‘Right or wrong’, marriage inequity deliberate

| 10/02/2019 | 189 Comments

(CNS): Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, whom government has instructed to defend a legal case challenging the Cayman Islands’ ban on same-sex marriage and the lack of equity for gay couples, told the court Friday that “rightly or wrongly”, the intention of the Constitution is to ensure that marriage remains a union between opposite-sex couples only. The leading British attorney, who was the government’s adviser on the 2009 Constitution during the consultation process and had assisted in its final wording, argued that the courts should not interfere with the deliberate prohibition on gay marriage because the law was not only constitutional but it was what the people of Cayman wanted.

Jowell, who is leading the attorney general’s defence of the case filed by Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden after they were refused a marriage licence by the General Registry last year, said that the court should respect the language of the Constitution and the people’s wishes not to allow same-sex marriage.

His submission followed a day and a half of argument by Edward Fitzgerald QC, who presented the women’s case, concluding that they could be allowed to marry through a simple change to the wording of the Marriage Law, which the court could make through its powers of modification.

Jowell began by presenting the position that the court had no right to insert its moral values into the Constitution, which was “grounded in local culture”.

“The Constitution embodies the aspirations of the Caymanian people,” Jowell argued, noting that it had been put to a referendum and gained 62% support.

During his presentation, Jowell stuck to the simple argument that the words in the Marriage Law and Constitution are deliberate and, “like it or not”, the people do not want to allow same-sex marriage, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that there is no way to interpret it any other way.

In what the two women have argued is an exceptionally limited and narrow defence by the government against their wish to marry or at least enter into a civil partnership, Jowell stuck to the government line, as he repeatedly argued that because this is what the Constitution and the law says, the gay marriage ban is both deliberate and constitutional.

He suggested that while the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights sought to reflect the European Convention on Human Rights, it had diverged from it as a result of long talks and compromise, which was “hotly debated”, to arrive at the very deliberate wording in section 14 to meet the desires in 2009 and the majority view now that marriage is for opposite sex couples only.

He said that “as sad as it may be”, Cayman’s Constitution was one which had been written with the intent of excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage and the court should not override the democratically elected legislature to change it.

While he accepted that marriage is evolving, he described the Bill of Rights in Cayman’s Constitution as still relatively young, since it was only implemented at the end of 2012, and said it was not ready for the “radical shift” towards gay marriage.

Asked some pointed questions about his position by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, including about the right to family life that same-sex couples are denied by not being allowed to marry, Jowell, who appeared at times to struggle with his presentation as the octogenarian’s voice gave out, was unable to directly address that issue. He suggested, however, that single parents are also barred from those rights.

Jowell will continue his arguments on behalf of government Monday, when he is expected to address the women’s breach of rights and the government’s position on the lack of any legislation supporting an equivalent institution to marriage, such as civil partnerships.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (189)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    People, people, people. At the end of the day, Cayman is just not ready to accept people who are Gay. All countries need to grow and develop at their own pace. In the 70s it was a criminal offence to be Gay in the UK and you would be sent to prison for it! Luckily, the people of the UK have learnt from their mistakes and now have a deeper understanding of what it means to be Gay and that it is not a choice. But it didn’t happen over night and it took years for them to get that mindset.
    The Caymanian people are not there yet. They need more time and it will come. They are religious and they think they are doing the right the thing. Give them a few more years and hopefully they too will learn that being Gay is not some seedy, dirty lifestlye choice but it is just loving another human being. I think its easy for pro Gays to get all high and mighty about things, but it’s a tiny island with small minded people who basically live in a Carribean bubble.

    4
    15
  2. Anonymous says:

    Men and women live together, not married nor in a Civil Union, and are raising children.
    Neither can put the other on their Insurances, etc.
    Why should these women be granted permission to do so?

    11
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      because heterosexual men and women have the choice to get married – these women don’t, yet, but will soon.

      3
      9
  3. Anonymous says:

    I still don’t understand why all sexual orientations are grouped together. A lot more people would be simpathetic if trans gender were not trying to make themselves seem the same as gay.

    9
    6
    • Unison says:

      I say Civil Partnerships or Civil Unions look like the win/win situation here. Instead of having the Cayman Islands government adopt gay leftist policies to enforce same-sex recognition and same-sex parenting on the whole population! Our Constitution voted by 62% of the population serves as a check from these immoral American and UK socialist ideals.

      With well crafted Civil Union legislation, ensuring Natural Rights are not infringed upon by socalled “gay rights” – domestic partners may enter into non-marital relationship contracts in order to agree, either verbally or in writing, to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, medical, and similar issues common to traditional marriage. With well crafted legislation all Natural Rights will be protected, including our children!

      CASE CLOSED: A win/win, 50/50% reconciliation on all sides.

      XXXXX

      Unison

      CNS: Please note the CNS Comment Policy, point 8.

      17
      8
  4. Anonymous says:

    Sir Jeffrey “Right or Wrong” Jowell, a respected and decorated international human rights lawyer, must eventually head home to peers and family, and in preparation for that, is already re-framing the discussion stating that these women have a valid beef. That sounds a lot like his client is in the “wrong” camp – about as close as you can play it, while still being able to cash the pay cheque.

    13
    7
  5. Anonymous says:

    No question about it, this is not a human rights issue. The constitution is clear and should not be tampered with. Our laws or constitution should not be changed. Why fix something that is not broken.

