Family life is of paramount importance

| 10/08/2020 | 84 Comments

Christina Hislop Rowlandson writes: Royal assent if given to a ‘substitute marriage bill’, as I personally refer to it, would have drastically changed the state of legal unions for the purposes of having children and other matters. The bill was debated and voted down in two days amid little public fanfare. Six of seven official members of the opposition in the legislature resolutely voted ‘no’ along with a government backbench member from West Bay and two prominent Cabinet ministers with responsibilities for social affairs: the minister for health and the minister for education.

George Town seems to have been the weakest link, with five out of seven MLAs voting for the bill. Credit is due to all those who stood up to be counted on the Cayman Islands value system and to members of the community who participated in raising awareness.

The Constitution of the Cayman Islands and its Marriage Law provide a very clear definition of marriage. In Ladore v Bennett [1939] it was said that “Parliament cannot evade a constitutional restriction by a coloured device”, i.e. by calling it something else. Former President of the Court of the Appeal of the Bahamas and retired Privy Councillor Dame Joan Sawyer DBE shared her view of the Bill: “by its very words it clearly intended to confer on persons entering into such ‘partnerships’ the ‘security and benefits’ of a marriage while not actually calling it a marriage. In other words, it intends to accord to persons of the same sex, all the rights and privileges accorded to married persons under the Marriage Laws of the Cayman Islands.”

There is a need to consider the purpose of marriage legislation. Marriage law supports stability of family life, the integrity of marriage, imitation of nature, and the protection of children. The Marriage Foundation based in the UK champions marriage for the good of society especially children. Research by the Foundation revealed in 2017 that 72% of parents were married in the previous prime minister’s seat of Maidenhead and that 25 out of 26 of her Cabinet MPs’ constituencies backed marriage as the best family structure to raise children.

The foundation’s research also reveals that a stable relationship of the parents is the single most important factor in a child’s healthy development. Half of all UK teens are not living with both parents and family breakdown is the #1 predictor of teenage mental health problems. The main causes of breakdown are relative poverty, lack of parental resources, father absence and instability. The foundation’s chairman witnessed the catastrophe of family breakdown over forty-four years in the family courts and says, “We owe it to the next generation of children to get serious about marriage as a crucial public health issue.”

Perhaps the Romans had this in mind when they developed family law. Known for its profound legacy in English law, including the Cayman Islands system of laws and Continental legal systems, Roman law has been referred to as the “genius for good order and organised common sense”. For Romans marriage was a social fact with certain legal consequences. Matrimony, a word derived from mother, was the joining together of a man and a woman, implying a united lifestyle, a partnership for the whole life involving divine as well as human law.

Romans had a highly developed sense of what constituted a desirable and lawful union. There was a plethora of rules, bars and impediments in an attempt to prevent undesirable marriages. For example, marriage between a guardian and their ward or the guardian’s child and their ward was prohibited as was marriage between an adopted child and the adoptive parent and with a sister or brother-in-law. Prohibitions were a highly developed area of family law.

Considering our own foundational moral heritage and the fact that this bill goes to the heart of society with its impact on family life, school and church life, and public health and medicine, invariably raises the following questions. Would passing the bill be in the best interests of the people? Would it conflict with natural and domestic laws and erase barriers that prevent undesirable unions? Are the MLAs best qualified to determine what is desirable and what is not? Were scientific arguments raised?

According to the European Convention (Convention) of Human Rights, national authorities are categorically best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society. These authorities base decisions on science, ethics, research and domestic law and policy. The Cayman Islands legislature exercised that role and did so against the backdrop of a Convention that supports the special rights afforded to a couple in a traditional marriage.

The ‘no’ vote therefore respected family law, the laws of the Cayman Islands, the rule of law and the separation of powers. The outcome was also a massive win for women by supporting their privacy, dignity, proper place, personal identity and honour to marry and found a family at the same time as accessing education and economic life.

The ‘no’ vote also pleased the Crown’s subjects because it honoured biblical precepts and the islands’ Christian principles. Voting ‘yes’ for this Bill would have been a brutal assault on marriage, a solemn union with important consequences, and our nation’s intricate system of values and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, the governor is now acting on his own desire to pass the bill. The effect of this on the fundamentals of our democracy has not gone unnoticed and momentum is naturally building to reclaim this matter and defend the Cayman Islands way of life. It is being led by lawmakers and the Christian Association for Civic and Political Education and a great many other stewards here and in the region. Only last year environmental stewards said ‘no’ to further destruction and led a successful legal battle against a bill catering to special interests. Together we now need to stand up for social as well as environmental good governance.

