Equality and respect for all

| 22/07/2020 | 92 Comments

Johann Moxam writes: It’s interesting that the government has failed to hold any public meetings or surveys to assess the views of their constituents on the Domestic Partnership Bill. Nevertheless, it is clear that the same standards or steps that apply to a heterosexual union should apply to a same-sex union. But after reading the bill, it is clear that it demands more from the same-sex couple. Why?

The bill as drafted creates extra steps and requirements for the same-sex partnership and appears disingenuous if the objective is to protect or advance legal rights. Hopefully, these can be amended at the committee stage.

Although it is inevitable, the debate should not involve or be centred on religious doctrine because that is a slippery slope to travel which leads to highly emotive contributions that can deflect from the core issues and what the bill is intended to address.

I do not remember being taught that any one sin is greater than or lesser than another in the eyes of the Lord. Faith is a very personal matter between the individual and God. So hopefully our elected officials will be guided by some of those principles and understand that real democracy is based on fostering equality, humanity, tolerance and respect for all, instead of using their leadership positions for the usual ignorant ramblings and political rhetoric, as they clutch the Bible and drape themselves in the flag whilst condemning persons under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Please note that my comments are not intended to offend any person or group that is religious or a Christian. The aim of the bill should seek to protect legal rights. It would be really good for the country if the debate did not devolve into using the Bible to justify inequality and injustice.

In my opinion, it is clear that discrimination in any form is unacceptable. I think it’s best to allow God (if that is your belief) to judge whenever he deems fit. No one I know is qualified for that role nor am I interested in how two consenting adults decide to live their lives. I do believe every person deserves respect and love and to be loved if they are lucky enough to find it.

I live my life following basic principles and believe that no Caymanian should be discriminated against in the Cayman Islands. If that is not clear enough, I hope my comment below leaves no doubt:

“No person should be subjected to any form of discrimination based on their race, religion, political views or sexual persuasion” in our country.

If work permit holders can have their same-sex marriage/partnership/union recognised in law and Cabinet grants the permits plus permissions for their partners to become dependents and stay in Cayman, then the precedent has already been set.

ALL CAYMANIANS must be afforded those same rights. Caymanians ARE NOT lesser beings. This issue is about equality NOT sexual persuasion or religious doctrine.

There should be one standard that is applicable to all persons across the board who live in the Cayman Islands.

Share your vote!

How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (92)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Johann you never disappoints my Caymanian brother!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Way to go Johann! It’s people like you that make me proud to call myself a Caymanian.

  3. PhenomAnon says:

    Johann, bro, you seriously make me proud to call myself a Caymanian. Big ups to you for sticking up for ALL Caymanians.
    We all need to do the same. Equality for all Caymanians regardless of race, sexuality or religion. Insert fist pump emoji here.

    And can we please stop insisting that anyone who speaks their mind must be running for office in the next election? Can we stop politicizing doing the right thing? Its like the people in America who politicize wearing a mask for Pete sake. Equating the act of speaking out as being evidence of political ambition is like equating the wearing of a COVID face covering with liberalism. SMH.

  4. Anony says:

    Leave religion out forget the bible. But a man and a woman relationship is not the same as two men or two women. Those 3 relationships have a few differences and are not equal in most respects. I am easy with any marriage law to recognize all 3 relationships but should we not expect some differences? Does differeces mean discrimination? or the favourite term used to make people feel guilty “hateful” and creat maximum shock value on readers.