    50
    35
  6. Anonymous says:

    It’s been scientifically proven that the human mind is preconditioned to conform. In a social experiment a group of people stood gathered staring at a bare tree branch in a city park during late Autum. Inquisitive passers by would stop and ask what they were looking at, ‘a snake, there’s a snake in the tree’ – ‘I don’t see it where?’ – ‘Right there’ another experiment observer pressed. Eventually the passerby had convinced themselves there was a snake in the tree and the group gathered a growing following with more believers and the new believers even convincing other inquisitive newcomers about what they were seeing to about 20-25 people.

    Eventually the people conducting the experiment revealed who they were, what they were doing and there was not a snake in the tree, – people began protesting, ‘Yes there is, I can see it right there’ and others piped up truly convinced with what subconsciously their mind had created and what they were seeing, – this is the power of conformity.

    The reason for that story is this, – who has seen the burning bush, the feeding of the 5000 and the Virgin Mary’s birth of Christ. They may be true, but rational thinking also suggests the power of conformity could well have had an influence. If it did, wouldn’t it be embarrassing to hold these girls and everyone else to the beliefs (without condition for evolution) to a book credited for creating millions of believers and forcing others to be subject to its doctrine when it all could have been an unintended hoax. One of the only real few truths is the law of impermanence, either consciously or subconsciously embrace it.

    12
    35
    • Anonymous says:

      Interestingly, YOUR mind has clearly been conformed to believe everyone who opposes same sex marriage does so from a perspective of Christianity / religion.

      Very predictable.

      22
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Valid point and was geared to the majority of posts here but more directly to reflect that one’s perspective and the impact of it isn’t necessarily the correct one to impose on others. Help me out though, where else might have the preconceived idea of the denunciation of same sex marriage come from ? If a Govt or legislative process for any reason (religion or related aside) those engaged in same sex relationships are being denied the equity of rights given to others.

        2
        4
    • West Bay resident says:

      And who says this is a just gay versus bible issue. Alot of Caymanians don’t want homosexual rights infringing upon other rights. They don’t want it, and its not just because of faith. Your story is immaterial.

      18
      11
      • Anonymous says:

        I haven’t read anywhere this is about establishing ‘homosexual rights’ – this is about ‘equity of rights’ that same sex couples are afforded the same rights as everyone else, correct me if I’m wrong.

        6
        16
        • I love Cayman Culture says:

          What happens if a right infringes on another person’s right, then who is right???

          E.g. I voiced my conscience publicly, and say the gay lifestyle is not in order with nature, and is a bad lifestyle. But you say you are born gay and so you have the right not to be discriminated. So you go to the courts, and get me fined for voicing my conscience. But it is my right to voice my conscience.
          So, here, you have a gay right of self-determination infringing on my right of free speech.

          Now, with this one example, you tell me, smarty, how can this be EQUITY???

          Equity of rights??? You gotta be kidding me!

          When you know full well there is no proof of a gay gene! Gays are gays because of background, certain conditionings, and choices in the mix.

          19
          9
          • Anonymous says:

            Please demonstrate how legally recognizing someone else’s committed loving relationship affects you in any way? Show your work.

            4
            4
          • Anonymous says:

            This is like saying my right to freedom from religion is being infringed on because I can’t go to church yards, scream out that religion is a lie and prevent people from entering.

            And if I do so, “you will go to the courts, and get me fined for voicing my conscience.”

            Your stance is very hypocritical.

            1
            4
          • Anonymous says:

            You’re saying two different things here, freedom of speech is a completely different thing to equity of rights, – of course you’re at liberty to express your conscience but to say and expect ‘I’m entitled to this but you’re not because you’re different’ surely has to be incorrect ?

      • Anonymous says:

        A lot of Caymanians also believe that it is none our business who loves, sleeps with or marries whom, among consenting adults.

        4
        1
  7. Anonymous says:

    I’m reading a post on how this fight is costing the government. FYI, it will cost the government even more if SSM becomes law and we will have to change so much things to suit it.

    32
    14
  8. Anonymous says:

    9 52?
    How dare you excoriate the Bishop for “virgin pregnancies”.
    Your comment tells us that you reject the virgin birth of Jesus that scripture asks us by faith to believe has happened.
    Bishop Sykes did not invent this and God is not mocked and since all scripture is God breathed, this is fact.
    Bishop Sykes has stated that the law is written down and defines the marriages only for a man and a woman.
    He did not give an opinion. He stated what the definition of the specific law meant when it was first written down.

    29
    32
    • Anonymous says:

      You lost me at the bible being written by the sky fairy.

      18
      14
    • Anonymous says:

      But I do dare! And I do mock!! But only because it is utterly farcical…I’m sure your omnipotent deity can come and correct me if I’m wrong.

      3
      7
    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t think anyone should insult Rev Mr Sykes over his views on gays, 3:48. He is entitled to his beliefs and we know he has had a very long held and frequently expressed near obsession with the awfulness of homosexuality. Fair enough. But what bothers those of us in the Anglican Church in Cayman is his adoption of the title Bishop which was conferred on him by a very dubious tiny Canadian clique in Western Canada. Rev Mr Sykes tore apart the Anglican Church here 30 years ago by aligning himself with a small group of English people led by Douglas Calder who wanted to set up a church which did not have any West Indian governance associated with it. The result is St Albans with a tiny congregation. Mr Sykes views are those of a pastor of a tiny breakaway church and we should remember that.