It should be noted that for the purposes of the conflict of laws a ‘country’ is any territorial unit having its own separate system of laws whether or not it constitutes an independent state politically. The UK cannot therefore be the relevant country for the purposes of those branches of private law. There is no such thing as the law of the UK.

May God save the Queen, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and us. Ultimately If we ‘honour our fathers and mothers’ all will be well.

Share your vote!

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

Tags: , , ,

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (84)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Christian, Caymanian and Gay. says:

    Dear JA Bodden, re your reference to the story of S&G the following is noteworthy:
    1. In the story God comes down to investigate “grievous sins” in Sodom. Nowhere in the story is homosexuality named as one of these sins.
    2. The men who the Angels encountered were indeed bad men, who wanted to rape them. The bible says “the men”, young and old, from all parts of the city came out. Sounds like a big crowd. They were not called “homosexual men, just “men”! They were just as likely a crowd of men displaying similar behaviour as some heterosexual male prisoners who rape other men in prison to satisfy their own selfish desires.
    3. To assume that by condemning homosexual rape the story condemns all homosexual acts, is to say that condemnation of heterosexual rape disallows all heterosexual acts as well.
    4. God couldn’t find even 10 righteous inhabitants in that city to allow him to spare the place- one can accurately surmise that the sins of this city went well beyond those of this band of depraved men who confronted the Angels. Their sin was obviously just ONE of the attitudes/behaviours that was grieving God in that place.
    5. To liken a gay couple who wants to live in a monogamous, responsible, legally protected family setting, to the depraved would-be rapists in the Sodom story, is to be guilty of the same ad hominem comments you don’appreciate in others, Sir/Madam JA Bodden.
    Let us as Christians take on the same words and tone of the Jesus of the bible whose “new commandment” is “Love one another”. He purposely called all kinds of people to himself, telling them the “good news”. The only people he condemned, passionately, were the religious leaders of the day who refused to change their prideful, unbelieving ways and who eventually saw to it that he was crucified, leading to their own loss.

    • LA says:

      Stop turning this into a religious revolution this is not a church matter this is clearly a personal choice. Stop looking excuses, a pass from god and the churches to remain in your gayness,…

      • C, C and G. says:

        Hi LA, that Revolution happened 2000 years ago, with a man on a cross. He said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me”. Wow! That means that we can’t get to God through our own righteousness (or self-righteousness). Its through him. That doesn’t give us a pass to do everything we please, but it does mean that we accept that gracious gift for ourself and share it with others. It means we allow others to work out their salvation with him and through him. We don’t spend our time judging and condemning others, but reaching out in love as he did.

  2. J.A.Roy Bodden says:

    First they came for the socialists ,and I did not speak out -because I was not a socialist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists , and I did not speak out -because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews , and I did not speak out -because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Pastor Niemoller ( 1892-19840)

    To all those who hide behind anonymity and pass ad hominem remarks on those who esouse Biblical teachings – consider this:
    As it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah , so shall it be in Twenty first century Cayman.

  3. J. A. Roy Bodden says:

    As it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah so shall it be in twenty -first century Cayman Islands.

    May God have mercy upon us .

  4. Anonymous says:

    I will not listen to anything you or church people have to say until I see you all having the energy to get up and provide help to the so many that are in need right now. Preach forgiveness, preach paying forward, preach kindness, preach compassion, preach tolerance, preach empathy, and preach LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

    Until you do these things and do them regularly, you and your church people and all the other one-day Christians should never preach hate!!!!!!

    “Every time you utter Amen in your places of worship and in your homes, a child is listening [to your hypocrisy.”]

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m curious as to how Bishop Dr Juliette D. Fagan Mentally processes this line in the Bible: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” —1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    I wonder if it ever pops into her mind while she’s giving sermons in her church.

    I guess not everything in the Bible has to be taken literally. Only the gay stuff, right?


  6. Anonymous says:

    Religion makes smart people dumb.

    And mean.

  7. Anon. says:

    “Mali regnant cum boni vacent”
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of wrong doing is that good men should do nothing.
    Miss C’s comments did not demean anyone in exercising her right to comment on the way the DPB matter is being addressed. I congratulate the Minister of the Church of England who was bold enough to voice his opinion on her contribution.
    The above quote was attributed to Edmund Burke and has been quoted many times by men like John F Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln and is still very relevant…. I am reminded of the Scripture found in Revelation 3:15-17

    • John Harris says:

      So presumably you consider the extension of a civic right to those who happen to be gay to be ‘wrong doing’ in need of prevention?

