same sex couples or opposite sex couples), then we are inherently treating one group of citizens differently than another, which is impermissible discrimination under the law. You are saying that one group of people is not entitled to something (to be recognized as “married” under the law) that another is.

          Furthermore, the laws of other countries generally respect MARRIAGES performed elsewhere, but they do not extend those protections to CIVIL UNIONS. U.S. immigration law, for example, will treat a couple that is “married” outside the U.S. as a “married” couple for U.S. immigration purposes, but it does not extend that same treatment to couples that have entered into civil unions or domestic partnerships. So the rights afforded are simply not the same.

          The truth is, we already have a concept of civil unions, and that is the concept of “marriage” under the law. We recognize that opposite sex couples that are not married in a church are nevertheless “married” under Caymanian law. That is because our laws already recognize that there is a difference between Christian “marriage”, or religious “marriage” and civil “marriage”, even though we use the same word for both.

          Moreover, I am a member of a Christian church that recognizes same-sex marriage within its faith. While my congregation is based in the U.S., my pastor could not come here to Cayman to marry me and my same-sex partner. So the laws of Cayman actually prohibit my church from solemnizing a marriage that my church views as fully valid.

        • Anonymous says:

          Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

          The bible clearly states do not eat shellfish and the marine life which have no fins or scales are compared to homosexuals as abominations. Why isn’t there a big problem about the sale of conch on the island if this is suppose to be a “christian” and god fearing nation? Why isn’t Anthony Eden making a fuss about the sale of conch on the island? How do you pick and choose what to follow and enforce in the bible?

          This is bigotry,ignorance and hyprocrisy all in one. Only religion can make people so gullible and susceptible to such stupidity.

          All over a god no one can prove exist.

          • Anonymous says:

            I really do wish we could stop mocking people’s faiths here on CNS. Even if we do not believe in the faith, we must recognize that they do, and that no amount of mocking will cause such a person to say, “You know what, you’re right. My faith IS stupid.”

            All mocking does is cause people to ignore any legitimate points you may have to make, and cause people to falsely believe there is no common ground upon which we can build.

            • Please says:

              Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Every idea is open to criticism and especially those that wish to legislate or educate. This includes any religion of faith based claims which are not immune to exposition. Talking BS about there is some magical bearded hobo who shat us into existense will always get you called out on it.

              Don’t legislate or educate based on that world view and you won’t get criticised for your beliefs. Keep that crazy shit to yourself.

              • Anonymous says:

                You may believe it is stupid BS, but the point is that the religious do not, and you will never change someone’s fundamental world view by calling that view stupid BS.

                So ask yourself what your goal is? Is it to get the religious to actually consider a different view point, or to consider what role religion should play in governing others, or merely to feel superior to them?

                • Anonymous says:

                  The goal is to allow same sex couples to enjoy the benefits of marriage and to end the discrimination against our people by exposing the faults and misnomers of religion, especially christianity here in Grand Cayman. Christians have no right imposing their crazy belief on others but legislating laws based on this world view is taking it too far. There is no place for religion in politics. Keep it in the fiction aisle where it belongs.

                • Anonymous says:

                  There is no place for religion in politics. The role of religion is to stay in the fiction aisle along with all the other made up stories. Governing based on individual faith is immoral and outright unfair for others who practice different faith. Leave the decision making to the secularist.

                  If you want a specific religion to govern the people then that specific god of that religion is more than welcome to throw his hat into the politics ring but, if not then keep your faith based claims and laws which hold no weight not even in the court to yourself.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    I don’t disagree with either of those points, 6:26 and 5:29. But calling the beliefs of the religious “crazy” or “BS” or “fiction” does nothing to help them recognize that their religion is not threatened by equality under the law, and that their faith can coexist with the law and with other faiths that believe differently. All the name calling does is cause such people to ignore any valid points you may be making. It is not your end goal that is problematic, but your presentation.

          • ROLEX CLOSET DWELLERS says:

            Kid – Some battles cannot be won, but some do not need to be started.

            Take heed to the paradise have now do not create an enemy that you cannot handle, think clear and not always so…gay.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: “Anonymous says:
      10/05/2017 at 8:34 am
      Whodatis, I’m not sure that anyone is advocating for Cayman to stop being the wonderful place that it is…”

      Again, I refer you to an earlier and comprehensive response of mine that speaks directly to your concerns.

      In a nutshell, I encourage a moving away from a reliance on outdated marriage laws (and attached legislation) and to an embrace of Civil Partnerships for ALL individuals – even those already married under standing domestic / international law.

      There under all the rights and concerns you have highlighted will be fully addressed – and done so equally.

      I say equally, because as it stands, the utilisation of Civil Partnerships in other countries can lead to an advantageous position under the law versus traditional marriage law – and that only results in a new form of discrimination … under the law.

      My brief outline above presents a workable solution and, most crucially, best avoids the societal frictions and fractures that have proven inevitable when it comes to this issue.
      However, it is often rejected by some but that should come as no surprise as the objective of certain folks is to create a disturbance whatever the cost – even at the risk of losing what is the supposed prize.

      – Whodatis

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks Whodatis. Please see my post below. Unfortunately, civil unions in Cayman, while a step in the right direction, are actually not sufficient, because other countries apply different standards to couples that are “married” under the laws of another jurisdictions as opposed to couples that are in a “civil union” or “domestic partnership” — the U.S. included. The truth is, nearly all countries already have exactly what you are proposing with respect to opposite sex couples — by recognizing that opposite-sex couples of different faiths (or no faith at all) can nevertheless be considered “married” under the law, we already make a distinction between “civil marriage” and “religious marriage.” A Christian church need not recognize a wedding performed outside the church as valid, but our laws should.

        • Anonymous says:

          Whatever the reality of your concerns, I guarantee a focus on civil partnerships over the tinkering of traditional marriage (here and elsewhere) will get us much quicker to the promised land…and with far less grief.

          – Whodatis

          • Anonymous says:

            Respectfully, Whodatis, I very much disagree. While civil unions might be easier for some to stomach, I firmly believe that our very learned judges and courts, which routinely show deep respect for the rule of law and sophisticated analysis in their decision making, are very much more likely to read current law and Cayman’s existing treaty obligations to require the government to recognize same-sex marriage, long before any MLA would dare to propose civil unions.

            • Anonymous says:

              Essentially you are suggesting it would be more convenient and probable that societies, cultures, religious denominations, and entire countries change the very essence of their belief system, customs etc., when compared to the expectation for legal professionals to adhere to a modernised and regionally agreed upon amendment to relevant legislation?

              If so, then I must say we ought to end this dialogue right here.

              The sad part is that most of those fighting for gay marriage earnestly believe their battle is the final hurdle whereafter the world will let out a unified sigh.
              They fail to realise that will merely be the start of infinity.

              Meaning, where does it end? How will we define marriage going forward?

              E.g. (True story): There was a point in my life where I was dating 4 women, and everyone knew more or less what was the situation.
              We were all educated, attractive, consenting individuals and, at the risk of sounding braggadocios, I had the option to marry or procreate with each of those ladies.

              If we were to change our traditional definition of marriage, I would expect to hear no objections to the 6 of us (one was bisexual and would most likely bring along her hot bisexual gf) getting married and starting a family – with all the standard rights and provisions under the law being upheld.
              (Note: Only 3 people in the union are Caymanian.)

              How would the above scenario fit into your vision of modified marriage laws in the Cayman Islands?

              Kindly list any objections you may have and elaborate on each point. Bear in mind, your purported objective is to do away with discrimination under the law.

              – Whodatis

              • Anonymous says:

                Whodatis, respectfully, I think you’re making undue assumptions that are not contained in my response.

                I was merely responding to your assertion that “civil partnerships … will get us much quicker to the promised land … and with far less grief” than marriage. While that may be true from the perspective of cultural acceptance, I do not believe it is true as a matter of the political climate in which we reside in Cayman. What is QUICKER is a path through the courts, not a path through the legislature.

                The truth, and the point of the article, is that Cayman is already obligated to extend rights under the law to same-sex couples by the non-discrimination provisions in our Constitution (as well as by the obligations under the international treaties to which we are signatories). While I very much wish cultural acceptance would come along in hand with that, cultural acceptance is not required as a matter of law.

                The preferred method of securing equality for gay and lesbian Caymanians would, of course, be to help our culture understand that all gay and lesbian Caymanians ask for is to be able to love one another, to be committed to one another, and to be free from undue government intervention in their private and family lives — just like straight Caymanians. But I do not believe that gay Caymanians should have to continue to suffer today while we wait for parts of our society to grow in its understanding.