  5. Jonathan Adam says:

    Johann, I asked you last night a specific question. I have read your editorial and thus far I have not seen where you have addressed said specific question. You said to me that ‘I’ve clearly stated my position publicly on this matter’. I will repeat my question to you now; Are you, Johann Moxam, in favour for or are you against this issue going to a binding national referendum? Maybe you have addressed this before the above article and I have not seen it, but the answer which I seek from you is one which any member of the electorate deserves to know immediately. It is a yes or a no. You have made a name for yourself, and that is good, by being the tip of the spear in the drive towards a referendum in regards to the CBF. For this you have my respect. I have identified a hypocrisy among those who stand for real democracy when it suits their agenda yet still they wish to deny said rule by referendum when it does not, in their perception of possible outcome, suit their agenda. I truly hope that you are not one of them. So, I ask you Sir; What is your stated position as to whether or not this issue and the decision making processes therein, should be put to a binding national referendum? I for one can give you an immediate answer of yes, even after giving consideration to the factors involved. I for one believe it to be incumbent upon you to be clear and forthright on this matter, and I believe that the rest of us deserve to know your stated position forthwith. This is particularly poignant because one may surmise that it is more likely than not very probable that you will seek a position of elected leadership in the next election cycle. The impetus is upon you my friend, and the ball is now in your court. What say you Mr. Johann Moxam?

    • Anonymous says:

      Did you read the view point? It’s an opinion piece.

      Is it not clear to you what the author’s position is on discrimination and the double standard that currently exists against locals?

    • Anonymous says:

      Since when does affording our fellow human beings equal rights have to be decided by a national referendum?

    • Anonymous says:

      If we put segregation against a referendum in 1920, how exactly do you think that would have worked out for minorities lacking equal rights?

      There’s no agenda except equality for two adults. Wish people would stop throwing other stuff into the mix.

      • Jonathan Adam says:

        It would be interesting, to say the least, what MLK’s reaction to your supposition that this issue is the same as the civil rights struggle of those of ‘colour’ or, with all due respect, whatever politically correct terminology is deemed acceptable in today’s admittedly justified yet uber hostile, overtly ludicrous and polarized environment in regards to any and/or all of these matters. The dichotomy and irony therein is certainly not lost on me, particularly as it pertains to the excessive amount of hatred, vitriol and outright prejudices exhibited by those of ‘religious’ persuasions here in the Caribbean specifically and the vast majority of whom are definitively not of Caucasian ancestry. You, or anyone else for that matter, take that reality for what it is although one could suspect that even that simple reality described above will be taken as an opportunity to castigate me for all manner of aspersions. Par for the damn course I reckon, but you nor anyone else has the right to deny reality simply because it does not fit within the parameters of your opinion and/or special interested agenda. Deal with it, and if you are capable of such, then we can talk. My question and/or comment to Mr. Johann Moxam is specifically targeted to hold he himself accountable to the electorate of this country and the right of people to know exactly where he stands in regards to said simple and poignant question regardless of where one may stand on said issue. It is in the absence of said willingness and/or ability to answer said question that the issue lays, whether you and/or anyone else is of enough intellect to comprehend this or not. It is obviously more probable than not that Mr. Moxam will be putting himself forward for holding elected office, and his reticence to give his position on said simple question is indicative to me of a purposefully elusive and disingenuous action in the furtherance of his very own self interested political expediency. Cayman deserves better, regardless of who they may be. Cayman has to unequivocally demand better, regardless of who they may be. Said opaque and elusive behaviour will serve him well in the game of politricks here in Cayman, but it will not serve this country well. There is a bigger picture here which is at play. While you may well be so myopically hindered as to not understand said reality, I will not be subjugated to your lack of comprehension in this regard. There is a level of accountability which one who professes to stand for real democracy has to rise to, particularly as the political arena is soon going to be opened up to new ‘players’ as it were and the as of yet absent accountability and universal unwillingness to be transparent in all of these matters cannot continue to continue on unchallenged, regardless of who one may be.

        • Anonymous says:

          Mr Jonathan, I’ve known you to be a sensible man and had respect for you, but after today, no more. I truly hope no one has spoken on your behalf.