  9. Bertie : B says:

    Shout out to my beautiful Proud Ladies . Having read this article and all the other press on Your Love for each other and your child : one must come to the conclusion that Any gay peoples are definitely Not welcome in Cayman ! This shows the backward thinking and prejudice of Cayman . That in itself is sad for such a beautiful paradise . People all over the world are reading about your case and many will not take kindly to the position of the governments 20th century way of thinking .People can check most countries advice for vacationing in countries where being gay is Dangerous , Jamaica for instance has travel warnings , is Cayman next ? Of course the closet gays that are living in Cayman will say Good we don’t want them here , they might infect us with their gayness. And the Church hypocrites will celebrate , this of course means getting drunk and beat the old lady when they get home and the children . That’s ok though because on Sunday they can repent for an hour and all is good . Hold your heads high , stand your ground and be F#$%&ng Proud of who you are . I am Proud to know both of you . You are family to me forever . If half these people knew how to read then they would be aware that one is Born gay , you cant change that . Many thousands of Gay people around the world Either commit suicide or are Murdered just for being gay . Is that okay with the church ? from what I have read since your case hit the news , Yes they are overjoyed , even as many of them men and women are on the downlow after a couple of cocktails . Pun intended ! God Bless keep the battle going , their are many more people out their than the few that comment on these articles that actually could care less who loves who . Pay no attention to haters Period .

    31
    51
    • Anonymous says:

      Why are people that are in the opposition labeled haters?..They could say the same about you.

      We need to learn to find common ground rather than hating each other…

      14
      3
  10. Anonymous says:

    Not an Onion headline:

    Fox host, Pete Hegseth, says he ‘hasn’t washed hands in 10 years” because “germs are not a real thing”:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47201923

    10
    20
    • Anonymous says:

      CNS, this comment has nothing to do with this topic! A waste of time reading if you ask me.

      7
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        It is a timely example of the irrational extremes of stone-age thinking, common amongst inflexible, and grotesquely narcissistic right-wing conservatives that think everything is about, or must somehow pertain to themselves in order to be relevant. Many of ours chiming in on this topic thread. In response, “no, we were not asking you”!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Wrong side of history, morons. Majority rule doesn’t hold the moral high ground in every case. Sometimes the rule of law has to protect minorities from the hate and/or stupidity of the majority.

    43
    51
  12. Cocoa says:

    Oh dear

    3
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      You quote the ECLJ? The KKK with European Characteristics? Really?

      From their own website: “The ECLJ is a Christian-inspired organisation and bases its action on the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of European peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy”.

      What next? “White Christians unite! We are being oppressed by those who seek to undermine our fundamental rights to discriminate.”

      15
      35
      • Anonymous says:

        Umm…actually, the poster was referencing the decision by the European Court of Human Rights.

        Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.

        Not a good look – and doesn’t help your case, at all.

        32
        5
    • Anonymous says:

      You conveniently ignore the fact that whilst “marriage” was not a right, the court found they did have a right to civil unions or some other form of legally recognized rights, which Cayman also denied.

      7
      15
  13. Lo-Cal says:

    I don’t get it.

    Why is it that the homosexual community are not satisfied with the term Civil Union? You get the same rights it just not called marriage.

    29
    16
    • Anonymous says:

      I think the LGBT are full of leftists. They want government control over the family unit.

      39
      21
      • Anonymous says:

        Says the right wingers who if they had their wish would still have homosexual relations outlawed

        This is the same conversation that was had years ago when the UK forced us to repeal our buggery laws

        The same people are still in charge and the same hate filled bigots still feel entitled to their arbitrary moral policing of independent adults

        4
        14
    • Anonymous says:

      Not exactly “the same rights”. Certainly similar, but we wouldn’t want them feeling exactly the same as the rest of us, would we?

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

      7
      21
    • You Might Be Surprised! says:

      I agree. I think the Cayman Islands Government should get out of the marriage business and only produce Certificates of Civil Union. All of the Marriage Licenses issues by CIG should be revoked and re-issued as CCU’s. That way everyone would be equal.

      22
      10
      • Anonymous says:

        what an uproar that would cause.

        7
        2
        • Anonymous says:

          Why would it cause an uproar
          according to people like Who a civil union is just as good as a marriage right?

          The only way you could be upset at being in a civil union rather than a marriage is by admitting civil unions are inherently inferior
          Which none of those intellectually deficit characters would ever do

    • Anonymous says:

      they would be but the government isn’t giving that to them. And you can’t sue for something that doesn’t exist. You can sue for something that you are denied access to. So the government could get out by offering CU but they clearly seem to prepare to give them marriage instead.

      8
      7
  14. Anonymous says:

    Most Germans endorsed the killing of 6,000,000 people. The majority ruled and were very satisfied with the results.

    21
    35
    • Oh please! says:

      The majority also fought the Germans and won the war!

      24
      8
    • Anonymous says:

      Stop spreading garbage. Most Germans were mislead by a dictator. On another note most drownings occur where ice cream is sold. When you figure out why then you will understand where I am coing from and where you are going.

      28
      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Misled eh?

        Interesting how excuses are made for only certain groups at times like these.

        Let one Afghan commit a murder and we need to shut down the country’s borders to keep out those Muslim animals.

        14
        12
    • Anonymous says:

      actually while most Germans in Nazi Germany were against the Jews, they were unaware as to what the Nazis were really doing. It was when Germany was defeated that the allied powers opened up the concentration camps to the German public that they were horrified and embarrassed and committed themselves to never repeating that mistake. Try saying something even remotely sympathetic about the Nazi party in Germany and see how fast you’re locked up.

      9
      6
      • Anonymous says:

        …meanwhile, USA Governors can sport racist Blackface costumes and rhetoric and still carry on in their position.

        Apparently a 5 year Jewish holocaust trumps a 250 year African / Black holocaust.

        Awesome.