      Marriage is a civil institution. It’s concerned with our legal rights to one another, and the impact of laws on our relationships with our loved ones. The fact it is associated with various religious rituals does not give the Christian church, or any other religious group, ownership of it.

      You can get married without a church or minister being involved. Your marriage has legal consequences. Therefore it must be available to everyone.

      Arguing that marriage between two people is ‘wrong doing’ simply because they are gay is legally and socially illiterate, and downright cruel.

  8. Bishop Dr Juliette D Fagan says:

    Sir / madam
    You say my comments was “extreme” and the old excuse “hate speech” all because it was filled with scripture from the Holy Bible..the words of Almighty God and my views just like yours and others have a right to.

    I am now wondering what exactly is Cayman News Services all about based on the amount of “extreme” posts/replies and attacks you so admire from those of the gay community. We the public can see that you are biased..No prob..I did save and share my post I sent to you with many elswhere because I knew you wouldnt share it and to show how biased you are I have been warned by many I sent it to.

    Thanks for releasing the question post to you and your reply as if to trigger off those you are embracing 🙂
    May God help us all.

    CNS: The fact that it was published elsewhere does not make it any less offensive. The fact that many share your extreme views does not make them any less wrong. It’s still hate speech.

  9. Anonymous says:

    You know who else used the Bible to justify their hateful attitudes and wrongdoings? Slave owners. Well they were right about one thing, the Bible DOES endorse slavery. There’s many questionable things the Bible says is ok, so if these people want to act like know-it-alls, please explain that.

  10. Anonymous says:

    As the world crumbles and our little haven has once been spared from Covid and further destructions, I thank God for his mercies and many blessings. I place my all in him and he is at the wheel.

  11. Bishop Dr Juliette D Fagan says:

    Cayman News Services.
    Dont be afraid to release my comments because I know the time I commented and I see other comments released since mine and notice I am not hiding like most are doing.

    Bishop Dr Juliette D Fagan
    God bless

    CNS: Your comment was quite extreme hate speech and therefore deleted.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you CNS. I told her she’s a reckless pastor for telling her congregation not to wear masks (it’s her “prophecy” that the world is ending and masks are the devil) and she blocked me. Pathetic.

      • Bishop Dr Juliette D Fagan says:

        Ok I might now have to challenge you to prove where I TOLD my congregation not to wear mask when I am one of those whose members must wear thier mask (can remove during our service), we hand sanitize and our seats are distanced..Just because as a health educator..I am educating people about the danger of keeping a mask on for too long without getting fresh air/ decided to come with your long list of training and who you are to sow discord on my fb page. I block anyone I see as trouble makers and disrespectful that comes on my page.
        I dont know whete you come from bit this is one native Caymanian who is not intimidated by anyone..God is protector.
        I would advise you and the media that released your post to choose your words wisely my friend or you might have to eat them.

        • Anonymous says:


        • Anonymous says:

          by that logic every doctor performing surgery would be dead by now.

        • Anonymous says:

          Unblock me then so we can debate and you can “challenge me”, doc. I’m quite sure you remember me.

          CNS may not post my last comment as I put actual disrespect in it, which is completely understandable. I shouldn’t be a hypocrite here.

        • Anonymous says:

          This right here in black and white is the problem. The ignorant leading the ignorant and putting nonsense in their heads. The rest of the world is waking up to these people peddling fairy tales but not here. Cayman won’t get there until it has an education system that arms it’s people with necessary skills like critical thinking, the scientific method and how to spot a fraudster. Until then people like this “bishop” will do all they can to keep them in the dark ages of hate, superstition, ignorance and oppression.

    • Big Teeth says:

      Thumbs Down to “Dr” Fagan.

      Another quack peddling bullshit faith. $$ In Jamaica is the only place she gets a large following. Keep yo quackery there, please. ‘God loves, you, he loves you and he needs money!’ Pass the Tithe bowel, suckers.

  12. Anonymous says:

    The point in my view is simple: people should be allowed by the state to do what they like when they like as long as in doing so they harm nobody else. It is not the role of the state, which after all is simply other people, to prevent them from living their lives as they like; indeed, it should help them do so in whatever way it can, including preventing them from being treated differently from others. The state owes that duty to every one of its citizens and residents, be they “native” or not.

    And it is certainly not the role of the state to allow itself to be run by religious zealots, of whatever creed.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Every Christian wants to tell other people how to live their lives, cry victim when no one is telling them to be gay, and yet can’t even decide which day is the right day to worship.

    The UK doing exactly what they have the right to and should do. Idc if 16/17 voted no. If Christians took a majority vote on the right day to worship, Sunday would win and the SDA’s would riot. If this is how unna attract people to church, you and CMA doing a poor job right now.