          • Jonathan Adam says:

            No one has spoken on my behalf these are my words and these are my concerns and it is my question which remains unanswered and I know why; It is because in the selfish interests of Mr. Johann Moxam’s own political expediency that he refuses to answer this simple and poignant question thus far. For if he does, those who are backing him politically will turn away from him because he is not ‘towing the line’. I will not shy away from what I believe is necessary to be said no asked in order to curry and/or retain your blessing nor your condemnation. You are free to do what you want to do in said regard. If you wish to speak to me then you already know who I am but as you have chosen anonymity but you are more than welcome to discuss my reasoning with me personally. I hold no grudge with you, nor do I with Mr. Moxam. This has to do with anyone who will more probably than not be seeking elected office and the necessity for anyone is to lay all of their cards upon the table of public knowledge for that is what this country, my country, deserves and must demand fearlessly without hope of favour.

            • Anonymous says:

              Your question has been answered, Jonathan. You cannot put a matter of human rights for two consenting adults to a referendum. Plain and simple.

              • Jonathan Adam says:

                Mr. Moxam has not answered my question.

                CNS: Hi Jonathan. This is Nicky. I do not speak for Johann, who is more than able to speak for himself. However, this issue of referendum on the matter of same-sex unions keeps coming up, so I thought I would explain.

                These are the choices for the Cayman Islands:
                1) Pass a law giving same-sex couples the legal right to form a civil partnership the equivalent of marriage.
                2) Do nothing and let the UK impose a law by order-in-council.
                3) Seek independence.

                There are two section of the Constitution that deal with referendums. Section 69 says a referendum can be called by a majority of MLAs. But whatever the outcome, it would not override the Court of Appeal ruling and would therefore be costly and pointless.

                The second, section 70, which is a people-initiated referendum, specifically states that it must be about: “a matter or matters of national importance that do not contravene any part of the Bill of Rights or any other part of this Constitution.”

                Since this is a matter dealing with sections of the Bill of Rights, it could not be held under section 70.

                • Jonathan Adam says:

                  Hi Nicky, thank you for your response and attempt at clarifying matters for me. I do not portend to be a legal scholar, nor a scholar of the Constitution. For that matter, from what I do know I am not in agreeance with the Constitution and on the day of election I abstained from voting for it, nor do I believe it is a complete document, nor am I within my own constitution beholden to it as it pertains to my thought processes. I for one believe that any construct which from the outset demands loyalty to the Crown and it’s interests above and beyond the interests of the Cayman Islands, her people and it’s future to be an untenable and inequitable equation. I am, however, cognizant that it is the law of the land. I do not mind telling you and the rest of creation my thoughts on this matter; I am in favour of the 1st choice which you have mentioned above. I agree that everyone deserves the basic human rights which the construct of Civil Unions allow. I personally made my mind up about that quite a while ago now. I do not, however, hold the opinion that the institution of marriage is the dominion of same sex couples and my reasoning for that is not so much from a Christian perspective. Said position stems from an observation of multiple and myriad religions/tribes/cultures etc. (and even intimately monogomous members of the animal kingdom like geese) the world over whereupon marriage and/or any similar iteration has always been between a male and a female. If I am wrong in that observation, I am open for educational elucidation. I respect, and I do not hate, those who hold differing opinions on said matter. I respect, and I do not hate, those of the LGBTQ community just as I would any other human being. What I do hate vehemently is the universally bigoted bilious bile spewed out constantly by both extremities of this divisive issue. I despise those who use it as a tool in their own self interested political expediencies. I have called out both sides. I have called out the hypocrisy of the church in this matter, because the financial industry of this country has facilitated the anonymous domicile of ill begotten funds the world over and there is a karmic/do unto others as you would have them do unto you price to be paid for any place and/or people who facilitate Ponzi schemers, international criminal syndicates, corporate greed devoid of any moral and/or ethical compass and murderous dictators. One can try to argue otherwise from behind the guise of uber funded lobbying/public relations platforms but we all know the truth. For the Minister’s Association and the church in general to have a conniption fit about gay marriage, yet still willingly ignore said burgeoning reality (one which has allowed the worst of the worst right here in Cayman to elude justice and/or accountability) is beyond heinously hypocritical. The dichotomy and irony that Dr. Raznovich and his partner are part of that same system is not lost on me. Where are the human rights of all those around the world who suffer right now because places like my own homeland facilitate said anonymous and/or unaccountable domicile? The negative consequences are very real and are felt around the globe. The soul of this place has suffered for it and will continue to exponentially, in my humble yet vociferous opinion. More to the point though Nicky; This , for me at least, is a matter of principle. As I have said repeatedly now, my question has remained unanswered. Mr. Moxam himself has pointed out the need to demand that those who have the privilege of elected leadership in what is a most egregiously and woefully inadequate semblance of democracy, rotting from the inside out, have to be held accountable and that they must give their full position to one and all and it must be proffered on demand. In my view, this also applies to potential candidates and I am not willing to allow either Mr. Moxam or anyone else to escape that responsibility with elusive behaviour and/or disingenuity regardless of how tactfully the game is played. This can no longer be the accepted status quo. This is even more poignant when it comes to the fact that Mr. Moxam has very much made a name for himself as a champion of real, participatory democracy. Even if hypothetical, one and all deserve to know his position, in my humble yet quite obviously vociferous opinion. The smoke and mirrors, opaque window dressing and hollow rhetoric of Cayman’s political arena is repulsive and destructive at best. I find it to be unacceptable in the extreme, and the proof of such to be self evident. I do not want it to continue unhindered. That is the reason for my tenacity in this regard. Is it not sensible and within the tenets of participatory democracy for Cayman to choose by way of binding national referendum which one of the three, by obviously naturally occurring cause and effect consequence, stated options should be decided? Who among us is comfortable with a small group of individuals making this decision for all of us? Are the pitfalls not the jist of what Johann was rightfully pointing out to all and sundry? I for one am not. For any real and lasting solution to this matter, it demands a real ‘collective responsibility’, not the convoluted construction present within the, to say the least, easily yet illegitimately influenced membership of any given Cabinet. Have we not seen yet how that is an inequitable process? Have we not all felt the sociological fallout as a result in myriad instances and/or debacles of national importance? I understood the point when Johann wrote it on facebook to me and I understand it now, however, I believe my question to remain valid, poignant and unanswered. Thank you for your reply Nicky. I apologize for the lack of paragraphs.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    “and I understand it now, however, I believe my question to remain valid, poignant and unanswered. ”

                    No Jonathan, you clearly don’t understand why your question went answered. Maybe if you spent more time digesting what you read instead of vomitting back up the biggest words you can pull out of a dictionary the point wouldn’t fly over your head like CAL.

                    A dumb question with a clearly explained and obvious answer.

                    ps: this is how you get a point across in 1000 words or less. take a hint.

                    • Jonathan Adam says:

                      As you wish to engage in some pissing contest of literary brevity I will keep this as brief as possible so as not to overburden your quite obviously limited capacity of comprehension. As you have possibly alluded to your knowledge of my geographical location, I extend to you a permanent invitation to debate and/or engage me in discussion in person. Of course, that would require you to come out of your coward’s closet of hiding behind anonymity. Furthermore, you thus far cloaked ignoramus, are as capable as anyone else of using your obvious possession of modern technology to summon a dictionary at will. If you are too lazy or simple minded to do so that is on you. I will not be held beholden to nor cobbled by your ludicrous inability and/or disingenuous and/or contemptuous attempt to castigate and/or denigrate me for harnessing the English language to the best of my ability and the opportunity for expression of thought, purpose and/or intent which it affords all and sundry. Maybe, if you were not so myopically hindered in your own agenda of subjective disparity, you would be able to digest and contend with what I have written beyond the tragic comedy of your ignorant and useless retort.

        • Anonymous says:

          Mr. Moxam wrote an op-ed that was crystal clear on his views what more is he supposed to say? I applaud his respectful yet direct style of communicating on issues unlike this long rambling tirade from an agitated Mr. Adam.