                And forgive me, but I’m not sure I quite follow your point about plural marriage, but I will try:

                While plural marriage (and beastiality and pedophilia and the like) are commonly brought up in the context of same-sex marriage, it is essentially changing the subject. The point is that, under Caymanian law, straight people have the unambiguous right to marry the single opposite-sex consenting adult of their choosing, but gay Caymanians do not. That is legal discrimination that is prohibited under the Constitution, which the people of Cayman themselves drafted, fought for, and accepted.

                If straight people are afforded the right to marry seven other people, or to marry their cats and dogs, then gay people should be afforded that right as well. But it does not follow that by simply letting gay people get married, we must open the doors to all other forms of marriage — those are separate questions that are not relevant to whether gay and lesbian people should be afforded the same recognition under the law.

                And if you are instead suggesting that we cannot combat one form of legal discrimination because it would require us to combat all other forms of discrimination, then I’m not sure I see that as persuasive. I think we SHOULD combat all other forms of impermissible discrimination under the law (whether on the basis of gender, race, disability or any other protected status). But with respect to polyamory and polygamy, I honestly don’t have enough information to tell you whether that is a fundamental or immutable characteristic that would be protected under the non-discrimination provisions of our Constitution. That, again, is an independent question. What I do know, though, is that homosexuality is such a characteristic that is so protected.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Firstly, you are juxtaposed to the accepted Caymanian stance on this issue by leading with a legal argument.

                  Yes, it may be stating the obvious, however, it does not negate the fact that the average Caymanian will not give 2 shytes about the legal aspect of these proposed changes – regardless of the provisions of any treaty, political affiliation (non-democratic at that), or vicarious jurisdiction of European institutions.

                  (Btw, have you heard of Brexit at all?)

                  Tell me, what good does it bring to destabilise and disrupt an arguably superior standard of societal harmony, when compared to any other western variant, in order to satisfy a grievance not even initiated by those within said society?

                  This is the classic definition of “looking for trouble”.

                  Furthermore, I see that you are conveniently mixing the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage as you state your case and I am throwing a big red flag on play.

                  Caymanians cannot be labeled as homophobic as we ALL have gays in our families. My gay first cousins are all by Grannie’s house every Christmas – many with their lovers right beside them.
                  No, the issue at hand is GAY MARRIAGE.

                  Also, I was disappointed by your reference to beastiality and pedophilia in your response as it implied my perspective somehow aligns with those that may recklessly lump all together.

                  Regarding my scenario of multi-partner marriage, family-starting, status, immigration, legal rights etc., I maintain it to be a perfectly reasonable and relevant point.
                  At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the change of the definition of marriage, and if you believe that an amendment to expressly include, or not discriminate against, same-sex unions is the final frontier of the matter, you are sadly mistaken – especially in these wonderful Cayman Islands where millions around the world are hoping to permanently relocate.

                  Considering that I have forwarded what I believe to be a perfectly workable and satisfying solution to the problem, and basically having grown weary of the issue – this is where I sign off.

                  Nice chatting.

                  – Whodatis

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The Cayman Islands is in breach of both Cayman Islands law and international law binding on the jurisdiction. It is, without question, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been extended to the Cayman Islands. Left unresolved, this situation could have profound consequences for this country. If this hits the international news it will have significant impacts. Many banks, hedge funds and financial institutions may be precluded from doing business here, due to their strict policies on these issues. The legal and financial services industry is critical to the long-term prosperity of these islands. People need to stop digging theirs heads in the sands and saying they don’t like it and accept the fact that the Cayman Islands government is in breach of the law. It needs to be resolved, not because the LGBT community wants it, but because it is a catastrophic state of affairs for a country to persist in breaching local and international law. From an external perspective, who in their right mind would do business in a jurisdiction that fails to uphold their own laws? It creates too much uncertainty.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      …and there it is.

                      The same tired old threat of economic boycott because one group cannot get what it wants.

                      Why didn’t you simply lead with this angle rather than take us down this pointless road to your inevitable cheat code.


                      Go on then – commence your campaign. If you and your colleagues cannot humble yourselves to appreciate culture differences then go for it – shut us down.

                      While you’re at it, I trust you turn in your iPhones in response to human rights violations (workers), boycott driving your cars in response to dictatorial Saudi oil resources (by the way they actual KILL gays over there), and quit eating chocolate altogether in response to rampant child labour practices in the Ivory Coast.

                      However, I’ll end with a probably horribly quoted scripture, from somewhere in the scriptures that goes something like;

                      “What good does it do a man to gain the world but lose his soul?”

                      – Whodatis

                    • Anonymous says:

                      To be clear, Whodat, 9:00p is not the same person you’ve been chatting with. You can see my response at 12:01p.

                  • Anonymous says:


                    First, I agree with you insofar as you are speaking about cultural acceptance — I agree that legal remedies alone will never bring about cultural acceptance, and that the majority of people of Cayman seem more ready to accept the concept of a same-sex civil union than the idea of a same-sex civil marriage.

                    But that does not mean that “a focus on civil partnerships over the tinkering of traditional marriage (here and elsewhere) will get us much quicker to the promised land…and with far less grief.”

                    If the “promised land” of which you speak is equal recognition of same-sex unions under the law, then I have explained how, as a legal matter, civil unions simply do not confer equal rights under the law to the rights conferred by civil marriage because of the operation of international law. I have also explained how, in the current political climate, the courts are much more likely to decide this issue than the legislature is to propose a change in law. So the “quicker path” to the “promised land,” in my view, remains the courts interpreting our existing laws to permit same-sex marriage.

                    If the “promised land” of which you speak is instead cultural acceptance, then I believe that we do not have true cultural acceptance of the equal validity of same-sex unions under the law until we apply to same terms to both same- and opposite-sex couples under the law. You have suggested elsewhere that one solution would be to call ALL unions recognized under the law “civil partnerships” or “civil unions”, eliminating any distinction. I have explained how we already have such a concept, because we recognize that a “marriage” that one faith recognizes (but another does not) within its church can nevertheless be recognized as a valid “marriage” under the law. I have also explained how calling all unions, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, “civil partnerships” or “civil unions” is not a reasonable alternative, given how international laws operate to distinguish between the recognition they afford to foreign-law “marriages” compared to other types of legally recognized unions.

                    So, in my view, the “solution” you have proposed is neither “workable” nor “satisfying”. We have work ahead of us, it seems.

                    Second, I object to your suggestion that there is an “accepted Caymanian stance on this issue.” The discussions and debate in these forums and elsewhere make clear that there is no such accepted stance. While there may be a majority view expressed in some churches or in some subsets of our community, when it comes to matters of equal protection and respect under the law, it is the responsibility of the majority and the entire populace to protect the minority from the majority’s view, when that view would deprive them of equal respect and dignity under the law. That is exactly why the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, and why that Bill of Rights contains non-discrimination provisions.

                    Third, I object to your suggestion that I view the people of Cayman to be homophobic. I do not, and have not said that anywhere in my response. Quite the contrary, I have witnessed first hand the love and acceptance of gay people you describe by many Caymanians within the community. I have also witnessed the opposite, and know there is still great fear among gay people within our community because they do not see that acceptance as universal. Nevertheless, I do believe that Caymanians are incredible, warm hearted people who are generally tolerant (if not accepting) of gay people, and I have not suggested otherwise.

                    Fourth, I do not agree with your suggestion that homosexuality and recognition of same-sex marriage under the law are distinct issues. The law prevents the government from applying laws differently to one class of citizens than it does to another. With respect to same-sex marriage, the law (on its face) treats citizens differently based on their sexual orientation. It is precisely because of gay people’s sexual orientation that they are being discriminated against under the law, so the issues are inseparable.

                    Perhaps instead you mean to say that gay people are accepted in Cayman, but that doesn’t mean that the Caymanian people must accept same-sex marriage. I would argue that if you do not accept that a gay person’s love for his or her partner is equivalent to the love a straight person shares with theirs, you do not truly accept the gay person. You may be tolerant of him or her, but your tolerance, it seems, has limits — limits that you do not impose on your straight brothers and sisters.

                    Finally, please let me be clear that my reference to beastiality and pedophilia was meant as a rhetorical device, not to suggest that you were saying those things were equivalent to same-sex marriage or polygamy. I apologize for any ambiguity.

                    But the argument you were making about polygamy was that of a slippery slope — that if we “change” the “definition” of marriage to allow one new thing, we must change it to allow all new things. And my response was simply, “no, we don’t.”

                    Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy — we draw lines in our laws, and independently consider different questions and reach different conclusions, when the facts are different all the time. “Opening the door” to same-sex marriage says nothing about whether we must also open the door to polygamy (or beastiality or pedophilia). My point was that all three of those are separate questions.

