Gov’t ordered to legalise gay unions

| 07/11/2019 | 178 Comments
Cayman News Service
Chantelle Day (left) and Vickie Bodden

(CNS): The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has ordered the government to immediately provide the necessary legislation, equal to marriage, for same-sex couples, after allowing its appeal against the chief justice’s legalisation of gay marriage. “Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush are entitled, expeditiously, to legal protection in the Cayman Islands which is functionally equivalent to marriage,” the court said, and if they don’t get it from the local lawmakers, the UK needs to impose the necessary law.

Although the judges said they were “driven to conclude” that government’s appeal should be allowed, as they handed down their 37-page written judgment on Thursday, they said it would be “wholly unacceptable for this declaration to be ignored”, and that there was no justification for further delay or prevarication, even though government has been been well aware for more than four years that it was in breach of its own Bill of Rights as well as the European Convention.

The ruling was in response to an appeal by government in August to the Grand Court judgment by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, who legalised same-sex marriage by amending the law from the bench after hearing the civil and human rights case brought by Day and Bodden. For several years before bring their case the couple had tried to get the Cayman Islands Government to provide equivalent legislation to marriage to enable them to legally settle here with their child.

While the Attorney General’s Chambers had accepted during the course of this appeal that they must accommodate same-sex unions, government has so far refused to provide the legislation. However, since the appeal court did not give the CIG a specific timeline as to when it must act, despite the order, the status quo could remain until the governor intervenes.

Responding to the ruling, Ben Tonner, who represented Day and Bodden throughout, said that they would take time to reflect on the judgment. They noted that the court had acknowledged that government’s “longstanding and continuing failure” to provide protection to couples like Day and Bodden is a violation of their rights, describing the ongoing situation as “woeful”. But they were disappointed with the more conservative approach taken by the appeal court.

“Although the Court of Appeal has stated that an equivalent framework to marriage is required without delay, it has also decided that the government may continue to deny same-sex couples access to marriage itself, ” Tonner stated after the ruling was handed to the parties.

“In doing so, it takes a more conservative view than the chief justice, who earlier this year had ruled that the indignities to which the petitioners and their daughter have been subjected should be put to an immediate end by the court amending the Marriage Law,” he added.

Tonner said his clients are mindful that they could appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and will be considering that option, as he extended their thanks to everyone who has supported them throughout this historic case.

Check back to CNS for more on this later today.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Community, Laws, Local News, Politics

Comments (178)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Before my vote in the next general elections, I want to hear all those seeking a seat in the MLA to concisely, honestly, no ahem on their view on 2 matters which I view to be the most important for our future: 1. Cruise port, and 2. Same sex marriage. No avoiding the subject, no crap about what they think the majority of Caymanians want. Their own take on it. Are you for it or against it. Two words only on each topic. “For it” or “against it” all I need to hear on these two matters. And that is all I need to determine my vote in the next general election

    6
    2
  2. JDIAEB says:

    Looking forward to reading the reaction of Ol’ Dome Head as he chokes on the realisation of having to recognise same-sex unions. This is not some nonsense cock bull story and is going to leave a bad taste in his mouth. Salty much?

    And to the pearl-clutching outraged Christian populace, I ask “what is your imaginary space fairy going to do now to help?”

    Having dealt with this, I hope the cheesemakers are up next.

    13
    6
  3. Anonymous says:

    Any “civil union” legislation MUST be applicable to all persons, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious concept. Thus there will be heterosexual individuals who also do not wish to be “married”.
    But it would be much better to allow everyone to use the same word to describe their union. Maybe we should get rid of the Marriage Law and simply have a Union Law.

    15
    19
    • Captian B says:

      The great value of marriage between a man and a woman, is procreation and the upright raising of children! No same-sex relationship can replace what God has established. Hence, it is in government’s best interest to protect and ensure the primacy of traditional marriage. .. How you think you came here? I wouldn’t be who I am today without my father and my dear mother.

      29
      11
      • Anonymous says:

        The Christian begins with this straight proposition, this definite proposition, this inflexible and uncompromising proposition: God is all-knowing, and all-powerful.

        This being the case, nothing can happen without his knowing beforehand that it is going to happen; nothing happens without his permission; nothing can happen that he chooses to prevent.