          • Jonathan Adam says:

            As you all wish, I stand by the veracity and validity of my statements and the poignancy of my question. Nuff said.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The fact that many of you agree with what is said rather than reading the bible and seeing what is says for yourself is very sad. Praying for the people of Cayman to wake up & fear the Lord

    • Anonymous says:


    • C’Mon Maaaaaaaaaan says:

      The Bible promoted slavery, bigamy marrying child brides and other acts that we should know are not acceptable today. So should we be following everything that is written or just certain parts?

    • Anonymous says:

      11:33 this might be over your head but do you think people who were born left handed should stop using their left hand and use their right hand because you believe the majority are right handed?

  7. Anonymous says:

    The real issue is WHY do we need to create another law? The existing marriage law could be updated with the change of a few words. Marriage is the creation of a legal union and it existed before religion.
    Some persons choose to create their union using a Marriage Officer that is also a minister/priest/etc. and include religious parts in the ceremony.
    Some persons choose to create their union using a Marriage Officer without religious aspects in the ceremony.
    Both couples are still legally married.
    Both couples require a COURT to un-marry/separate/divorce them should the need arise. No form of Marriage Officer can do this. So it shows that it is a LEGAL not a religious union.
    Why should it matter what sex the persons are? It is about love, respect and commitment between the two persons. Nothing else.
    Creating another law with similar rules is just plain silly. If this happens then I certainly hope that the MLA’s have the sense to allow the law to be used by any couple. Otherwise another set will soon find themselves debating an amendment to do just that, as there will be heterosexual couples that
    decide on “a union” instead of “a marriage”.

    p.s. – will a Marriage Officer be required to pay for a separate Union Officer license (if they intend to conduct both types of couple joining ceremonies)?

    • Anonymous says:

      The Uk didnt change their marriage law they introduced civil partnerships. Their legislation works and so can ours.

      A marriage officer wont be able to conduct civil unions unless they are licensed to do so separately. Also any one else can apply for a license to conduct domestic partnerships without having to be a marriage officer.

  8. Anonymous says:

    To paraphrase MLK (I think it was): The only way a society can become truly tolerant is to be intolerant of the intolerant. This means that when a minister makes a “Gaypril” joke, he should be called out on it immediately (not encouraged with childish sniggers); or when ministers organise protests and make threats against members of the community, they should be called out for their words and actions, and held accountable. We are still a long way off.

    • Big Pappa says:

      Ummmh, no. You might want to read up on the Reign of Terror (French Revolution), the Inquisition, Stalinist purges, etc. One day you’re on the side of the righteous, next day you find yourself under the guillotine. There are any number of Democrats, liberals, etc. who now find themselves in this position, with the Left eating up the Left. Revolutions devour their own children.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Im tired of this constant claim that “the majority of Caymanians oppose same sex marriage”. Has there been a survey or vote? Who is the majority? The person making such claim and their 5 friends from church? I am Caymanian. I do not oppose same sex marriage. I have thousands of friends here during my life so far of 47 years and I can only think of ONE of them that has an issue with same sex marriage. ONE out of thousands. That is not a majority. Stop with the false claims please. Its embarassing to other Caymanians!

    • Anonymous says:

      So true, thank you. The anti-gay Lion’s Center Rally drew about 2,500, which was barely 14% of registered voters at the time, and I doubt all of them were.

      • Anonymous says:

        Majority of attendants were actually Jamaican work-permit holders. This should be obvious given that Jamaicans are proven and known to kill their gay brothers and sisters then go to church and have a seizure while speaking in “tongues” the next day.