                    Regardless of what happens with same-sex marriage in Cayman, a polygamist TODAY could attempt to challenge Cayman’s marriage laws. In such a challenge, the courts would have to decide whether a polygamist is entitled to the protections of the non-discrimination provisions of our Constitution. Before those protections apply, (1) there must be a separate, identifiable class of citizens that is based on some fundamental or immutable characteristic, and (2) the law must apply differently to that class of citizens than to other citizens. Whether polygamy is a fundamental or immutable characteristic is an open question. And whether a law that says “all people can marry one other consenting adult of their choosing” treats polygamists differently than non-polygamists is also an open question.

                    Neither of those questions is relevant to whether gay people are a separate, identifiable class of citizens based on some fundamental or immutable characteristic (they are) or whether a law that says “all straight people can marry one other consenting adult of their choosing” treats gay people differently than straight people (it does).

                    Same-sex marriage may not be the only or final question that is asked about marriage under the law, but allowing the question to be asked doesn’t change whether those other questions can be asked to or whether the results might be different given different facts.

      • Anonymous says:

        First civil partnership is discrimination. Second, you fail to appreciate marriage is a secular legal activity and for some a religious ceremony. But the legal and the religious are entirely severable. Legalising same sex marriage has no effect on the religious aspects for those into that sort of thing.

    • Anonymous says:

      Your pastor this. Your pastor that. You don’t get it do you? Marriage is a legal concept. The religious ceremony is an optional adjunct. No-one is forcing religious organisations to refrain from their bronze age bigotry. What is being sought is the same non-discrimination in the legal protection offered by a state to a couple. (And before you bleat on about civil parntership, calling it something else is discriminatory).

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t think calling the religious “bronze age bigots” is helpful. Religious people deserve as much respect as gay and lesbian people. We may not believe the same things they do, but that is exactly the point. We don’t have to. Our laws can respect us all.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes 10.31, that’s the issue isn’t it? The Bronze Age bigots just will not respect gay rights, as those holier than thou idiots expect to be respected themselves. I will stand by the posters terminology

      • Anonymous says:

        Not if civil partnership is expected of ALL members of society, regardless of sexual orientation.

        Btw, there is a reason why family law is such a lucrative sector of the legal profession – not fit for purpose.

        Sounds like a perfect opportunity to kill a few birds with one stone.

        – Who

        *That being said, do you now understand the complexities regarding local cultures on these matters?

        Or do you simply not care?

        • Anonymous says:

          Who, I’m having a hard time following your argument and (I mean this earnestly), I’d really like to understand your perspective. I’ve noted a couple of times in the comments here why I think civil unions are not equivalent to marriage as a legal matter (even if you extend it to all members of society), given the way international laws distinguish between legal marriages and other forms of recognition of couples (domestic partnership, civil unions, etc.). I recognize that you think civil unions would be easier to find public support for in Cayman, but do you agree with the statement — that civil unions, at least in this one way, confer different rights than civil marriages? I’d also honestly appreciate your view on whether or not you agree that we already have different religious and legal definitions of “marriage” in Cayman, at least with respect to opposite sex couples.

          • Anonymous says:

            Whodatis, I see you responding to others and I really wish you would respond to these questions as well. I am trying to find out if there is common ground to better understand each other’s perspectives.

            • Anonymous says:

              My proposed solution, as stated elsewhere, is an embrace of civil unions for all people; gay, straight and otherwise.

              The problems you have highlighted appear to be the result of hang-on legislation / precedent, which is to be expected in the absence of a complete overhaul of the archaic marriage / family law system, being considered alongside, before and or after relatively new civil legislation.

              To my knowledge, my proposal has not been implemented in any jurisdiction to date therefore it is virtually impossible to engage in a meaningful debate of its efficiency.

              Clearly some may raise concerns regarding the complexity of such an overhaul, however, adhering to the marriage / family law status quo is by no means an smoother journey.

              – Whodatis

              • Anonymous says:

                Thanks very much for the response, Whodatis. I appreciate you continuing to engage on the topic.

                So just to make sure I understand, I think then your answer to my question of “Do you agree that civil unions, at least in respect to [the way they are treated under existing international laws], confer different rights than civil marriages?” is Yes.

                What I think I then hear you saying in response is that we could correct that problem by overhauling the way the world views unions akin to marriage under the law by calling all existing and future unions under the law “civil unions” instead of “marriage” for legal purposes.

                You also recognize and acknowledge, however, that this would be a monumental undertaking. I think what you’re saying, though, is that you view this as less of a challenge than changing the definition of “marriage” under the law.

                If I have that right, then let me ask my second question again, but I’m not sure that you answered it: “Do you agree that we already have different religious and legal definitions of “marriage” in Cayman, at least with respect to opposite sex couples?”

                In my view, we do, given that the definitions of “marriage” under the law and the definitions of “marriage” within a religious institution are not required (and do not in fact) match. And I must admit, I have a hard time agreeing with you that recognizing same-sex marriage would be a more difficult task than overhauling worldwide marriage laws, given the fact that many other jurisdictions (as well as religions) have already found it within themselves to include same-sex couples in their definition of marriage. It seems to me, at least, that extending what opposite-sex couples enjoy to same-sex couples is the less difficult and more palatable choice than taking something away from countless existing opposite-sex marriages.

                • Anonymous says:

                  As stated elsewhere, and not trying to be dismissive, I am growing weary of this debate as I have not only shared my perspective but also offered what I believe to be a workable and generally agreeable solution.

                  However, in respect to your final point, and this is what most proponents appear to misunderstand, it is only a small percentage of the world’s population that is actually in favour of gay marriage.
                  Granted, it may feel like a lot more due to the insular and ignorant / arrogant nature of western news and media, however the reality is there are actual continents and regions that quite frankly won’t hear of it.

                  Call me silly, but I believe we all strive to uphold democracy and respect the will of the majority of people. This will of course ultimately have some bearing on “international law” and accepted norms – if we are honest about our ideals.

                  Just wanted to highlight that oft overlooked aspect of the issue at hand.

                  Clearly, the West and inherentEurocentrists have a dirty habit of believing themselves to be the moral example and police of the world – but some may be well advised to get a better understanding and respect for the world in which we live.

                  – Whodatis

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Thanks for your thoughts, Whodatis.

                    I know you’ve shared your perspective and offered what you believe is a workable and generally agreeable solution.

                    I have responded by demonstrating why I believe the solution you have proposed is neither workable nor agreeable, and you have agreed that the task of implementing your proposed solution is monumental.

                    In hopes of reaching some common ground on which to build a different solution that might be both workable and agreeable, I have also asked you now three times whether you believe that there already exist different religious and legal definitions of “marriage”.

                    Sadly, you have again chosen not to respond to that question again, so it seems we have reached an impasse, and it seems as though you are uninterested in considering alternative solutions.

                    Instead, you have frustratingly raised an unrelated point about the role of the majority in protecting the rights of the minority. For what it’s worth, I fundamentally disagree with you on that point — in my view, it is up to the majority and the entire populace to protect the rights and dignity of the minority when the minority’s rights and dignity under the law are threatened by the will of the majority. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and a non-discrimination provision in that Bill of Rights in the first place.

                    But I digress..

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Re: “I have also asked you now three times whether you believe that there already exist different religious and legal definitions of “marriage””

                      True, I have avoided the question and this is because, in light of my proposal, I fail to see the relevance thereof.

                      I am disinterested in standing religious and legal definitions of marriage – by now I assumed that would be clear.

                      To reflect thereon is essentially a u-turn of my perspective.

                      Interestingly, what I propose could be loosely defined as a revolutionary global “bill of rights” as it relates to marriage / civil partnership / civil unions that applies, at least in principle, to all people.

                      – Who

                      That being said, I trust you appreciate the fact that it is an underwhelming minority of the world’s population that is campaigning for gay marriage.

                      Whereas some may draw parallels between gay marriage and civil (racial) rights – I wish to point out such discrimination, although catastrophic where found, was actually limited to White / western-dominated regions of the world … again, a minority in terms of numbers.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Exactly, Whodatis.

                      Despite your assertion that your “solution” is “workable,” you admit that your proposal would require a complete overhaul of existing worldwide systems applicable to the legal recognition of unions between consenting adults. You then ask gay and lesbian Caymanians to wait for the entire world to complete such an overhaul before they can equally enjoy the benefits and burdens of recognition of their relationships under the law.

                      For that reason, I view your proposal to be entirely unworkable and not a solution at all, and believe that you have failed to demonstrate how it is.

                      The relevance of my question, then, is to collectively consider and explore whether an alternative solution — the recognition that we already have different legal and religious definitions of “marriage” and could, accordingly, extend the legal definition of “marriage” without in any way impacting the majority’s cultural and religious definition of “marriage” — might lead to the same ultimate goal in a fashion that would actually be both workable and realistic, and on a much shorter timetable than your proposal.