        That is definite enough, isn’t it? It makes the Creator distinctly responsible for everything that happens, doesn’t it?

        if NOTHING CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION, nothing can happen that he chooses to prevent , then Gay people are his creation, Gay unions are his creation, Isn’t it??

        10
        16
        • Anonymous says:

          8:00 remember Sodom and Gomorrah!

          3
          3
        • Anonymous says:

          Not so, many things happen without God’s permission. God gave us a conscience and free will, either we accept him and follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible or we go on and do whatever we feel like doing. However we have to face the consequences. God is not a policeman !!

          1
          2
      • Anonymous says:

        So. A hetrosexual union also allows procreation!! It is not “marriage” that allows this. Otherwise we would not have so many unwed mothers/fathers, now would we?

        11
        8
    • Al Catraz says:

      “Marriage is a religious concept”

      What rubbish. As if atheists don’t marry all of the time. How can people believe such nonsense?

      17
      12
  4. JJ says:

    🤣 Stilling waiting for pro-gay CNS to provide us a link to the Judgment of government’s victory …

    ⏳ [jeopardy music]

    CNS: As a regular reader of CNS you must know that as soon as we got hold of it (which was yesterday shortly after it was released) we posted it in the CNS Library here. We did not have it when we posted this story but the link was present on the next story that we published about the judgment a few hours later and it is also linked on other comment somewhere. I really don’t understand why you felt the need for snarkiness, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

    The government’s “victory” was to be forced into doing something they should have done years ago, knowing full well how this would end, without putting Chantelle and Vickie through all this and wasting the public’s money on utterly needless legal battles. 

    13
    11
  5. Unreasoning animal says:

    ”Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal… In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

    Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away for two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.“
    Mark Twain

    19
    3
  6. Anonymous says:

    This is a clearly political issue. Must 6,000 civil servants remain “politically neutral”?

    21
    1
  7. Joe B says:

    Those who live in the past can not be forced to like living in the present. They are living in fear of the future. Let them go. Look for new leadership that is looking forward to the future or be left behind from the rest of the world.

    21
    17
  8. Anonymous says:

    Not good enough. This is a modern Plessy vs Ferguson. Separate but equal is not equal.
    Send it to up to the privy council!

    28
    19
  9. Kurt Christian says:

    vote No

    22
    3
  10. Anonymous says:

    Can you provide a link to the Judgment please.

    CNS: We didn’t have it when we posted this story but it’s in the CNS Library now here.

  11. Anonymous says:

    If the Chief Justice had done the right thing we would not have to go through the appeal.
    Shame on him.

    20
    20
    • Anonymous says:

      Shame on you for being so ignorant and bigoted. Despite the Court of Appeal’s order compelling action – the Government will still not do what is right to protect the rights of the minority!

      10
      5
    • Anonymous says:

      7/11, 10:19 pm: Who knows? If you mean that had he ruled in favour of ordering that legislation be initiated for civil unions, you should note:

      1. People would still claim that he is legislating from the bench. Further, we still don’t know what the legislators will do. Only one has so far come out in favour of civil unions.

      2. The lawyer for the plaintiffs has also not ruled out an appeal to the Privy Council, pressing for gay marriage as opposed to civil unions. I doubt they will, but their lawyer did not rule out an appeal.

      And try not to overstate your opinions. There was no “shame” on the Chief Justice.

      You might well consider: If there is any shame, as you put it, it rests on the shoulders of the legislators—if they had done the “right thing”, as you also put it, the plaintiffs would not have had to go to the courts.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Money well spent on the appeal as we got the right results.

    23
    33
  13. Anonymous says:

    This is a major constitutional crisis. The authority of a state and its government and courts are created and sustained by the consent of its people. The courts should not be forcing the establishment of new legislation that is in direct conflict with the expressed will of the people.

    The people have very few options by which to take back control when unelected nonentities decide that they know better than and are superior to the people that they serve.

    15
    11
    • Anonymous says:

      The courts purpose is not to serve the majority (Its embarrassing that it needs to be explained to people here)
      They exist to interpret law and resolve disputes

      This entire comment is a load of hot air coming from someone who clearly has not even a basic understanding of our system of governance
      The people have very simple remedy available to them, their representatives have the power to change the laws that the courts interpret and utilize

      The entire basis of our system is that the courts are not meant to bend to mob rule and temporary pressures from society
      They are unelected not by coincidence but on purpose
      The elected government has no say in their decisions not by coincidence but on purpose

      Seriously understand the ramifications of what you are advocating for
      A system where the courts side with any majority where it exists would be a nightmare for half of the country and surely lead to the split of any nation

      9
      1
  14. Anonymous says:

    The good thing is that God is the judge of ALL human beings. Not man. And God will rule.