        • Anonymous says:

          When a certain media outlet report stories that involve Jamaicans they cry discrimination against Jamaicans, yet I find it ironic that the same Jamaicans are trying to discriminate against Caymanians in their own country. My advice to these Jamaicans is to respect your host country that has afforded you a better life and more importantly respect its citizens. If that is asking too much then I suggest you book a seat on the next flight to JA.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well said! And the same goes for Christians. Not all Christians here are against same sex marriage and very large church denominations in other countries perform such ceremonies and support same sex Christian unions.

    • Anonymous says:


  10. Anonymous says:

    Marriage should be for church within their walls. Any recognized marriages by countries should be a civil unions. Go to the courthouse and present your documents and get your union! Your marriage in the church, I’m sure your pastor can afford paper and printer to give you a certificate you could frame in your home.

    Let’s move into a new century that separates church and state completely.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s important to acknowledge that the so-called “Christianity” of Cayman (like many other parts of the Caribbean and rural Africa) are predominantly mission branches of fringe far-right doctrines, focused on Old Testament fire, brimstone, and vengeance. Many are in-your-face evangelical and not representative of the modern tenants and practices of global Christianity, which is far more liberal-minded in 2020. In the mainstream world there are openly gay ministers and bishops performing marriages in their churches according to the principles taught by the religion’s namesake, Jesus Christ. That’s the Christianity experience for most Christians on the planet: it’s one of forgiveness, love, peace, and inclusive fellowship.

      • Anonymous says:

        But as an atheist I already live by those values. I don’t care if you want to go to church but liberal views in religious people is still very scarce. I hope more turn out like you say.

  11. Anonymous says:

    This is the least important issue facing Cayman right now. So we will get around to it soon, next year, or next never…

    • Anonymous says:

      Um, it should be an opened and closed case. If a CIG wasn’t full of prejudice dinosaurs (Prejuisaurus) then tax money wouldn’t have been wasted on this!!!

  12. country gal says:

    do we not fear the WRATH of God though?? Which is most important …. Treat each person equal ?? Or treat each person by God’s law ,and that is or all to OBEY his standards for living ?

    • Anonymous says:

      Fairy tales shouldn’t be considered in laws.

    • Anonymous says:

      Treating each other equally.

      The op-ed author may not wish to offend Christians, but I have no such compunctions. Anyone using religious justification to discriminate are acting as enemies to their fellow humans, and the sooner we ignore them the better.

    • Anonymous says:

      You go ahead and fear I’ll live in light and love with the words of Christ. “Those of you without sin cast the first stone.”

      You are free to practice your hate filled ‘religion’ because others before you have built democracies and civil societies that allow for harmony amongst different views and cultures. By extension your argument is the same thinking as the Chinese Communist Party or Al-Qaeda.

      • Anonymous says:

        that’s hypocrisy. How can you love in the words of Christ when he denounced all sexual immorality (homosexuality, fornication, bestiality, etc). Do you not see the trends of how this happened in the US and other countries? first it started with gays, then they had to expand it to the trans people, now the pedos are coming out saying that they are born attracted to children and they should not be persecuted for that.

        If you know anything about Christ or the word of God, it has nothing to do with hate, but clearly shows and tells us what is right from wrong and gives us certain standards to live by. Some people just want to do whatever they want to do and don’t want to follow these standards.

        Just because people do not agree with you or affirm your beliefs, does not mean that they hate you. we need to stop this thinking.

        • Anonymous says:

          Where in the world does pedophilia come up? That is literally made up crap. There is no evidence that gays leads to pedophilia. Most of the cases of pedophilia I have seen were in the Catholic churches, maybe the religious amongst us should have a look into their own backyard before spouting this crap as facts.

          • Anonymous says:

            @11:43am you obviously cant read very well. No where does it say that being gay leads to pedophilia.
            you obviously have access to the internet, go and google what is happening in the US and Canada with regards to this liberal/ do whatever you want/ equality movement.

            PS what you have seen and what exists are not the same thing.

        • Anonymous says:

          I agree with the last paragraph 100%.