                      Such an alternative proposal, unlike yours, would also result in a win-win solution in which neither “side” of the debate must lose anything for both “sides” to get what they want, because it would preserve the religious / cultural definition of “marriage” that the majority might impose upon itself while nevertheless fully remedying the discrimination gay and lesbian Caymanians currently face under the law.

                      Despite the fact that you acknowledge that your proposal effectively requires an impossibility (or, at the very least, a massive improbability) in a way that continues to materially harm gay and lesbian Caymanians while it is pending, you nevertheless refuse to consider another perspective, which I find disappointing. In my view, there is no shame in reconsidering your approach when someone presents a better alternative.

                      As for your response to our discussion about the role of the will of the majority, you actually prove my point:

                      When slavery was abolished, it didn’t matter how little or how much of the world viewed slavery as acceptable. What mattered was that slavery robbed a group of people of their fundamental rights and dignity under the law. And it is the experience of slavery and its abolition that, in fact, gave rise to the recognition in many countries that laws SHOULD apply equally to all classes of people.

                      In the United States, for example, the 14th Amendment (and its Equal Protection clause) was enacted AS A RESULT OF slavery, PRECISELY so that future classes of people that found themselves deprived of the equal protection of the law under legislation enacted by the majority would have recourse to remedy that legal discrimination based on a fundamental or immutable characteristic. The Unites States (and other countries) through their experience with slavery have, accordingly, recognized that it is morally wrong for the majority to impose its will on the minority when the majority’s will would enact laws that treat the minority differently and, accordingly, have adopted protections for the minority in their Constitutions.

                      Cayman has adopted similar protections for the minority in its Constitution, and yet you would have us ignore those protections for precisely the reason they were included in first place. It is precisely when the will of the majority is in conflict with the equal application of the law to a class of citizens based on a fundamental or immutable characteristic that the non-discrimination provisions of the Caymanian Constitution should and do apply.

        • Anonymous says:

          Is there a local culture to care about? If there is I simply do not care.

          • Anonymous says:

            Thank you for proving why Caymanians like myself are correct for disregarding assholes like yourself.

            You will live a miserable existence with that attitude – especially if you have opted to live as an immigrant in another country.

            Just a bit of advice … that I know you won’t accept from this lowly local.

            Take care.

            – Whodatis

            *Congrats though – you are Cayman’s equivalent of the Sharia law Muslims of the UK and Europe.

            (I trust you are now starting to see where I’m going with this …)

            • Anonymous says:

              Not really, if local “culture” is discriminating against homosexuals and eating turtles then I think decrying that “culture” is a justified moral imperative.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok, but it appears you still haven’t gotten it.
        The primary objective of my original post was to shed some light in the broader “discrimination” of Caymanian culture.

        Anyway, you’ve made clear your perspective on our “bronze-age bigotry” – care to share your thoughts on the modern bigotry recently democratically demonstrated by the UK and USA?

        – Who

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, it is you,dear sir/madam, who doesn’t get it.

        The people of the Cayman Islands have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in abandoning the definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.Their religious affiliations – whether they exist in any form or degree or not – is quite irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what I think (and don’t assume anything!), what you think or what anyone else thinks, nor how loud and shrill and persistent any opposing view on the definition of marriage is voiced (or even “bleated” – what a wonderfully emotive word!), the people have spoken and this matter is decided. It’s “as dead as a door nail” and the Caymanian people (yes, those primitive “cave-dwelling” souls who are so inferior to enlightened folks like your superior good-self) are uninterested in wasting any further time on it.

        Do you “get it” now, sportsfan?.

        • Anonymous says:

          …and let the church say – Aaaaaah-men!

          – Who


        • Anonymous says:

          I admit I’m a bit confused. I understand that there are many in Cayman that share your view, and that you are deeply interested in protecting the existing definition of marriage. But the people of Cayman also fought for a Constitution that included a right to private life and protection from discrimination, and they agreed to remain an British Overseas Territory and become signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. So it seems to me that the people of Cayman are conflicted, and that this conversation is far from settled.

        • Anonymous says:

          Well perhaps the bigotry of the cave dwellers can be snuffed out by legislation from the UK.

          • Anonymous says:

            For clarity, are you referring to the bigoted, now Brexited, UK?
            Are you takin’ the piss, mate?!

            – Who


            *Gotta love that engrained narcissistic dysfunction of some folks.

    • 345 says:

      It might be time to find a Pastor who is not 2017 years old.

    • Anonymous says:

      Time to find a new pastor Who. Explains a lot about you. A Church going hate filled bigot. Shocked, I tellsya.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Of course gay marriage should be legal , why should they not get to be as miserable as the rest of us !

    • Anonymous says:

      I am for gay marriage but your comment is so annoying. I hate when people act like being married is a drag. Get a new joke.

      • Anonymous says:

        The concept of same marriage isn’t what the UK adopted. Their legislation acknowledged civil unions between homosexuals so that they would have the same rights as same sex couples. A pastor isn’t needed to carry out a civil union. I think that if we make a move, it should be to recognize civil unions here.

        • Anonymous says:

          I don’t believe that’s factually correct. While Civil Partnership became legal in the UK in 2004, Marriage was extended to same-sex couples in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.

          From 1(1) of that Act “Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.”
          From 11(1) of that Act: “In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples.”


        • Anonymous says:

          Nonsense. Read the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The clue is on the title.

          • Anonymous says:

            From 1(1) of that Act: “Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.”
            From 11(1) of that Act: “In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples.”

  12. Anonymous says:

    First they get rid of slavery, then they give former slaves “rights”, then they gave them rights equal to those of whites, and then *ghasps* whites and blacks can marry and have children, and now the country is full of gaymanians. The logic is very easy to follow here… another example of why Cayman has a Governor to babysit the locals.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m not sure that kind of rhetoric is helpful — Cayman is not some backwards place in need of babysitting.

      What Cayman is is beautiful country with loving people, but where the majority of citizens practice various denominations of one faith. Many of us are struggling to reconcile our beliefs with a changing culture, and the recognition that is not guaranteed that everyone around us believes the same things we do. Sometimes that recognition means resistance, because we all have an inclination to be fearful of change. Sometimes that recognition means acceptance, in part because faith teaches us to have love for each other.

      I, for one, think there is room for those that believe differently in Cayman, and I have come to believe that my faith is strengthened (not diminished) by showing love for my fellow man — even if he believes something that I do not.

      We can practice our faiths and preserve our values and culture, while nevertheless making sure our laws do not discriminate against or treat differently those that have different beliefs. This is particularly true when it comes to matters as fundamental as who someone loves. What gay Caymanians seek is the same thing straight Caymanians seek — the ability to love and be committed to the person they love, to be free from undue government intervention in their private and family lives, and to enjoy this wonderful place and its wonderful people. While we might not all believe the same things, why are we standing in the way just because someone believes differently?

  13. Anonymous says:

    I wonder where we will all stand on this matter come Judgement Day?
    Every single one of us will face that day as an individual before a holy and righteous God and the opinion of a baying, misguided mob will carry no weight.
    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  14. Tom says:

    Careful Cayman. In time your countries motto “He hath founded it upon the seas” Psalms 24:2 will come under attack. Don’t let the enemies hook snare you!

  15. Sharkey says:

    Is he picking a fight with the Cayman Islands Government or what . He better be careful , because that would be same sex marriage .

    • Sharkey says:

      Reading all this LGBT. stuff is turning me the other way , and the Islands has never had a bigger stud than me . So stop it and let everyone live and do what they have been doing for hundreds of years.

  16. Anonymous says:

    This is all very embarrassing.
    Tge whole world is changing except the cayman islands and a few moslim countries.

    • Tom says:

      Then move to the rest of the world. We come Cayman because it’s a Christian nation with God fearing people.

  17. Hestia says:

    Let me see if I get a good understanding of what is happening here. You come from a different country that has all your gay rights mandated and you are happy with. You come into a Christian country with strong religious ties to many churches. We rest on Sunday, our weather is great all year round, many people have came to our shores, fell in love with the culture, the people and the safety of a clean island. Now, you wish to impose your beliefs and your way of life on me, my family, and friends and wish to change the very demographics you and your husband fell in love with when you set foot on our shores.

    I fast forward five years from now if we relax our laws on gay marriages, on gambling, prostitution, marijuana, marriage to animals or children and the list goes on. What will happen to this island that time forgot? We will become just like the country you came from, infestation with crime, drugs, sex slaves, prostitution and the list goes on. Then I guess you will pack your bags and move to the next island. Bermuda is calling?

    This is our island and all we request is for you to come, intergrate and respect our culture and don’t force your beliefs on a community that strongly believes in God. Yes some of our politicians and natives fall short of these beliefs but Don’t we have a right to human rights too?

    We have a great nation, a beautiful island with some great people. Is it too much to ask to leave it as is?