        2
        3
    • Anonymous says:

      11 million, not counting millions more killed in or as a result of combat (24 million Russians alone).

  15. Anonymous says:

    Nice to see so much public money being wasted on perpetuating discrimination.

    35
    47
  16. Anonymous says:

    Some countries democratically endorse discrimination against non-White people (e.g. USA, UK via Trump and Brexit, respectively), and some countries (allegedly) don’t support same-sex marriage, e.g. Cayman.

    Nevertheless, only the latter is being lambasted for their “discrimination” on this forum.

    Awesome.

    19
    31
    • Anonymous says:

      So your response to discrimination here is to point abroad and say “but look at them”…
      Very substantive
      I’m sure that will hold up in court, run along and tell the QC to change his strategy

      25
      16
      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, no.

        I’m just tired of the ridiculous and hypocritical lambasting of Caymanians on this forum by people who fraudulently purport to judge from a higher moral ground.

        Anyway, Civil Partnerships is the EASY, QUICK and CHEAP solution to this entire debacle.

        And yes, I will HAPPILY get one as well and replace my marriage certificate therewith.

        By the way, do you know why the British government initially restricted Civil Partnership unions to gay people?
        It is very telling and exposes it as the despicable entity it truly is.

        6
        5
    • Dealing with small minded peps says:

      FYI

      In all cases, discrimination is not wrong. If I am an employer and I need someone to work at my warehouse to left 50 to 100 lb packages, do you think I will hire a slim 18 year girl to do the job?

      This is an example of how these gay supporters expect equality in all cases, and say people are wrongfully discriminating against them!

      Again, are you telling me a traditional family is on EQUAL footing with same-sex parenting on all counts. Rediculous!

      45
      21
      • Anonymous says:

        Many traditional families end in divorces. My parents ended up taking one child each. It was extremely depressing and hard for both of us, and my sibling is a huge problem child.. was a sweetheart before the split up.

        Btw, lifting boxes is a shitty analogy for this

        11
        29
        • Anonymous says:

          Maybe you just had shitty parents?

          The single of example of your failed family experience does not a good reason for an amendment to Cayman’s definition of marriage make.

          22
          3
    • Anonymous says:

      How did you possibly come up with the notion that Brexit is “discrimination against non-white people”.?

      22
      6
      • Anonymous says:

        The left can invent anything they like.

        12
        6
      • Anonymous says:

        Oh, a thousand pardons!! Lol!

        Don’t allow me to mis-categorise your English xenophobia – heaven forbid.

        Do tell, against which group of fellow human beings did the English opt to (primarily) discriminate against by way of national referendum?

        😉

        6
        3
    • Anonymous says:

      Brexit is discrimination against non-whites? Well, no, actually it’s about sovereignty. Even the nationalistic idiots don’t care whether the immigrants are white or coloured – they just don’t want them. (FYI Polish and Bulgarian people – massive immigrants into the UK – are very much white.)

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, as any true Englishman will tell you – especially right before closing time down the pub on a Friday night – there’s white, and then there’s white.

        😉

  17. Anonymous says:

    Wow! If we justified that a law or constitution can’t be changed or updated because a majority agreed with it AT THE TIME it was created, just how would you change anything when time marches on?

    25
    33
    • Anonymous says:

      That is the way it works..the majority rule..What if decide every time a politician got elected that we would throw him out after 3 months..it would be chaos..

      18
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        You do realize minority protections are meant to be irrespective of the tyranny of the majority
        That is the entire point of recognizing and protecting minorities

        The majority acts in the interest of the majority, the government is meant to protect all citizens not just an arbitrary 51-99%

        21
        16
        • Nice try says:

          In Cayman, minorities are protected and live in peace. Do you see gays whipped and dragged on our streets with chains? Please don’t try comparing us to an oppressive muslim country!

          29
          15
          • Anonymous says:

            I didn’t see the parent comment refer to Muslim or attempt to compare Cayman to any other country in fact. They were just stating how minority protections work.

            9
            7
          • Anonymous says:

            Chantelle is a real person. She literally has to live in self-imposed exile, away from her family, friends, and her Cayman Islands home, because we won’t recognize her relationship or advance any civil rights in that regard. The reality is absolutely oppressive – and for no good reason!

            23
            18
          • Diogenes says:

            Yep I said it and here it is:
            “The only time it would be wrong is if we started killing them, until then they should shut up and be second class citizens just how we like them”

            Diogenes

            8
            7
      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, no, that’s precisely NOT the way it works. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy respects the rights of the minority even if the majority do not.

        16
        11
    • Anonymous says:

      Ask America that question – with their whole 2nd Amendment Rights vs School Shootings situation.

      Time marches on, more and more innocent children are blown to smithereens – but, eff’ it.
      The Right believes that’s a fair trade-off for the off-chance of Tyrone or Hector coming thru lil’ Susie’s bedroom window in the middle of the night.

      “Oh the land of the freee…!!”

      7
      3
  18. Anonymous says:

    For years there have been a variety of cautionary LGBT travel warnings issued for the Cayman Islands that nobody important seemed to care that much about:

    https://www.frommers.com/destinations/cayman-islands/planning-a-trip/tips-for-gay-and-lesbian-travelers

    However, this week is the first in what may become a series of legal test cases. We need to recognize that we are now looking down the barrel of much more serious travel advisories from a variety of international HR groups and federal agencies.

    Will it just be more advisory noise, or will it also become sanctions? This regime seems eager to spin the wheel of fortune, with our money, and find out the hard way!

    12
    34
    • Anonymous says:

      That would be great. Its too crowded here now.