    23
    17
    • Anonymous says:

      Truest comment today and many of us are preparing for that day. Just because you don’t acknowledge it, doesn’t negate the fact.
      This is a gamble that I would not be willing to call the Almighty’s bluff on. No human needs to subject themselves to eternal consequences for temporal insanity.

      7
      10
      • Anonymous says:

        Neither of you have contributed anything of value to this conversation. You constant god references show your true intellectual standing. Today’s religion, tomorrow’s myth.

        Have blessed day 🙂

        9
        7
  15. Anonymous says:

    You know if the Conservatives win on 12 December don’t expect any orders in council on this issue to be rushed through. The DUP who are firmly against same sex marriage form part of that lovely Conservative government Alden feigns over.

    9
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      You may never have gay marriage in Cayman. You will have a civil union. Same thing and no prob for them to rush that through.

      4
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Not sure how much attention you have been paying to the UK

      But Boris and the DUP aren’t exactly the best of friends at the moment

  16. Anonymous says:

    However unpalatable it may be, and regardless of one’s personal views:

    1. The Chief Justice was wrong and the Court of Appeal is right, because the Constitution, which remember was approved by referendum, requires government to recognise only marriage between a man and a woman.

    So that’s the law, unless or until it’s changed. And that would be by a change of the Constitution, a very specific process.

    2. No court, including the Court if Appeal, can ORDER the legislature to pass legislation, and I’m not sure that was the case here. At best, it can suggest a change. But as I said, that means a change of the Constitution.

    The law and the outcome were plain from day 1. Why this couple felt they could succeed under the law as it stands, heaven knows: self-righteousness, wild optimism or bad advice, or a mix of one or more of them. Admittedly they did better than expected, but that was only thanks to another questionable judgement of the Chief Justice (see the Tara Rivers case, which significantly was not susceptible to appeal). They were bound to fail on appeal.

    That’s the law. I like it as little as you do, so thumbs down all you like.

    14
    11
    • Anonymous says:

      If this is what you think the final outcome of this case will be you better hope it isn’t appealed any higher

      You will be in for a rude awakening

      4
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        The Privy Council would have to declare the marriage act unconstitutional for the plaintiffs to succeed. I doubt that they will do that. Additionally, not even the Privy Council can force the legislature to pass a law. No court has the power. Seems like your legislature will probably not pass a law either. Marriage equality is an unrealistic goal. Civil Unions is what to aim for.

        So Cayman may either have a referendum to change the Constitution or personally lobby the UK Parliament to pass an OIC making civil unions legal.

        These ladies were shafted by the Court of Appeal. I am not sure why this case is being sold as a victory for them. It is not. If anything, they are worse off than before.

    • Anonymous says:

      7/11 8:06 pm: according to this report the Court of Appeal DID order the govt. to provide legislation to enable civil unions. There is no other way to go that but through legislation.

      I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that that should not require a change to the Constitution, as civil unions are an entirely different legal proposition to marriage.

      If the govt. does not comply they will be held in contempt of court, unless the govt. appeals the ruling to the Privy Council, in which case that court will beyond a shadow of a doubt rule in favour of the plaintiffs.

      The govt. knows that so they will NOT appeal this ruling to the Privy Council.

      So the plaintiffs have succeeded. You may have your strong views and I may have my reservations, but that they have met with more than a measure of success cannot be denied.

  17. Cayman Mon says:

    This is a travesty! How can the Court legislate from the bench; against the laws of the land and the wish of the majority of the Caymanian people?

    43
    56
  18. Johann Moxam says:

    A strange ruling considering the clear orders to the Cayman Islands Government to immediately address the need for appropriate legislation that will recognize the status of these two brave women.

    The Premier and his Cabinet cannot drag their feet anymore after the clear instructions from the Court of Appeals so please no more excuses.