    You keep pushing and you will hate to see the very country you love turn into some of our neighbors
    Like Jamaica, Honduras, Mexico.

    • Dazed and Confused says:

      Just a sec aren’t Jamaica, Honduras and Mexico good ‘God’ fearing countries…. Jamaica certainly does not have gay marriage so it is unlikely that their problems can be blamed upon Homosexuals.

      What happens if two Caymanians want to get married? Why should they have to leave the Island? The great thing about culture is that it is always evolving… Gay marriage is acceptable to most people now, maybe you should accept it as well.

      You know like being a good christian and loving thy neighbor…

    • Anonymous says:

      Dr. Raznovich is not imposing his belief. He is providing facts. He is explaining the law. He is educating. He is supporting a minority of the Caymanian population. He is giving those Caymanians hope and a voice. Hope that maybe one day they will be able to live their lives, in their own country, without fear, with the person they love, recognised and protected under the law in the same way as you are. For that, what must you give up? The answer is NOTHING.

      Contrary to what you suggest, this is NOT about changing beliefs, it is simply about treating all people equally under the law. The LGBT community is simply saying “PLEASE TREAT US EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW”. In doing so, they seek an end their unequal treatment and segregation. This will have the effect of bringing the community together, in a spirit of respect and understanding, not tearing it apart. If any harm is caused here it is not by the LGBT community asking to be treated as equal humans. Rather, the harm is caused by you, comparing LGBT people with those that like to have sex with animals and children. That is a terribly damaging and hurtful thing to say! It has the effect of ostracising and segregating LGBT people. Where is the love and warmth so often associated with Caymanian culture in your comments above? YOU CAN’T BEGING TO LOVE ANYONE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO SIMPLY LOOK AT THEM AS EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS. How about you start there? That is all that is being asked.

      Giving all people the ability to formalise their relationship with another person and giving them equal protections under the law should be a legal matter, not a religious matter. Whether you call it civil unions, civil partnerships, marriage or whatever, is for the most part irrelevant to the LGBT community. You do not need to give-up anything. You can remain Christian, you can maintain your views on homosexuality, you can keep going to church, you can keep getting married….

      Pause for one moment and think about would be a better representation of Caymanian culture:

      Showing love, warmth and support for your fellow Caymanian?


      Comparing your fellow Caymanian to paedophiles and people that have sex with animals, simply because they are unable to love someone of the opposite sex, like you?

    • Anonymous says:

      Too bad more people didn’t think like you in 1834.

    • Tuemessian says:

      The whole point of this post is to let the community know gay marriage is allowed in the Cayman Islands as the marriage law and the constitution states nothing about it being illegal.

      All of these fools keep saying if you don’t like the rules well then leave however, the law caters to both heterosexual and homosexual couples since there is no prohibition against same sex couples in the marriage law or the constitution.

      With that said, if you don’t fancy the idea of respecting the law of the Cayman Islands or the people that reside in it then, it is you that need to pack up and leave for somewhere where the law caters to your simpleton mind.

    • Anonymous says:

      Really….gay rights will turn us into Honduras and Jamaica?

      No, our crappy education system, ineffective programming to deal with at risk youth and our continual mindset that assumes a victim mentality for all Caymanians so they can sit back and moan, while not doing a damn thing will turn us into those countries.

      I know many young gay Caymanians who would actually benefit from this challenge. Once again, it is foreigners fighting the fight, whilst Caymanians throw stones.

      • Anonymous says:

        4:52am – I love this post.
        That last line though…
        Perfectly stated.

        Thank you foreigners, for coming and shedding new light on the rest of the world for us. Seriously. We need open minds, not close minded small island mentality.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why do you compare marrying animals to two human beings who love each other and want to spend their life together in matrimony?

    • Anonymous says:

      Excellent post. The PPM does not care about our island or our Christian heritage otherwise they would not assist him in staying. Now we are asked to support them by affording them another term to completely ruin our island. If the PPM had cared about the moral fabric of our island they would have supported Anthony Eden in his fight for moral values.

    • Anonymous says:

      I can understand how this might feel like a form of cultural imperialism, with someone who is not from this Island bringing in views from abroad. I also can understand how hundreds of gay and lesbian Caymanians do not have the same ability to voice their concerns — for fear of losing their jobs, their status within their families, the respect of their pastors and friends — by saying that this resistance in our culture is something that deeply hurts them too. Leo is providing a voice, because unlike many gay Caymanians, he does have the ability to leave, and with that ability comes safety. Not all of us have that choice.

      And I don’t think anyone has any desire to change the things that make Cayman a wonderful place to live and work, but telling gay people that it is wrong to love who they love is not, in my view, one of those wonderful things — for either Caymanians or expats. And we can change that thing, and improve our education system, and decrease domestic abuse, and reduce corruption in our government, without opening the doors to drug use, prostitution, pedophilia or beastiality.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, because gay is a gateway to gambling and beastiality…. Seriously, you are too ignorant to even argue with but here goes.

      Time hasn’t forgotten about Cayman, that’s Cuba.

      If you think that this island is prostitution free, hold on to your church hat, it’s not.

      Drugs, here. Crime, here. Gambling, DUH, here.

      While there is no marriage to animals, you weirdo, there is a disturbing amount of animal abuse. And don’t get me started on the child abuse perpetrated by relgious locals.

    • Anonymous says:

      You miss part of the point.
      This is also about YOUR gay camanians.
      Or do you think they dont exist ?

  18. Anonymous says:

    The congratulations to Dr Raznovich as a “legal expert” seem to be somewhat premature. Irrespective of the propriety of permitting same sex unions or not, this analysis is the most patently flawed example of legal reasoning. He relies much more heavily on wishful thinking than legal research.
    The simple legal fact is that a union between a man and a woman is the only union which can lawfully constitute a marriage under Cayman law. Same sex unions cannot be constituted under domestic legislation as a “marriage”. Perhaps Dr Raznovich should read the constitution more closely, which would reveal that discrimination according to sexual orientation has been deliberately excluded from the Bill of Rights. Relying on foreign jurisprudence, with clearly disparate legal consequences is the weakest and most whimsical form of analysis.
    This is not to say that I endorse the rejection of same sex unions. I make no comment on that issue. The point is simply that Dr Raznovich cannot make a fundamental change to the law of these Islands, simply because he wishes it to be so.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think, Sir or Madam, that you may go too far in saying that the Constitution deliberately excluded protections on the basis of sexual orientation.

      While it is true that Article 16 of the Constitution does not explicitly mention sexual orientation, it does provide that, with certain limited exceptions, “government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution” and that, for these purposes, “‘discriminatory’ means affording different and unjustifiable treatment to different persons on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical disability, property, birth or other status.”

      The inclusion of “other status” is the result of a compromise during the Constitutional modernisation process that extends the non-discrimination provisions to any number of immutable characteristics, including sexual orientation, gender identity and the like, without having to explicitly include those characteristics in the language of the law — something that would have been exceptionally unpopular in some constituencies at the time and would have likely cost MLAs some votes at that time. This compromise allowed the MLAs to tout a “victory” to their constituents, while at the same time preserving non-discrimination protections.

      If you read the transcripts of the formal negotiations between Cayman and the UK on the modern Constitution, and the debates in the legislative assembly at that time, you can see how the framers of the modern Constitution struggled to include clear statements about how Cayman is a Christian nation, while nevertheless adhering to Cayman’s obligations under the international treaties to which it is a signatory.

      The framers of the modern Constitution included the members of the Human Rights Committee, who were specifically tasked with addressing the fundamental rights that the Constitution should include and were directly involved in the drafting and formal negotiations with respect to the modern Constitution.

      In their publication “The 2008 Constitutional Modernisation Proposals and their Human Rights Implications” (7 April 2008), the HRC suggested that the Constitution should be worded to state that “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right”, and went on to comment that, “if the principle of equality is to be recognized, the HRC advocates that there should not be discrimination against other types of legal union, which may eventually be recognized in Cayman law. Accordingly, any civil rights to be granted to the parties of any form of legal union will remain a matter for the legislators, provided these are not discriminatory. The HRC recognises that the right to marry can be defined under domestic law; but it would be a matter for each individual religion as to which marriage ceremony it chooses to sanction or perform.”

      From the beginning of the Constitutional modernisation process, the HRC advocated for the marriage right to be broad, but to be a matter for the ordinary laws, not the Constitution.

      In connection with the the First Formal Negotiations on a New Cayman Islands Constitution, the HRC issued comments on the 2008 Constitutional Modernisation Proposals (29 September 2008), in which they outlined the following two specific proposals:

      “9. Upholding the basic principles of equality, the Constitution should not seek to discriminate against any person or group on any basis, including sexual orientation. Human rights are based on the notion that all human beings have dignity and value. Accordingly, rights should be secured without discrimination.