      9
      11
      • Anonymous says:

        Exactly! It’s similar to natural population control of disease, war, natural disasters. Cayman needs to control the population not increase it. Unless we want the place to have another economic pillar of gay tourism/gay marriages. Otherwise who cares if large groups of people don’t want to visit the island. The island can only sustain its beauty if there is controlled tourism and immigration. Loads of dive sites already look barren from over tourism. The local culture is now a blend of UK/mostly Americanized culture and the small town friendliness is becoming hostile.

        7
        3
  19. The Constitutional Critic says:

    Sheer lunacy that somehow conservatives have spun this issue onto its head
    We are actually ignoring the clear and unequivocal evidence that the state at the behest of certain religious groups is treating this minority as a second class without valid justification or reasoning.
    Meanwhile according to those same religious groups and arbitrary detractors it is actually THEIR rights that are being infringed by the courts even hearing this case, which is entirely absurd.
    I guess I missed the part in the constitution that says ” and the minority shall be bound to the religious beliefs of the majority under any and all circumstances, even when the majority are proven and unashamedly hypocritical in their religious and cultural objections”

    This case is open and shut,
    Most of the government’s case relies on hoping the CJ will agree with their interpretation of the vague wording and separate unforeseen contradictions in our constitution. ( Ironically the vague and contradictory constitution introduced by the PPM will now be a source of a legal dispute by the same party)
    and they (“they” being those opposed) have been putting out all the stops for the inevitable conclusion for months now

    I’m sure Anthony Eden and Co. in the LA already have a private member’s motion waiting to be submitted to the speaker in opposition to the forthcoming ruling and I am sure that the CIG will try to do something like the government in Bermuda did as well after the court found their discrimination unconstitutional. ( see how well that worked out for the Bermudan government)
    I am sure the single issue Cayman Ministers Association already has a statement prepared and propaganda videos ready to go to attack the judiciary and the CJ when the ruling comes down
    This wont be over any time soon, but this stage of the fight won’t be won by the CIG which is almost a certainty at this point

    17
    38
    • LOL says:

      Lol what a straw man! Making this a sole church versus gay issue.

      Get this straight, religious or no religious, christian or no christian, gay rights are not real rights! They are not real. Not one gay scientist can convince the scientific community that they are born this way. So to impose your wishes on the population is just wrong and socialist at its best.

      Common sense – and not your religion or church versus gay arguments will prevail. And enough people here follow their common sense! I am proud to be one of them.

      54
      27
      • Anonymous says:

        So let me get this straight ( puns are fun)
        When did you decide you weren’t going to be gay?

        20
        24
      • Love is love is love says:

        You might want to try reading a book or two, as all research points to it being a genetic disposition, rather than anything else….. or do you get your information from the same source as Cheeto-man up north?

        16
        25
        • Anonymous says:

          Nonsense!

          Your love is not our love!
          Our love produces life and it blossoms in having children. If you can’t have children, then love blossoms in solid contributions to the community – not tearing it down, forcing by law everyone including children to accept your lifestyle!

          19
          13
          • Anonymous says:

            So by your own admission its perfectly fine for infertile and elderly couples to marry even though there is little chance for childbirth
            – ” If you can’t have children, then love blossoms in solid contributions to the community”

            But gay people aren’t allowed the same status, because in your mind it is entirely impossible for gay couples to provide “solid contributions to the community”

            Got it

            Thanks for proving the point
            It isn’t about children its about keeping the people who you deem not acceptable in a second class status

            9
            6
      • Anonymous says:

        The subject at question isn’t gay rights vs straight rights. It is a question of do human rights apply to gay people.

        16
        28
        • Simple Logic says:

          Answer: Yes!

          Do gay rights apply to ALL people?

          Answer: No!

          Why?

          Nobody is born gay! So such “rights” shouldn’t be enforced by law for everyone to recognize.

          34
          13
          • Thank you! says:

            ??? sound logically to me

            15
            4
          • Anonymous says:

            So you have come to the conclusion that all persons are born straight and choose to put themselves through a life where they receive hate, inequality and in some places are even threatened with imprisonment, torture or death

            Yeah imma have to call bullshit on that one buddy
            Nice try though

            I guess the hundreds of observed homosexual interactions in the animal kingdom are also part of the evil LBGTQ plot to overthrow the natural order of things

            15
            24
            • Anonymous says:

              You may “appear” feminine and be teased about it by your peers. But that doesn’t mean you are BORN GAY! You are still either a male or female.

              18
              7
              • Anonymous says:

                What does femininity have to do with being gay, you actually believe the cliche that gay men are just feminine and gay women are just manly?

                The blind leading the blind
                Have you ever met a real gay person?
                The vast majority are indistinguishable from their hetero-normative counterparts

                6
                7
          • Anonymous says:

            You might try reading some actual science.

            10
            16
          • Anonymous says:

            You say “yes”, but then again you immediately talk about “gay rights”. There should be no such thing. There should just be human rights and then assure all people equally profit from those protections.

            4
            16
            • Funny says:

              I need a third bathroom for my trans person – not male or female! What do you call that buddy ??!

              Its a “gay right!” What you are fighting for and saying it is a human right ?

              More like a privelege!

              14
              4
              • Anonymous says:

                Apples to oranges. Transsexuals are usually gay, but majority of gays are not transexual.

                I’m a homosexual woman also. Never have I expected a right to use the men’s room simply because we both are attracted to women.