    • Anonymous says:

      Those harbouring so much hate, and ill will towards their fellow humans, will surely learn all about the wrath part, if there actually is a God. Oh, the irony.

  13. Anonymous says:

    free the trees and let them be, oh yeah, cant you see your destroying the environment, oh yeah

    • Anonymous says:

      Past the law for Civic Unions yes name it Civic Unions with parteners yes partners (not man an wife) for same sex people with the same rights of marriage that straight people have and lets move on. Enough of this foolishness, it’s more serious things going on like the Coronavirus that we need to worry about

      • Anonymous says:

        Why do we need a law to live with ANYONE? I’m sure there are thousands of people (myself included) that have lived with someone without being married. Do you know of an unmarried couple living with each other? It should be up to the people involved if they want to live together and love each other…. NOT what you or I think about it……………or the CIG….. or the church!
        It’s called Freedom of Choice.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Moxam, I can partially agree, I don’t believe that when debating issues, a person should take the stance of authority using religion or the Bible as a sole source. They should use other facts that back their position, for or against. However, one also has to recognize that our country’s objective morality comes from the Hebrew Bible.

    However, please note that there is a hierarchy of sin, with Jesus stating that the unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:30-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:8-10). One could also reasonable deduce that petty theft (thou shall not steal) would not be judged the same as murder.

    Based on the article you have hyperlinked, the Bill is not meant to mimic that of marriage rights, but to recognize the basic next of kin rights to the partner. You state that the same standards or steps should apply for a same sex union as they do for a heterosexual union. I respectfully disagree. The only law governing a heterosexual union (only a marriage is governed by law) is the marital law, and as we are not redefining the terms of a marriage (between 1 man and 1 woman) then one would expect that this law would be different and therefore the standards or steps would not be the same. Unpopular opinion, but the reason the Government supports marriage is not to recognize romantic love, it is to perpetuate and stabilize society.

    In my experience, and as evidenced by your article, the people who most often ask for respect, tolerance and equality for all, are the least likely to give it to those with opposing views. In one sentence you are saying that elected officials need to understand real democracy and not use their positions for “ignorant ramblings and political rhetoric as they clutch their Bible” and then follow that with “my comments are not intended to offend any person or group that is religious or Christian.” How is that not offensive to a Christian?

    I do understand and agree that the only reason the government even want to push something like this through is to avoid the UK stepping in and legislating it for us. I believe that they are aware the majority of Caymanians do not want to see this happen here.

    Understand that the objective standard for marriage is the Bible. A union, that is governed by law that has extra steps should be more than acceptable for a Christian country.

    • Anonymous says:

      You may be interested in reading the article below which is a classic example of what happens in the LA when this topic is discussed. I am sure that it is the type of political rhetoric that Mr. Moxam referred
      to in making the point which seems to have offended you.

      MLAs use privilege to deride gay rights

      • Anonymous says:

        @9:56pm – the writer clearly stated that they should not use just the bible to back their stance, as they have been doing in the LA. I think their point is, in one hand he is saying “I want tolerance and respect for all”, while being disrespectful to people who do not share his view point.

        I think MLAs should stand against what the majority of their constituents want. Believe it or not, Savannah and other districts of Cayman, are against gay marriage.

        They can have a union, with similar rights, but we aren’t ceding on the marriage aspect.

        • Anonymous says:

          Please do not speak for me. I live in Savannah, I support same sex unions and I am a Caymanian. You are ignorant.

    • Anonymous says:

      Moxam did not hide behind anonymity. He stated his name and presented his views. Perhaps you should do the same

    • Anonymous says:

      Marriage existed before the bible. It is a legal union that some persons choose to conduct within a religious ceremony.

      • Anonymous says:

        well if it did, please point it out to me? where is it documented or referenced in other historical texts that pre-date the scriptures?

        Please also point out to me, where in all of human history, have 2 people of the same sex been able to marry or have any sort of union?