      10. In relation to the right to marry, if the principle of equality is to be recognized, the HRC takes the view that there should not be discrimination against other types of legal union, which may eventually be recognized in Cayman law. Any civil rights (such as healthcare benefits, inheritance) to be granted to any form of legal union to be recognised under Cayman law will remain a matter for the legislature, but should not be discriminatory.”

      Ms. Melanie McLaughlin reiterated these proposals, nearly verbatim, in her address to the UK delegation on that same day.

      In reflecting on the Constitutional Modernisation process during the third round of Formal Negotiations, Ms. Sara Collins told the UK delegation: “It’s helpful also to consider the background to this process, because we also have made compromises, and we made these compromises designed specifically to address, we hoped, the concerns of the churches associations, which were to ensure that no right to marry would be conferred on gays and lesbians and to ensure that no rights would be applied horizontally. For those reasons, those matters are dealt with specifically and comprehensively in the constitution. Those concerns have been addressed. They do not remain and there is therefore no remaining concern to which anyone can point which suggests that this further compromise is necessary or reasonable.”

      Transcripts of both these Formal Negotiations are available on the governments’ website. History simply does not reflect unanimity on this issue. What it reflects is a series of compromises designed to appease both sides. The end result of that compromise was a positive grant of marriage rights to opposite sex couples — with no statements in the Constitution either for OR AGAINST same-sex marriage — and broad non-discrimination protections that include “other status”, but apply only vertically to the government (and not horizontally to non-state actors as well).

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for your thoughts. There’s one point I’m not sure I understand — can you clarify how “[r]elying on foreign jurisprudence, with clearly disparate legal consequences is the weakest and most whimsical form of analysis”? Do not international treaty obligations supercede domestic laws, and is Cayman not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, under which the Olari court has explicitly held that in the absence of same-sex marriage, equivalent legal recognition needs to nevertheless need to be extended to same-sex couples?

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually whether his legal reasoning is correct or not is for the court to decide, not for you. In any event, your suggestion that the lack of ‘sexual orientation’ in the Cayman Constitution as a ground for discrimination is an indication that discrimination against LGBT people is somehow permissible in the jurisdiction is wrong. This provision of the bill of rights has been copied and pasted from the European Convention on Human Rights; you should know if you have some legal knowledge that the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted long ago that the way in which the provision is drafted (i.e. grounds “such as”) provides room for other grounds including sexual orientation. This interpretation is binding on the jurisdiction. If you need legal guidance you may want to contact the Human Right Commission of the Cayman Islands, who has already publically confirmed this interpretation last year and stated ‘Any suggestion that Cayman’s current legal framework is sufficient to survive a legal challenge in the Court on same-sex unions is wrong as a matter of law.’ You can see the full statement by clicking in this link:

      Furthermore, the Charter of Rights of the Canadian constitution contains a provision that is more narrowly drafted than the European Convention and the Cayman Constitution when it describes the grounds protected by the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada, whose decisions are persuasive authority in this jurisdiction held long ago that if religion, that is a cultural choice, is a protected ground against discrimination, then sexual orientation, that is an immutable feature of the human being (as race is), must be also a protected ground.

  19. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. says:

    In 1967 the US Surpreme Court held it was unconstitutional to criminalise interracial marriages. Previously it had been argued that miscegenation was against the teachings in the Bible and would lead to the destruction of society.

    All the same arguments are being trotted out again with Gay Marriage. It’s important that those who oppose gay marriage understand, you are in the wrong side of history. In 50 years time your arguments will look ridiculous. Go quietly into the night with your bigoted views because like the name of the 1967 case, Loving will win in the end.

    • Anonymous says:

      And pray tell what jurisdiction that the US Supreme Court has in The Cayman Islands?

      Too much US influence as it is!

      • Dazed and Confused says:

        I think the point was that time changes and the argument that the end of the world will happen because Gay Marriage or that society will break down is ridiculous.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I really don’t understand why people fight to have a ceremony which is a religious one. Why not civil unions? Why not civil unions with all the same legal privileges as today’s marriages for all (gay, straight, trans, etc.) and reserve marriage as a purely religious ceremony which has zero legal ramifications?

    • Dazed and Confused says:

      you have a good point there. Currently the Cayman Islands is breaching the European Convention on Human Rights because there is no gay marriage or civil partnership. If there were Civil Unions, the Cayman Islands Government would have a strong case in defending themselves in Strasbourg.

      • Anonymous says:

        I can understand why civil unions have some appeal as a form of “compromise” to get both sides what they want. And, let’s be clear, civil unions would be a step in the right direction.

        What is problematic about civil unions, though, is that unless they are the only form of legal recognition for a solemnized relationship (whether for same sex couples or opposite sex couples), then we are inherently treating one group of citizens differently than another, which is impermissible discrimination under the law. You are saying that one group of people is not entitled to something (to be recognized as “married” under the law) that another is.

        Furthermore, the laws of other countries generally respect MARRIAGES performed elsewhere, but they do not extend those protections to CIVIL UNIONS. U.S. immigration law, for example, will treat a couple that is “married” outside the U.S. as a “married” couple for U.S. immigration purposes, but it does not extend that same treatment to couples that have entered into civil unions or domestic partnerships. So the rights afforded are simply not the same.

        The truth is, we already have a concept of civil unions, and that is the concept of “marriage” under the law. We recognize that opposite sex couples that are not married in a church are nevertheless “married” under Caymanian law. That is because our laws already recognize that there is a difference between Christian “marriage”, or religious “marriage” and civil “marriage”, even though we use the same word for both.

        Moreover, I am a member of a Christian church that recognizes same-sex marriage within its faith. While my congregation is based in the U.S., my pastor could not come here to Cayman to marry me and my same-sex partner. So the laws of Cayman actually prohibit my church from solemnizing a marriage that my church views as fully valid.

  21. annooymus says:

    Love is love live and let live it’s call bring happy ???❤?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Let’s say that LGBTQ agenda is accepted in this country of 55000 inhabitants approximately and in 20 years from now everybody is gay lesbian bi trans and quare what will happen with the population? explain

    • Anonymous says:

      What a fool!

    • Anonymous says:

      Because as soon as gay people can marry, every straight person will magically become gay as well. You’re hopelessly stupid and I can only hope your ignorance isn’t genetic.

    • Anonymous says:

      4.08, what happens if you ask stupid questions?

    • Anonymous says:

      The scary thing is that you probably thought you were making a good point.

    • Anonymous says:

      Its the quares you need to watch out for …..

    • Straw Man says:

      That’s a very stupid way to look at this. I can’t even begin to piece together how and what got you to come up with that train of thought.

    • Anonymous says:

      I can understand the nervousness around the future, but I honestly don’t think that giving gay and lesbian people equal respect/dignity under the law will “turn” anyone gay. I’m pretty sure that straight Caymanians will continue being straight, and gay Caymanians will continue being gay. Unless we’re suggesting that gay Caymanians should be forced into loveless opposite-sex marriages for the sake of procreation and population growth, then I’m not sure same-sex marriage will have any effect on the population.

    • Liberty, Equality, Fraternity says:

      Are worried that you are quare? Why do you think everyone will be quare in 20 years time? It’s a really odd thing to think.

      Maybe you would feel better saying you are quare and proud.

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t think you understand the concept of sexual orientation. Unless you, yourself, are bisexual in which case may I ask at what point in your life you made the decision to ‘become’ straight?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, you probably also believe we are all coming ftom adam and eve.

      • Anonymous says:

        That is not entirely true. Read it again and you will know that the pure bloodline was infiltrated. There are children of God and children of the devil. We all start off on the left and some make it to the right, but alas, the “smart” ones believe they require no salvation.
        This is not a rehearsal, nor a joke. Refusing to believe in something real is a personal choice and on that choice we will be judged, nothing else.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I bet the government never thought this day would come where gay couples wanna show up their selves. Well how about we focus on important stuff first, education, employment, etc. I’m sure they only wanna get married to keep whoever got these thoughts in their heads to stay here. Well just like opposite sex marriage isn’t a big worry for the government why is same-sex any different. Important things first.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree. There are more important and pressing issues facing our society, and I don’t think gay and lesbian Caymanians should have to wait while we try to sort out these things, which the government has been trying to sort out since the legislative assembly was founded. Let’s stop fighting this unnecessary fight and just let people marry who they love so we can get back to the real issues.

  24. Anonymous says:

    No one can give a clear reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. I can give you one clear reason why it shouldn’t be, love.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Yes and I applaud the minister that’s the first on island to do the ceremony. Just think, you will be making history and showing that love has no boundaries. No one should be told who they can love or marry! Love is love. Simple!