                7
                8
              • Anonymous says:

                Or you can just let them use the bathroom they feel comfortable in and stay out of their business

                5
                7
          • Anonymous says:

            If they are born gay or not is irrelevant to a question of rights. Nobody is born Christian, Muslim, or Jew (at least in a practical practicing sense). However, it is still important to have religious rights.

            7
            15
            • Wake up! says:

              So LGBT should fall under a religious group or entity? That way, one religion can never use the government to impose their ideals or beliefs. And everyone will be happy ? …

              Unfortunately, the LGBT want a government controlled system to prosecute people for what they term “wrongful discrimination”

              17
              3
              • Anonymous says:

                “Unfortunately, the LGBT want a government controlled system to prosecute people for what they term “wrongful discrimination”

                So now the heterosexuals are the ones who are being oppressed
                When does the lunacy stop

                How dumb do you have to be to believe this shit

                Show us one example of a country where the gay minority has risen up to persecute the straight super-majority
                XXXXX madness

                One example

                3
                5
      • Anonymous says:

        HUH? The comment by 11:16 is nothing but lies. There are many, many scientific studies indicating gays are born that way. There are also many that inist there is no “gay gene”. However one must look at the latest studies, not ones from 20-30 years ago.

        https://www.ibtimes.com/does-gay-gene-exist-new-study-says-xq28-may-influence-male-sexual-orientation-1555564

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11922975/The-latest-gay-gene-study-gives-no-comfort-to-homophobes.html

        6
        14
  20. Anonymous says:

    Godbots working overtime today.

    30
    52
    • Observer says:

      We have always had homosexuals living peacefully amongst us and always will.

      Personally, while I don’t subscribe to or understand fully this lifestyle, but I believe that we should live and let live, and I would not have a problem with the introduction of civil unions.

      However, I would feel uncomfortable with enshrining homosexual marriages within our laws and constitution.

      For the information of the public, quoting from an online article, the European Court of Human Rights in a ruling on June 17, 2016, referenced the European Convention on Human Rights “as not including the right to marriage for homosexual couples, neither under the right to respect for private and family life (art. 8) nor the right to marry and found a family (art. 12).”

      You can read the full article here:

      https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-non-existence-of-a-right-to-gay-marriage

      48
      7
      • Anonymous says:

        Well, that is not equality is it? It’s like saying, negroes are free to ride the bus or go to the movies in peace, so long as they sit in their assigned section, and are somehow prevented from touching you!

        21
        39
        • Helloooo says:

          Negroes? Black people “born” with a skin color are not gay folk! Stop comparing gay rights to the civil rights black people had to fight and die for! They are not the same.

          44
          21
          • Anonymous says:

            You do understand you can compare the similarities in a situation without equating them right

            Like that
            How dumb do you have to be to not understand you can draw parallels from two separate but comparable areas of history without saying these are exactly the same thing

            Plenty of gay people get killed for being gay around the world too, or are you going to pretend like that doesn’t happen either?

            23
            36
            • Anonymous says:

              Still wrong. Apples and oranges. Please stop it.

              13
              6
              • Anonymous says:

                I do not believe black people had a choice to be born with black skin. I do not believe white people had a choice to be born with white skin. I do not believe either one to inherently have more value over another.

                Do gay people have any choice over whether or not they are gay? Does their homosexuality ( or absence of it) make them any more or less human?

                3
                7
                • Just sayin says:

                  Then human rights apply to them just like whites and blacks.

                  But gay rights and same-sex marriage, should not be considered real rights! A right is something that must apply universally to all – like right to life, property, et cetera ?

                  4
                  3
        • Diogenes says:

          How dare you draw parallels to these notably different but eerily familiar situations…

          Watch out
          They’ll maul you for this one ( I would know)

          They don’t like it when you mention things that completely blow their arguments out of the water

          Somehow in a country filled to the brim with black people we have swallowed the notion that “separate but equal” is fine in the modern day
          (as long as it’s not black people being held to that standard that is)

          Revisionist history, anti intellectualism and an suspension of logic and rationale are a dangerous cocktail it would appear
          Mixed in with a sub-standard education system, and the sheeple will swallow it down in one gulp

          14
          26
          • Anonymous says:

            didn’t you know discrimination is fine as long you are the one not being discrimanted

            18
            16
            • Diogenes says:

              Don’t say things like that, we aren’t supposed to use logic anymore remember

              I mean who even needs silly things historical context right?

              And I think you meant to say, “what discrimination, I don’t see it”?
              Cause apparently if we don’t acknowledge it, its fine.
              The gays are just lucky we aren’t stoning them in the streets or something like that
              The only time it would be wrong is if we started killing them, until then they should shut up and be second class citizens just how we like them

              zzzzzzzzzz

              Dio

              13
              25
  21. Anonymous says:

    How can i blame Dart for this one? The roundabouts dizzyingly confusing us into making the man love man thing? Has to be a way…

    24
    19
    • Diogenes says:

      Alex Jones figured this one out for you
      So you even have some scholarly sources to cite
      Forget Dart it’s clearly the liberal media/Cayman Islands Deep-state/ Lodge

      I think it goes “Chemicals in the water that turn the frogs (and the people?) gay!”
      https://youtu.be/_ePLkAm8i2s
      The liberal scientists have engineered gay bombs to destroy society duhhhhh

      Diogenes of Cayman

      6
      18
  22. CaymanX says:

    Great news. Now, we can get on with our lives. And our gay crowd can live peaceably on this island like they always did! And marry OFF the island like they always did! This is respecting our values and culture ???????