    Ironically, all of this could have been avoided if Premier and the government had demonstrated the requisite levels of professionalism and respect associated with the highest elected offices to acknowledge and engage in sensible discussions years ago with these two ladies to avoid the courts. The arrogance, narcissism, a fundamental lack of respect for people displayed by failing to respond in writing to multiple letters from Ms. Day, Ms. Bodden and their lawyers are horrible traits for anyone in a position of power to consistently demonstrate.

    All forms of bigotry and discrimination against any Caymanian is unacceptable and must not be tolerated by those that know better. These brave ladies deserve our respect for refusing to accept a second class status as a Caymanian and person of Caymanian roots in OUR country.

    You have my respect and support.

    #SAMELOVE🇰🇾

    Best regards

    Johann Moxam

    137
    49
    • Anonymous says:

      Johann, I see you working hard man.

      What’s next? 😉

      18
      25
      • Anonymous says:

        Haha, you got the memo as well @ 6:40

        6
        16
      • Jeremy A. Ebanks says:

        Anonymity and ignorance are gifts for many sheep that are afraid to take a stand or speak their truths against the BS and hypocrisy in Cayman.

        Mr. Moxam didn’t hide so why are you?

        30
        5
      • Anon345 says:

        He might have had my vote with the dock, but he just lost it with this one.

        15
        25
        • Johann Moxam says:

          @ Anon345 12.05am

          Two separate issues that are not related.

          However, you have the right to your opinions and views. That is how democracy is supposed to work. Whatever your position I encourage you and all registered voters to exercise your democratic right to vote on Referendum Day 19 Dec 2019.

          This is not a popularity contest or election campaign nor will I allow misrepresentations or malicious innuendo distract from the main issue. I publicly stated my opinion and offered my support to two strong people that I greatly respect. Their courage should inspire other Caymanians.

          If you strip away all of the emotive issues and look at the matter objectively including religious beliefs, Cayman’s Christian heritage to name just a few. This legal matter at its core is about discrimination and a legal double standard that is allowed to remain which should concern us all.

          The double standard that is actively being applied allows a Work Permit holder to have rights & privileges afforded to them which recognizes their relationship and family status. However, in this instance a Caymanian seeking to have their own rights recognized with their family is discriminated against by the system and elected officials that fear losing votes or political support.

          There should be one standard applicable to all parties. No Caymanian or their family and interests should be discriminated against or be subject to a different standard in the Cayman Islands.

          Hopefully that clears up the matter.
          If not I’m happy to respectfully agree to disagree with you or anyone else. I have no agenda or anything to hide so if you want to speak to me or grab a cup of coffee and not hide behind your anonymous status on CNS my #9260984.

          Have a good weekend.

          Best regards

          Johann Moxam

          34
          6
    • Anonymous says:

      I would agree with everything you said Johann, but why did you single out Caymanians in saying bigotry or discrimination should not be tolerated? Are you suggesting by omission that would be acceptable behaviour toward non-Caymanians?

      5
      16
      • Anonymous says:

        How can you not understand? i know full well what he means because the case involves 2 Caymanians

        19
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          This statement “All forms of bigotry and discrimination against any Caymanian is unacceptable and must not be tolerated by those that know better.” is no longer just about the two Caymanians – it reaches beyond the case at hand. Can you not understand that? And why are you answering for Johann? Can he not speak for himself?

          13
    • Anonymous says:

      Johann Moxam says:Ignore the wishes of the majority of voters who passed the constitution, but support the majority of voters in my Referendum. Contradiction ? Lot of it.

      3
      13
      • Anonymous says:

        He pointed out the double standard and inequity with the current laws facing Caymanians. You either do not get it or are happy to twist his words to suit your story.

        8
        1
  19. Anonymous says:

    The Court can’t compel the legislature to enact law. Who are they kidding? It literally does not have that power.

    This will have to be done by an Order in Council and I believe the FCO will have to lobby UK parliament for this.

    30
    19
  20. Anonymous says:

    It delights me that this has come to a decent conclusion. It also pains me to see so many people still led by the superstition and brainwashing of so many institutions claiming to be Christian when, in fact, they are so far from Christ that they don’t even understand what they believe.

    49
    20
  21. Anonymous says:

    I’m confused…

    Is same-sex marriage now legal?

    Or are same-sex unions to be recognised legally?

    11
    2
  22. Anonymous says:

    Welcome to the 21st century !

    About time. What two consenting adults do with one another is their business and no one else’s.