    • Anonymous says:

      Marriage had nothing to do with church.
      Church is a group of people that are not able to make up their own mind and need a guide to tell them.

      • Tom says:

        Marriage has everything to do with the Church. Please open a Bible. Not sure why the the community would want to be married as its a Christian standard. I would think they would be against it as the Bible cleary states that Gods word is against homosexuality. They should form their own union brand. Why hijack a Christian union that speaks out against them and their acts as immoral and sinful.

        • Anonymous says:

          I am a member of a Christian church that recognizes same-sex marriage within its faith. While my congregation is based in the US, are we suggesting that only certain Christian faiths are Christian enough to be permitted in Cayman? Or can we respect that different religions have different opinions about what it means to be married within the faith, and allow the laws of our country to be flexible enough to respect those faiths, as well as those that do not practice any faith?

          The Preamble to our Constitution reaffirms our country’s “intention to be
          a God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions and beliefs.” Are we sure we’re showing that tolerance in fighting against legal recognitions that do nothing to change or undermine the practice of Christianity within Cayman?

          • T Smith Dallas says:

            I’m sorry but your church is not a God’s Word church if it recognizes same sex marriage. Someone needs to read the verses a little closer.

            • Anonymous says:

              T Smith Dallas, while I respect that you have a different interpretation of the verse, I think it is not so clear as your pastor might have you believe.

              On your logic, Orthodox Jews could say that your church is not a God’s Word church, because it values the teachings of the New Testament, and because it permits things that are clearly prohibited by the Old Testament. Can you imagine a world where you were born in a country where the majority of people were Orthodox Jews, but you believed what you do now, and you were told that your faith wasn’t a legitimate faith and that you needed to read the verse more closely?

              Leviticus 20:13 calls homosexuality an “abomination” and suggests that homosexuals should be “put to death”. Biblical law also requires adulterers to be “put to death”, but Caymanian law, of course, is not so draconian — it simply permits the adulterer’s spouse a divorce.

              Of course, we know that these old Biblical laws no longer apply after the coming of Christ. Ephesians 2:14 tells us, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility that by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.” Matthew 5:17 echoes the notion that the laws of the Old Testament have been fulfilled by Christ’s coming and, as such, are no longer necessary. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

              It is on that basis that Christian churches no longer prohibit the eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), chicken (Leviticus 11:13), hamburgers (Leviticus 11:42), or ribs (Isaiah 66:17), or the wearing of breathable cotton-poly blends (Deuteronomy 22:11), or pants by women (Deuteronomy 22:5). Caymanians regularly enjoy each of these things, and our laws do not preclude them.

              Why do we selectively pick out Leviticus 20:13 as deserving of ongoing enforcement when we have set aside the others?

              In the New Testament, Romans 25-7 tells us, “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

              Peter Gomes and John Shelby Spong suggest that the Paul’s argument in this passage is focused not on condemning the practice of homosexuality, but on condemning the practice of idolatry (Romans 1:25), which Paul believes gave rise to homosexuality (Romans 1:26). Of course, Paul did not have access to the mountains of scientific data that strongly suggest that homosexuality is biological, and, accordingly, could not be a punishment for conscious acts.

              Jung & Smith suggest that, while Paul may have believed that same-sex desires and activities were dishonorable and unnatural, the text does not address committed and loving unions with bonds akin to marriage among same-sex partners, since there was no such notion at the time. In Romans 1:31, Paul states that “they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy,” when, of course, we understand that committed homosexual relationships can and do have all of these things.

              Daniel Helminiac suggests that the Greek “para physin” in Paul’s letter has been incorrectly translated as “unnatural” instead of its more common meaning at the time of “unusual”.

              Robin Scroggs suggests that Paul’s passage was intended to condemn only the Greek practice of pederasty (sexual acts by men against boys), not all homosexuality.

              And, of course, Romans 1:30 tells us of the other consequences of idolotry — slanderers; God-haters; insolent, arrogant and boastful people; individuals that disobey their parents — all of whom we tolerate in Caymanian society and in our churches and who we do not deny equal protections under the laws.

              So perhaps instead of condemning my church and my ability to read scripture, you could respect that I believe something similar to but different than you do, in the same way that I respect that you believe something else for yourself, without judgment of you or your church.

        • Anonymous says:

          Not sure why a god fearing christian nation would continue to allow the sale of shellfish when the bible clearly states it’s an abomination just like it labels gays as abominations.

          How do you pick and choose what to follow in the bible?

    • Anonymous says:

      Marriage officers under our law all affiliated to a Church or Synagogue in Cayman – who are all publicly opposed to gay marriage. The two appointed “civil registrars” are the only ones who can conduct non religious marriage ceremonies. We need more civil registrars appointed.

      All the marriages officers who conduct non Christian (non Jewish weddings in case of the rabbi) are breaking the spirit of the law and their licence ought to be cancelled.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Just to clarify…it’s only the men homosexuals that are a concern.

  27. Anonymous says:

    they live amongst us they contribute like everyone else, more than some don’t cause any trouble what’s the big deal, welcome to the new world, and let’s respect everyone

  28. Anonymous says:

    Look at what has happened into those countries that have allowed gay marriage – the entire fabric of society has been ripped asunder.

    • Anonymous says:

      Really now? But the child-molesting priests of the Church haven’t contributed to this asunder of which you speak?

      • Bill Lewis says:

        You mean the gay priests right?

        • rollin says:

          K O !

        • Anonymous says:

          I think this is a common misconception, unfortunately, and I do think OP means the child-molesting priests, not gay priests.

          Pedophilia and homosexuality are two very different things. Margaret Smith, the author of a study commissioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops themselves in light of the child abuse scandals, stated as follows:

          ‘What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.’

          Smith and her co-author, Karen Terry, stressed that access to young boys, rather than a homosexual orientation, was largely responsible for the high percentage of male abuse cases. “It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.”

          You can read more about it in the National Catholic Reporter:

        • annoymous says:

          3:14pm, a pedophile is not necessarily gay.

          They just like to molest children no matter their sexual orientation, be it straight or gay and the child can be male or female.

          Studies have proven pedophiles are predominantly straight.

          As for priests, many probably pretend to be straight and hide behind the catholic church where they get away with it easier.

          Think about how easy it is to be a priest. They must be single…and cannot be married. Perfect hiding place.

          Not all gay or straight priests, pastors or persons in general are child molesters.

          It is all individual, and sick and they are not only in the church. Same sex union or marriage not changing a doggone thing.

          Not saying you are bashing LGBT, live and let live. My yours or anyone else rights should not prevent others from their rights as long as its consensual between adults.

      • Anonymous says:

        This sort of response shows why there is a need for a sarcasm font.

    • From a Ripped Apart Country says:

      The fabric of the United States, at least, is being torn apart not because of legalized gay marriage, but because approximately half of the people believe that all citizens should be entitled to equal respect and human dignity, while the other half believes that equal respect and dignity should be reserved for a select few — the white, the straight, the wealthy, and the male — (or at least because they don’t care enough about others to stand up for them). So it is the RESISTANCE to things like same-sex marriage, civil rights, women’s rights, access to healthcare, economic equality, preventing climate change and the like that is tearing the country apart, not the progress towards them.

      • Anonymous says:

        You need to Google “sarcasm”.

        • From a Ripped Apart Country says:

          I respect that you intended your comment to be sarcastic. That wasn’t clear from the original post, and the response that you’re seeing from others (and the number of upvotes) demonstrates just how frequently this type of argument is advanced by people who mean it in earnest and not sarcastically. So please take my comment as a response to those who believe what you said as it was written.

    • Anonymous says:

      Can you give a few examples of how gay marriage has ripped these societies asunder please?

      Also, let’s weigh the effects of which you speak with absentee fathers, domestic violence, child sexual abuse and the effects of alcohol/drug abuse and infidelity/divorce on the family. Just curious because these seem to be a bigger threat to our society being ripped asunder than gay marriage.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please give examples of those countries destroyed by gay marriage. Another brain dead comment.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yup, Norway is currently on fire….

    • Anonymous says:

      I thought the breakdown of society had more to do with the fine Caribbean tradition of absentee fathers and multiple ‘baby mammas’ Personaly. What did the bible have to say about that ?
      ‘thou shalt not lay with another man….but hey knock up any number of girls dumb enough . After all the rest of society will pay for your bastard offspring.

    • Anonymous says:

      And the adulterers here including politicians have not ripped our society asunder. Horse out the gate long time.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I can hear Anthony gnashing his teeth and the sound of Savannah voters flocking to the polls to elect him with a massive majority!

  30. Anonymous says:

    Go to Dubai and do this first

    • Anonymous says:

      I have a friend who lives in Dubai who is openly gay , he us doing fine and had no problem what’s your point ?