    66
    27
  23. Anonymous says:

    There is only one way this can go without an international incident. If Smellie deems an exclusionary clause penciled-in by right-wing theocrats as any basis to trump all other over-riding human rights to equality, then this will bring our entire justice system into question.

    11
    39
  24. Anonymous says:

    So, in a nutshell, the best the govt. can come up with is basically: Rightly or wrongly, it’s our right to discriminate against same-sex couples because that’s the way it’s always been and therefore must always be. “Rightly or wrongly”??? Obviously, the govt. has no case! This is what pure discrimination looks like. Shame on them. Most of those supporting the govt.’s position are probably in church every Sunday, thinking they’re such good Christians. They’re not. They’re bigots. And think about this: If two same-sex people desire to have their relationship recognized by marriage, how on earth does that take anything away from heterosexuals? It doesn’t. Cayman govt., for heaven’s sake, join the modern world! Do you have no idea who the people from Europe and North America are that you’re trying to attract to these islands? They’re people who’ve already experienced the consciousness-raising that you refuse. Face it: The world is changing and always be with it. Change with it — or be left behind!

    33
    49
    • Anonymous says:

      The best part about this whole situation is the people who are doing/supporting the discrimination are the ones who are apparently the victims in this scenario ( I still haven’t figure that one out, but if you do let me know how that works)

      Malcom X put it best:

      “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

      *just replace “newspapers” with the applicable group*

      11
      11
  25. Anonymous says:

    Hotly debated where?!? The Cayman people have never been polled on this subject!

    10
    30
    • Smh says:

      I think a Referendum will silence you. Alot of Caymanians don’t want this. I am certain about it.

      34
      6
    • Anonymous says:

      Where were you when it and the rest of the constitution was hotly debated? but in an orderly manner resulting in a decision by referendum.

      11
  26. Anonymous says:

    Grab the popcorn and let’s address multiple dumb arguments in one shot:

    “they’re changing our culture” – homosexuality is legalized in Cayman already!

    “they’re influencing our children” – 99% of caymanians under the age of 16 have access to the internet, need I say more?

    “we’re a Christian country” – our constitution allows freedom from religion, a human right

    “marriage is for making kids, not gays” – my wife is black, I’m white and we don’t want kids. I guess we don’t deserve it and I should follow my ancestors and hate blacks because they aren’t like me.

    “they’re removing our rights” – no one is removing rights from you. This isn’t about allowing them to be gay, they already live here with their daughter. They want health insurance, beneficiary rights, etc. None of which removes your right to these things.

    “yes but I don’t want to see public affection from them” – neither do I like to see straight people sucking tongue in foster’s.. most adults have common sense not to do that

    “this opens us up to multiple people marriages and pedophilia” – ban meat eating too because we’re all slowly going to want to legalize cannibalism then.

    “god will smite our country if we give them equal rights” – again, this isn’t about allowing Caymanians to be gay, they already are. Further, the amount of gay people on Earth outnumbers our population 100 to 1..

    “they’re removing my right to be in a country where only straight people can marry” – “they’re removing my right to be in a country where only white people can sit on the bus; I don’t like blacks sitting next to me.”

    163
    180
  27. What gives you the right to have rights over others? says:

    Marriage is evolving? No this about control and people who lose their hopes and dreams are easy to control. All forms of government know this an exploit this. This old guy doesn’t represent the “people” so I have no clue how he’s claiming to talk on their behalf, speak for yourself! I’m a straight Caymanian who recognises the minority being discriminated against because of their sexual preference.

    This is aged old fire and brimstone dinosaur logic that has trickled down generations because of organised religion. Keep religion out of politics, politics is cancer without it.

    33
    117
    • Anonymous says:

      6:11 am—Sir Jeffrey is presenting a legal argument, based on the fact that the Constitution had been agreed by 62% of the population. On that basis he has deduced that the majority of Caymanians support what the Constitution stands for.

      By th way. It is unseemly and distasteful to refer to Sir Jeffrey as “This old guy “.

      Besmirching your opponent is a logical fallacy and is usually resorted to when arguments are weak.

      69
      7
      • Anonymous says:

        It was not “agreed” or voted on by the population, nor was the port, nor the decision to fully-finance a cathedral for Church of God in Bodden Town without a loan or long-term tenancy agreement!!!

        15
        44
        • George Towner says:

          What are you talking about?! When talks were being made and papers drafted, where were you? Their was much talks about traditional marriage, and the people in 2009 voted for the Constitution!

          40
          1
          • Anonymous says:

            Answer:

            He was back in wherever he is from, drooling over a Cayman Islands brochure – salivating for the day he would be privileged to move there…and of course, ultimately disparage the values of the local people and hopefully impose his own myopic perspective thereon.

            We got them here by the thousands now.

            1
            4
  28. Anonymous says:

    ‘Right or wrong’, belies the fact that a generation ago, those Caymanians who were meant to lead and guide sold the Caymanians soul to the highest bidder. Now they hypocritically complain when the highest bidder does what it wants with its purchase.

    40
    27
    • Anonymous says:

      More provincially-minded delusional rubbish – civil and human rights were never CIs to sell or restrict. If the CI judiciary can’t figure out right or wrong quickly and take steps to correct errant positions, Mother will put you over her knee and demonstrate who is ultimately in charge.

      15
      29
  29. Bishop Nicholas Sykes says:

    An important aspect of the constitution is that the Nondiscrimination provision is not freestanding; or in orther words it mirrors the European Convention but without including a protocol that was added later for voluntary signing. Many states including UK did not sign up. This means that our nondiscrimination does not and cannot be used to add rights that are not already in the Constitution. This is explained in the 2009 Government guide to the then proposed Constitution.