        I’ll be waiting……

        • Anonymous says:


          Given that the oldest parts of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1200BC, it looks like the Mesopotamians just pipped the Bible to the line by only fractionally more than a millenia.

          The article also helpfully identifies examples of gay marriage from a paltry 2000 years ago, and a Christian precedent for blessing of a same sex union from the 13th century.

          You need wait no longer.

    • Anonymous says:

      Uh, what about all that polygamy in the old testament? That gets more wordage than homosexuality. Why aren’t the Leviticus quoting zealots marching for a return of legal polygamy?

      • Anonymous says:

        because it wasn’t repeated in the new testaments. Athiest and people against the Bible are the weirdest lot. How can you be against something you never even cared to read or understand? that’s like saying “I don’t like pizza, but I never ate it”

        In both the old and new testament, they denounce all sexual immoral sins, that being any sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Not an MLA, words are different than actions.

    • SMH says:

      So citizens should not state their views on any issue unless they are elected? That is so typical and narrow minded. SMH

  16. do the right thing says:

    Wonderful editorial, Mr. Moxam. As you say, there must be equality for all. Allowing “marriage” for heterosexuals — but only “civil unions” for gays, lesbians, etc. — is NOT equality. To the Assembly: For heaven’s sake, show some integrity for once and provide MARRIAGE FOR ALL.

  17. Anonymous says:

    It should be clear by now that this government and the leadership it has has only one thing on its mind. Themselves. The island, the people, the businesses are just livestock. Here on earth to keep them fed. Expect that they will only serve themselves and you will not be disappointed. And no. You do not have the power or the drive to fire them or replace them. You are getting what you wanted. Now deal with it.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Very well said! with class and respect to all people, not just the selected few

  19. Concerned Diver says:

    Yes. Well spoken. Thank the Lord we have a few brave men and women who are prepared to speak out. Please run for office. We need to get rid of the old dinosaurs!

  20. Anonymous says:

    Yes 1:52….

    Yes, it’s always courageous to say things that are main stream PC that will be praised by the media, where should anyone opine otherwise and/or dare to disagree with the PC culture sanctioned group-think would be castigated as a complete bigot.

    Yes that’s _REAL_ courage!

  21. Anonymous says:

    I couldn’t agree more. Thank you for putting your name to this even though it can be polarizing.

  22. Anonymous says:

    You are a brave man and I appreciate your consistency and candid way of communicating on issues. Cayman needs more leaders like you that get it.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Bush will be pissed. No bar will be safe after this.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Johann! Thanks for having the courage to stand up for the Caymanians whose rights are being brazenly violated. I pray that more of us will have the courage to join you publicly.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Johann Moxam for Premier!

    • GTN Voter says:

      Moxam for GT North in 2021

    • EYES WIDE SHUT says:

      Cayman needs new blood in front line politics like Johan Moxam and others with real world business experience, qualifications and integrity. Cayman needs leaders that understand the issues and work hard on solutions with a proven track record of success that benefit the majority not just a select few corporate interests and financial backers. Cayman needs persons that want to help the country instead of just being a politician or incumbent that need the job as a mla to feather their own nests. The time for change is upon us. Caymanians need to elect people in 2021 that will help work to protect Cayman and Caymanians not just focused on making money from their positions for their own interests.

      • Anonymous says:

        Anyone that supports a law that the majority are against knows nothing about democracy and the principles it was founded upon. Johann is no better than Alden and will become another abused if people’s rights! He simply doesn’t get it. You cannot force anything on your people no matter how much you pretty it up!

  26. Anonymous says:

    Mel would be proud of you

  27. Anonymous says:

    I agree 100%

  28. Anonymous says:

    Great comments. This is what fairness and leadership looks like. Your words show respect for all.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Well said Yohann

  30. New Voter says:

    Thank you Mr. Moxam finally somebody with integrity has the courage to speak clearly on this matter. I applaud your bravery in standing up for what is fair and right for all

Leave a Reply to Jonathan Adam Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

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