      • Anonymous says:

        Is he telling the citizens of the country via the media to challenge the country’s laws? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

      • Anonymous says:

        I think you’re making that up.

      • Anonymous says:

        Can someone explain if the downvotes are for having a gay friend or the fact he lives in Dubai ? I’m confused . Not sexually , like most of the anti gay lobby . Some of you are protesting a little too strongly.

      • Anonymous says:

        And Dubai has such a stellar record of human rights, and we want to emulate them. The only really Dubai is flush is due to oil money.

        Wiki on Dubai:

        “According to human rights organizations, the government of the United Arab Emirates violates a number of fundamental human rights. The UAE does not have democratically elected institutions and citizens do not have the right to change their government or to form political parties. There are reports of forced disappearances in the UAE, many foreign nationals and Emirati citizens have been abducted by the UAE government and illegally detained in undisclosed locations.[1][2] In numerous instances, the UAE government has tortured people in custody and has denied their citizens the right to a speedy trial and access to counsel during official investigations.[1][2]”

        Yes…..let’s use Dubai as an example…….seriously. Why not just support Hitler, as he murder gays as well as Jews?….you idiot.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jamaica is closer!

  31. Anonymous says:

    A great man once said homosexuality is not just a form of sex it is a form of love and for that deserves respect. I’m not talking about jesus.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Until someone challenges our draconian laws then nothing with change. More power to the people that challenge these discriminatory laws. This is a civil issue and it is insane that all members of our country aren’t afforded the same rights.

  33. Anonymous says:

    We will get there but it takes time to change the mindset of a community. Slow & steady will win the race.

    • Anonymous says:

      In the meantime the court cases will roll and CIG will lose our money defending the undefendable

  34. Anonymous says:

    Here we go! Thanks Wayne and Alden this is your biggest contribution to these islands!

  35. Tone Loc says:

    First ceremony should be right there on Pedro Castle Road. Watch out, tbe apocalypse is coming!

  36. Anonymous says:

    Stop imposing your same-sex marriage us. How intolerant of you. If you don’t like it you’re free to get married in another country.

    • Anonymous says:

      Morning, bigot. What harm is gay marriage going to cause you?

      • Anonymous says:

        Ah the standard ‘bigot’ name calling begins. Don’t forget that if a person has an opinion that doesn’t agree with homosexuality to use the word ‘homophobic’ too.

    • Anonymous says:

      Last time I checked no one is forcing you to get married to a member of the same sex but you are right, we should be tolerant of your intolerance.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why should Caymanians have to go to another country to get married?

      • Anonymous says:

        Why should Caymanians go to another country to use certain drugs? Why should Caymanians go to another country to marry underage females? Why should Caymanians go to another country to buy medication that is restricted here over the counter? etc etc etc…

        Simple, because our laws reflect the desires of our culture.

        • Al Catraz says:

          I agree. This whole thing starts with letting women vote. That was never part of the culture either. But then, someone comes along and says “Oh, the foreign countries let their women vote, so we should too.” And then, behind the women, you have people who want to practice strange and unusual religions to this culture and, of course, gay people and who knows what next.

          Let the women be silent and obey the men, like the Bible says to do, and the Cayman culture can be restored again.

          • Just Sayin' says:

            It actually started when the slaves were emancipated but that’s a story for another day.

        • Anonymous says:

          There is nothing in the law that states gay marriage is illegal. That’s the whole point of this post. Caymanians don’t have to go abroad to get married because the marriage laws cover both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

          • Liberty, Equality, Fraternity says:

            Actually the constitution defines marriage as being between two people of opposite sex.

            • Anonymous says:

              Yes the consitution does define marriage as a union between a man and woman but does not prohibit same sex marriage allowing it to be perfectly legal. There is no law that states gay marriage is illegal in anyway therefore it is an attack on the rights of people to prohibit such a union.

              There is no evidence to support any of your claims that gay marriage have negative impacts anywhere in this world other than the fabricated lies made up in your head.

            • Anonymous says:

              This is a common misconception, unfortunately, in part because this is what the MLAs incorrectly touted to gain votes during the time of the constitutional modernisation process.

              While it is true that Article 14 of the Constitution reaffirms opposite-sex marriage by explicitly granting opposite-sex couples the right to marry in Article 14(1), this is a positive grant of rights to opposite-sex couples — Article 14(1) says nothing about same-sex couples. So while Article 14 doesn’t explicitly grant same-sex couples the right to marry (like it does to opposite-sex couples), it doesn’t limit who the law can treat as being married either — it is a protection for opposite-sex couples, not a definition of marriage.

              In fact, Article 14(3) goes on to allow the bodies responsible for writing and interpreting Cayman’s laws to “regulate… the procedures and modalities of marriage” and to “protect the rights and freedoms of others”, explicitly stating that such rules or interpretations would not be held to be in contravention of the explicit grant of marriage rights to opposite-sex couples in Article 14(1).

              The language in Article 14(3) is broad enough to allow Cayman’s authorities to write, amend or interpret domestic laws to provide for same-sex marriages, civil unions or other legal recognitions of same-sex couples, without those laws being held to violate Article 14(1) of the Constitution.

              Article 16 of the Constitution goes on to provide that, with certain limited exceptions, “government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution. … In this section, “discriminatory” means affording different and unjustifiable treatment to different persons on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical disability, property, birth or other status.” The inclusion of “other status” extends the non-discrimination provisions to any number of immutable characteristics, including sexual orientation, gender identity and the like, without having to explicitly include those characteristics — which would have been exceptionally unpopular at the time of the Constitutional modernisation process.

              Article 9 of the Constitution further provides that “Government shall respect every person’s private and family life, his or her home and his or her correspondence.” This provision, (and the majority of the Caymanian Bill of Rights) is modeled on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Cayman is also a direct signatory. The Olari court held that, under the equivalent provision to Article 9 in the ECHR, Italy, in the absence of its permitting marriage for same-sex couples, had a positive obligation to provide other options, such as civil unions or registered partnerships. Cayman’s obligations under the ECHR and it’s own Constitution, modeled after the ECHR, would presumably require it to do the same, and the Governor confirmed these obligations as recently as September of this year (see

        • Anonymous says:

          Not since we signed up to international human rights obligations and brought laws that are other than the desires of our culture into our law.

        • But the Constitution Though says:

          Cayman’s laws do reflect the desires of the culture — the rules embodied in the Constitution explicitly prohibit the government from enacting laws that are discriminatory. While the legislature can prohibit ALL Caymanians from using or buying certain drugs or medication, and can prohibit ALL Caymanians from marrying children that are below the age of consent, the laws of Cayman already prevent the legislature from affording SOME people the right to marry while taking it away from others based on an immutable characteristic. That’s legal discrimination.

    • Anonymous says:

      You’re free to leave if you don’t fancy the idea of respecting people rights.

    • Anonymous says:

      How about this approach – if you don’t like same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex? Since you’re not the one who’s trying to get married it doesn’t affect you in anyway at all. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as you?

      • Tom says:

        How about this. If you dont like the Christian marriage between a woman and man as God has it for procreation then call your same sex union something besides marriage.

        • Anonymous says:

          Your religion doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage. It predated it and it will postdate it too.

          • T Smith Dallas says:

            Please show me were. The truth will postdate everything. Are you prepared?

            • Anonymous says:

              Invoke god all you want you have no proof that he exist. All you have is an old dirty book written by goat herders and word of mouth.

            • Anonymous says:

              Show you were Dallas? I’m prepared to help you with basic English as a start. We can move on to critical thinking afterwards.

        • Anonymous says:

          I hope you’re having sex ONLY to have babies. No “just for pleasure” stuff for you. The impotent, elderly and physically disabled (from waist down) shouldn’t get married either.

        • Anonymous says:

          But can you answer the question Tom instead of diverting from it?

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t think the poster really cares where the same sex marriage happens – it could be a destination wedding some where else. What matters is that once married that they are free to live in the Cayman Islands and get all the befits that others who are married get.

      • Anonymous says:

        Doesn’t this amount to a tax on same-sex couples who want to marry? What about those gay Caymanian couples who can’t afford to pay that tax?

    • Tom says:

      How dare you impose on Christian marriage. You want to be one call it aomething else….don’t step on a Godly marriage.

      • Anonymous says:

        Tom. It’s a matrimony between two individuals who love each other. A bond, a union between two spouses. It is defined as marriage regardless of gender. Who can deny two consenting adults that love each other peace and matrimony together?

      • Anonymous says:

        It’s rational to want to protect what marriage means to your faith. But do we not respect Jewish or Hindu marriages as valid marriages under the law, even if we do not respect them in church? My faith is not diminished by others’ practice of their faiths.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Well done Leo! This madness has to stop. Like it or not the prohibitions are illegal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.