    We have far bigger issues and real issues in our society – let’s focus on what matters !

    76
    22
  23. Slacker says:

    Caymanians with any insight will realize that, with an upcoming election, no politician (or wannabe) is going to touch this with a 100 foot pole.

    So Mr. Governor, time to stop jogging and delivering meals on wheels and do some actual governing.

    71
    17
    • Anonymous says:

      Before I voted for ANYONE, I would want to know where they stand on this issue and then vote accordingly. This ruling might be seismic in terms of the old guard being ousted at last. Young, educated, tolerant, forward thinking Caymanians. Please grasp the nettle and use this as a tool to fix your country.

      32
      11
  24. Anonymous says:

    According to English Common Law and further in the USA. The courts had only the power to declare policies or Laws enacted by the legislative body in conformance or not with the Constitution or the CL. Never have the courts or an individual judge or Appeal court had the power to order a legislature to make a law..This decision is clearly OUTSIDE the courts power and constituted authority. I understand the Constitution of Cayman defines Marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Legislature wishes to accommodate a status to Gays persons it may do so.However such assumption of judicial direction is clearly outside its power and further leads to the current breakdown of respect for that separate function of the Government.

    27
    27
    • JTB says:

      The Appeal judges didn’t consider that issue, as they decided the case without reference to it, so the law in Cayman remains as stated by the Chief Justice that the Court can, pursuant to section 5 of the Constitution Order, amend any law passed prior to the introduction of the constitution which it finds to be unconstitutional.

      25
      6
  25. Anonymous says:

    Our country is done now as this will be the end!

    21
    84
    • Yeah, Mon says:

      If we destroy Hog Sty Bay or 7-Mile Beach, that gah be the end!

      55
      7
      • Anon345 says:

        Well might at well finish f**k it all up now and build the dock. Who cares anymore! Nothing is sacred anymore! Not our values! Not our environment! Nothing!!! I’m ashamed to be a Caymanian right now!

        5
        11
    • Anonymous says:

      I think there will be earthquakes. The gayness will bring disasters upon the earth. And there shall be better interior design.

      41
      16
    • Anonymous says:

      uhhhh why? for everyone who isn’t gay nothing has or will change. You had the same rights and privileges you had when you went to sleep last night.

      Are you afraid you will suddenly wake up gay?

      45
      11
    • Anonymous says:

      Oh PLEASE! Don’t be so dramatic!

      4
      1
  26. Anonymous says:

    Doubles my chances of getting married!

    49
    5
  27. Civil Unions are okay says:

    This is a win! The plaintiffs, and by extension all others who wish to enter into a civil union, are “entitled, expeditiously, to legal protection in the Cayman Islands which is functionally equivalent to marriage.” So what else do you want, people?! It is now up to us to be bold and brave—call, text, e-mail our representatives and ask them to respect the Court’s ruling and create the framework legislation for civil unions #EXPEDITIOUSLY#

    44
    17
    • go all the way says:

      It’s obvious that you are trying to be supportive to the LGBTQ community, but as long as there is a two-tiered system — “marriage” for straights but “civil unions” for gays — the implication is crystal clear that one group is “better” than the other. Newsflash: Straights are NOT “better” than gays. No one is “better”. The two-tiered system is the equivalent of telling U.S. blacks during the 1950s that can ride the public bus — but only if they sit in the back. Blacks rightly refused to put up with such discrimination — and the LBGTQ community will do the same. Vickie and Chantelle, please go all the way to the Privy Council in London!

      34
      25
      • 'Nuff respect says:

        I respect your views, certainly; but money doesn’t grow on trees. I do not want government to waste any more of our hard-earned money on this.

        19
        6
        • Anonymous says:

          They should never have wasted it going to court on this in the first place.

          They should have legislated for civil unions or marriage when the Human Rights Commission wrote to the Government informing them they were in breach of their obligations under international law in 2015.

          Or again when Colours Cayman pointed it out.

          Or again when Chantelle and Vickie wrote to them in an answered letter in 2017.

          Or again when Chantelle and Vickie’s legal counsel wrote a legal opinion outlining all the reasons why they were in breach and requesting marriage or at the very least, civil partnerships and by presented it to them in December 2017.

          Or again in the letter before action that also went unanswered before formal legal proceedings commenced.