    144
    20
    • Anonymous says:

      I got married at the Church of Satan and you have no choice but to recognize it.

      http://www.churchofsatan.com/hells-bells-satanic-weddings/

      3
      48
      • Anonymous says:

        No problem. You can do this under freedom of religion … BUT TO ENFORCE gay recognition on everyone, I’m sorry!

        Thats like communist

        50
        7
        • Anonymous says:

          You mean communism so seems you’re wrong on both accounts. Fool.

          3
          32
          • Shame on you! says:

            I notice you guys resort to name calling and cursing when you can’t rationally win a debate.
            This is more reason why Caymanians should be wary of you trying to change their culture and our educational systems.

            26
            3
    • Anonymous says:

      I wouldn’t be openly celebrating victory just yet. The prejudicial and deliberately exclusionary clause cannot be allowed to walk-back other rights, and will be removed or modified by this or higher court, on appeal if necessary. The Cayman Islands judiciary has an opportunity to be on the correct side of history at this moment, or face orders in council. I have to imagine you are a big part of the evil collective that made this exercise necessary in the first place. Shame on you, and every other colluding actor that played a role in this.

      10
      38
      • Anonymous says:

        The Cayman Islands judiciary will be on the right side of history if it denies the marriage. Period. This is the will of the Caymanian constitution and its people.

        37
        9
    • Anonymous says:

      ‘Bishop’ perhaps you should stick to your belief in talking snakes and virgin pregnancies and leave the courts to deal with the law in the real world?

      13
      42
  30. Anonymous says:

    Hilarious that the CIG had to hire a Brit to come down here to tell us about “Caymanian values, culture and traditions”
    Maybe he could address the rampant adultery, incest, and spousal abuse that has been ingrained in our society as well
    Last time I checked our country wasn’t a theocracy, the Bible is not the supreme and ultimate law of the land and anyone who argues otherwise has no idea what they are talking about

    The far right religious groups behind this have been obsessed with gay people for years, they will stop at nothing in their quest for societal domination via arbitrary religious beliefs

    46
    94
  31. Unison says:

    And it looks like the wording of our Constitution 2009 made by 62% of the population, will spare these islands from a draconian marriage legislation that will enforced same-sex marriage recognition on everyone ☝??

    With that said, Caymanians should not be relaxed … For the UK Foreign Office or the special interest, may always attempt to dissolved our LA democracy like it did to TCI. And under a Governor Dictatorship, ENFORCE the same-sex marriage recognition – despite the wishes of our people – the majority.

    So it all boils down to whether you believe in our little democracy, or whether you believe in Leftist gay ideals that seek to impose “gay rights,” which most definitely, are rights that will override certain Natural Rights of Caymanians and children. This evidence is clear in the number of cases piling up in U.S. and UK courts.

    Godspeed,
    From Unison ??

    147
    32
  32. Anonymous says:

    Who should and who should not be allowed to get married?

    If we accept and agree that individuals should be able to love freely then we not only have to accept same-sex marriage but also marriages between and number of consenting adults that want to get married.

    Marriage has its modern day roots in religion with the government hijacking marriage for its own purposes and to promote and push a specific agenda. Government has no business getting involved in the love and commitment between individuals and should limit its role to the legal frameworks that are required to to establish various types of partnership agreements between individuals. These partnerships agreements can speak to the benefits and responsibilities that are at the center of why there is this aggressive push to get the government to recognize same-sex marriages.

    64
    20
  33. Anonymous says:

    Thank you

    111
    4
  34. Anonymous says:

    Right or wrong slavery was legal, and when in was abolished in the Cayman Island it was against the wishes of the majority.
    I hope our Chief Justice is brave enough to vote against what is wrong rather than accept what the majority might want.

    41
    97
  35. Anonymous says:

    ‘appeared at time to struggle with his presentation’….says it all about CIG’s position.

    16
    57
  36. Anonymous says:

    Cayman is acting like a 3rd world country as this is a human rights issue. It’s not about the marriage, it’s about the control especially for their own people.

    25
    71
  37. Anonymous says:

    It is “what the people of Cayman want”. Oh please, I know of no one that is against same sex marriage. How in the world are you personally worse off if two people you don’t even know get married?

    You look as foolish as the people from US south now look on black and white film opposing integrated schools.

    28
    106
    • Anonymous says:

      instead of fighting in court and put it to a referendum and let the people decide…I think you will find that the status quo will remain as is…

      This is not about the Bible or God vs Gays. This is about our traditions and cultural norms. If the people of these islands say no, then no other person, court or country should force us into anything..

      60
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        Sadly, Caymanian tradition is absolutely about the Bible, or more accurately, the Hebrew Tenakh that predated the birth of Jesus Christ by a full millennium. There is no “Christian” element to that part of the Book at all. His teachings didn’t exist when those verses were purportedly written. Characterizing any of this vengeful, subjugating, and subverting theological verse as “Christian” is confusing to anyone actually versed in the mainstream tenets of the newer faith. How ancient manuscripts can impact modern political policy in 2019 is also confusing, especially when looking at the ECHR precedents which will ultimately cause changes to our Constitution and bring us into a modern context – and by Orders in Council if necessary.

        5
        14
      • Anonymous says:

        The Cayman Islands is a UK Territory. #geographyclass

        9
        7
        • Anonymous says:

          Yes, we are a British Overseas Territory…We are not the UK. and we have cultural norms and traditions that have been respected by the UK for as long as the islands have been under the UK.

          11
          2

Leave a Reply to Unison Cancel reply

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