          How many chances have they had to meet their legal obligations and stop the discrimination against Caymanians?

          They wasted the public purse fighting a losing battle.

          Unfortunately the decision to appeal is one for these ladies to take, not the Government, and I’m betting that if they do, the ladies will win at Privy Council because this court of appeal decision was politically motivated and an utter disgrace.

          20
          4
        • Anonymous says:

          They do it anyway (waste money). How much did they spend on Monaco trip? How about the lost billion?

          9
          1
        • Anonymous says:

          Seems like it does… why else would we pay $200 million more for a dock we don’t need?

          10
          2
    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not a win. The Court can’t compel the legislature.

      5
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Yes it can, thank God! What do you think would happen, for example, if legislators re-introduced slavery?

        • Anonymous says:

          You misunderstand. It cpuld have declared the law unconstitutional. It
          refused to do that. It’s now saying pass a law. It absolutely cannot do that in the Westminster system of government.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Just wait for the Church emails to go out to their constituents to have them target this article. Usually takes them a few hours, but the thumbs down to all of the sensible comments below will soon come.

    28
    18
  29. Anonymous says:

    Does this mean I can dance and watch R rated movies on a Sunday now?

    44
    17
  30. Anonymous says:

    This is how willful ignorance, bigotry, and Christian fascism loses. One step at a time.

    #lame

    57
    20
  31. Anonymous says:

    Another Judicial ruling that further erodes the Christian values of these Islands. We can only hope that God finds mercy on us.

    38
    117
    • Anonymous says:

      Better start preparing for next year hurricane season!

      42
      10
    • Anonymous says:

      Sooo when can I expect his damnation? You lot have been promising fire and brimstone but it never comes.

      Almost like no one is up in the sky listening to you…

      27
      19
      • Anonymous says:

        Lord have mercy on you when you reach deaths door.

        But I understand this, because I would say the same things. I was an atheist, but my life reached a dark place and God had mercy and revealed himself to me. I can never deny God again.
        I will say though that many profess to be children of God but don’t live it in their lifestyle, hence most are indeed hypocrites and making God to be a fool to those who are lost spiritually.

        18
        28
        • Anonymous says:

          soooo what about all the other damnable offences?

          shellfish, woman who wear pants (not joking), wool and linen, cross breeding cattle, growing more than one kind of crop, slaves rebelling against there masters, etc.

          I need a clear answer as to just what gods wrath will be for.

          There are just so many things that people are going to hell for that I don’t see why you all are so hung up on the gay thing.

          something else that bugs me, why pick a country in the middle of a desert to send your son. If you want to effectively get the message out you would think he would pick a place like Rome since it was the most well developed and populace place.

          24
          7
        • Anonymous says:

          Well said friend. I hated God, but now I am amazed at His forgiveness and mercy towards me. I will love Him until the day I die and into eternity.
          People who have never experienced this love are missing so much.
          It is not a pissing match. It is about our eternal destiny. If you make me look stupid in an argument, it means nothing.

          6
          2
    • Anonymous says:

      God will continue to give Caymanian Christians just what they deserve. The Devil preaches to just think of yourselves and not think of others. God teaches ways to live and love each other. Caymanians are becoming redundant to themselves.

      7
      15
    • Anonymous says:

      He will have no mercy on us. Nor should He! Our loving God will send a category 5 hurricane to destroy, injure, and kill random Caymanians. It will be a just punishment from a just and forgiving God. No, it’s not for gay marriage. It’s because we have been shamelessly eating shellfish, mixing two kinds of cloths in our shirts, and getting the sabbath day wrong. (Still can’t figure out if it’s Saturday or Sunday)

      #lame

      26
      19
    • Anonymous says:

      if Christ was alive he would be walking arm in arm with Chantelle and Vicki. You probably would not recognize him.

      40
      18
    • Bertie : B says:

      Mercy on us lmao give me a break / Heartfelt Congratulations my dear friends . Its about time Something happened . Blessings to you guys and your family and friends , Lord knows there have been Many Christians that I have been with over the years . They didn’t want love or family , the want cash Period .

      18
      10
    • Anonymous says:

      But…Pope Francis openly endorses homosexuality – “It doesn’t matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this.” So by not following the Pope and Christian values wouldn’t that technically make you a sinner?

      18
      10
      • Anonymous says:

        hey man, there are just so many things we are going to hell for that its hard to keep track, being gay, cross breeding cattle, growing more than one crop, woman wearing pants.

        15
        4
      • Anonymous says:

        Pope Francis is the False Prophet and Obama the Antichrist. It will all play out in due course.
        Keep laughing.

        3
        4
    • Anonymous says:

      He has already sent a plague of politicians.

      14
      1
  32. Anonymous says:

    another defeat for caymanian ignorance and hypocrisy.
    another story that makes a mockery of the ‘caymankind’ mantra.
    another ‘glorious’ day for cig and the civil service.
    time for a class action to be taken against cig for gross incompetence and discrimination.

    63
    24
  33. Anonymous says:

    Sex toys, pepepr spray and Marijuana still illegal while same gender marriage is becoming legal.

    What happened to the religious country?

    We doing it backwards.
    Facepalm

    20
    44
  34. JTB says:

    I look forward to reading the measured and judicious responses of our honourable legislators to the suggestion that they MUST immediately legalise same sex unions

    64
    8
    • Anonymous says:

      …yeah, and hopefully some reconcilable hate speech sanctions against Cabinet members, Speaker, CIMA reps, radio show hosts, etc. Some apology from our mute Governor and FCO is also warranted.

      28
      9
    • Anonymous says:

      When pigs fly Caymanian royalty will start to act like moral and fair humans. They will continue being and worshipping ignorance. They don’t have a choice. Cayman culture .

      8
      8
  35. Anonymous says:

    Now let’s see all those person who were arguing for civil unions or their garbage “separate but equal” outcome pivot and decide they aren’t happy with that either

    19
    12
  36. Anonymous says:

    This was always the Government’s intended outcome.

    14
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      This is their rights and I am glad the Judge ruled in their favour. Who is the CIG to judge and make those type of decisions? Clean up your own back yard before judging others!

      CONGRATULATIONS Chantalle & Vickie

      46
      27
    • Anonymous says:

      We knew that, but they had to pretend. Well spotted.

  37. JTB says:

    All those commenting “yawn”

    Yeah, cos human rights are so *boring* aren’t they?

    29
    10
    • Anonymous says:

      Human rights is populist millennial crap. What about our biblical rights!?

      23
      66
      • Anonymous says:

        Biblical rights? Which ones, like the right to kill your bride if she’s not a virgin? The endorsement of slavery? Violence against children? Second-class status for women? I could keep going.

        We see that people actually believe the Bible is a source of good moral behavior and then we wonder why so many bigots and idiots are among us. Makes perfect sense.

        #lame

        54
        17
      • JTB says:

        Sending you hopes and prayers, buddy

        10
        5
      • Anonymous says:

        they are not real.

        10
        3
      • StopTheCrime says:

        “biblical rights”?? This is a joke, right?

        11
        6
      • BeaumontZodecloun says:

        Allow me to help ameliorate some of your confusion:

        The “rights” being discussed here are legal, enforceable ones. That is — those ideas ratified into law under our Constitution, and as such are Constitutionally-guaranteed rights under the law.

        Those ideas you refer to as “Biblical rights”, are those teachings consistent with the Holy Bible, and as such constitute guidelines are religious “laws” for which a person can choose to live their life by. If you notice, the Holy Bible doesn’t afford any of its adherents rights that trump those of the law of the land, at least in the New Testament.

        You have the “right” to your own beliefs, and you have the “right” to practice any religion (or not to) that you choose. You have the legal right to human equality under the Cayman Islands Constitution, and this court ruling enforces the Constitution to extend to ALL its people.

        It doesn’t take away any of your legal rights; it makes it the same for everyone. That’s what equality means.

        13
        3
    • Anonymous says:

      More like because they expected no other outcome.

  38. Anonymous says:

    This is the best ruling for all parties considering both sides of the argument fairly. I am pleased with this outcome.

    41
    17
  39. Anonymous says:

    CNS so what happens next ? Will immigration issues for same-sex couples be honored as is of a heterosexual couple for example ?

    22
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      Hopefully!

      19
      11
    • Anonymous says:

      Legally there is already no difference. It is not possible to lawfully recognize a straight marriage from Florida, but ignore a gay marriage from Florida. Either the Cayman Islands recognizes foreign marriages or it does not. We cannot pick and choose.

      17
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        As it is right now a expatriate same-sex couple can be named as a dependent of their spouse work permit but a Caymanian who was legally married outside of country cannot apply for resident an employment rights for their spouse. How is that allowed ?

        22
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          It is allowed because different boards are permitted to exercise wildly differing interpretations on exactly the same question of law. It is the very essence of bad governance. Someone should ask the Governor and Deputy Governor why such blatant disregard for the law and basic rights is being allowed by them. They certainly seem mute on these issues, and we can only hope that some enforcement of core principles will be mandated by them.

          11
          1
          • BeaumontZodecloun says:

            It’s true. In general, our laws are written to be locally self-interpretive. Different people within the same department can interpret them differently, and that rule will stand. Other countries close all the loopholes and end up with massively large legislation.

            These growing pains we will get through will be worth it; we will eventually end up with a homogeneous law which works equally well for everyone.

            And………… it’s about time.

            • Anonymous says:

              The Attorney General should confirm what the law is and make sure that everyone that does not follow it will be on their own!

        • Al Catraz says:

          Because the economic contribution of Caymanian natives to the island is unimportant.

          Those expats that work for the banks, accounting firms and law firms would cause problems with their employers’ ability to be non-discriminatory in their own personnel decisions to post employees here in Cayman. Native Caymanians are not a factor in accommodating the needs of the institutions of real value.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why not? Right now Cayman Islands’ same-sex law is not far off from being aligned with Islamic Sharia and, having living and worked in Muslim countries, that’s not something to be proud of.

      What’s the worst that’s going happen? Are the religious zealots expecting Sodom and Gomorrah if this goes ahead?

      15
      6
    • StopTheCrime says:

      Why wouldn’t it?

  40. Anonymous says:

    The CIG must not just offer those rights, but also is obliged to defend and protect those rights. That means holding almost the entire LA in contempt for the multi-day attacks documented earlier this year.

    41
    9
  41. Anonymous says:

    Winds of change Cayman……..now let’s all Vote No to the Port. Finally the next generation of Caymanian’s ,who have had opportunity to be educated abroad ,are standing up and making a positive change . After all it is their future. #voteno
    .

    70
    18
  42. Anonymous says:

    How much money did government waste on this appeal that was always going to end in their appeal being thrown out. You may recall this from the Compass:

    Bush set his sights on lawyer Austin-Smith as the assumed author of a statement from the Human Rights Commission on Thursday which described the government’s decision to appeal as “ill-considered” and suggested the case against same-sex marriage was “weak to the point of being inarguable”.

    30
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      Government’s appeal was not thrown out; it was successful. Same-sex marriage is not legal in the Cayman Islands anymore. The government is just required to implement legislation for civil unions now.

      16
      3
  43. Anonymous says:

    So why not just call it marriage? There is nothing equal to marriage but marriage itself. If it provides everything marriage does, who cares what they decide to call it, it’s still marriage.

    Are religious people fooled this easily? I would assume so because they been fooled their whole lives…

    40
    24
    • Anonymous says:

      Thinking critically on your own requires courage and a certain amount of confidence. It’s easier for some people to accept a dogma that gives them the answers they need to lead safe lives that lead to a desired destination. It’s their choice and we should respect that, but conversely, they shouldn’t be judgmental toward those who make other choices just because its threatens their own perception of reality.

      16
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      If it doesn’t matter what its called, why do you care?

      I guess there is something in a name after all.

      10
      1
  44. Could not care less says:

    (Shrug). Vote No to the cruise berthing; that issue has far more negative and far-reaching impact than who marries who.

    54
    22
  45. Anonymous says:

    Yawn. Fix public education.

    46
    9
    • Anonymous says:

      Constitutional crisis ahead! It won’t get voted in and then the UK will need to figure out if it demands it, which will raise the entire sovereignty issue. Horrible result, but going to get ugly.

      9
      12
      • BeaumontZodecloun says:

        I don’t think so. We talk a good game, sometimes, but we also know on which side our bread is buttered. We benefit greatly from our relationship with the Crown.

        This is nothing more than a call for equality of all the people. Do you wish to have more rights than your neighbor? I sure don’t. I want no more and no less.

        8
        1
  46. Anonymous says:

    Yawn. Fix the damn dump.

    48
    14

You can comment anonymously. See CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.

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