  14. Anonymous says:

    It doesn’t matter how right or natural you think being straight, having a good little christian marriage and having kids is.

    We’re Caymanians in a relationship. We don’t want kids – religion aside. We would actually prefer to save the thousands on a wedding, skip the church stuff and just do a domestic partnership since we’ve lived together for years.

    Do we not deserve a union too? We won’t have kids, what’s the difference if we were gay?

  15. Bishop Nicholas Sykes says:

    A fine article by a stand-up woman who is not afraid to put a name to her work, completely aware of the reaction she will draw.

    Unlike that host of others who will never have the courage to put their names to anything. Poor them!

    • Anonymous says:

      If there were calls for you to leave the island where you were born, or forcibly deported from the island which you call your home, whenever you posted a comment that suggested you deserve equal treatment under the law, you might think twice about attaching your name to a comment, too…

    • John Harris says:

      Thanks for your comment Bishop Sykes. I’m happy to put my name to my own opinion that this article is fatuous, incoherent and small-minded.

      What leads her to believe that same sex couples are incapable of providing a stable and loving family life?

      What on Earth is the relevance of Roman law, or jurisprudence in other countries, to a right under our constitution? A right which has been confirmed according to our laws?

      What do ‘Christian principles’ have to do with a mechanism for granting and assuring civic rights?

      And what does this incessant, vicious insistence on determining others’ rights to love those who they wish, have to do with the love, tolerance and compassion which (I understand) form the basis of Christian teaching?

      You, Christina, and the sad old men of the CMA are out of touch, out of arguments, and out of time.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well said John!

      • Anonymous says:


      • Bishop Nicholas Sykes says:

        Great to have a name put to your post John. Let’s have a proper discussion. Would you be open to any view that some of the opinions you have just expressed by implication so trenchantly could be countered with solid reason? Or would you not want to give that any consideration? Somehow in spite of your automatic reaction I do believe in your capacity to weigh issues and think properly. I wonder if we could actually initiate an actual discussion on this medium, instead of all the fourth-rate gotyer nonsense we forever have to endure here?

        • John Harris says:

          Sure, let’s have a discussion.

          But I start from certain first principles which you probably can’t accept:

          – marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one
          – as someone who believes there is no God, my legal rights should not be constrained by your belief to the contrary

        • Anonymous says:

          “Solid reason”, Mr Sykes? When dealing with views expressed in the Bible? It’s faith not reason, solid or otherwise. You and the CMA believe in ( have faith in) magical entities to be worshipped; many of us do not and do not want our lives to be dictated by fairy in the sky believers any longer. But since you mention “reason” , why is it that you and other CMA members NEVER address those parts of the Bible, mostly Old Testament stuff, that contain obnoxious and/or racist views on matters like, say, slavery or women? You are all so obsessed with this gay stuff which is a matter of equal rights under the law of the land, that you seem oblivious to other vile proscriptions in biblical texts which should engage your outrage.

          • Anonymous says:

            Caymin clearly states on their website (the bishop is part of CMA) that they are against it because gay couples “cannot have sexual intercourse” and therefore cannot have children. This makes it morally wrong.

            Don’t tell them about the straight Caymanians who don’t want to have kids, though. Catch 22

    • Anonymous says:

      Please explain how come you’re a bishop. Who appointed you?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Do you know what happened to the Romans and why? When was the last time you saw a Roman anything?

  17. Anonymous says:

    I knew this pleasant lady some years ago (when, like her, I was for a while a civil servant) though she did not have Hislop in her name at the time. I never clearly understood what she was trying to say in meetings and that has not changed.

  18. Anonymous says:

    only when you’re brainwash to think your religion matters, you are this confident to spew bigotry under the guise of a eloquence.
    While you’re at it Christina you can write a similar article of how slavery was crucial to the advancement of the modern society and without it, we would still be in the dark ages and that’s why the bible supports it (Ephesians 6:5-8)

  19. Anonymous says:

    People thinking they have a say in what other people do with their lives. Whew chile the ghetto…

    If she thinks she can do that then let’s take away her right to marry. If she complains then she would be the biggest hypocrite on the planet.

  20. JTB says:

    Well Christina, since you love all things Roman, here’s some latin for you.

    Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

  21. Last Zion says:

    Isn’t Christian Morality wonderful… When you get down to brass tacks it’s all about bigotry isn’t…

    The history of Christianity is the history of intolerance, whether that is to people of different faiths, different racial groups, women, at some point in time a Christian will have tried to oppress some group due to “their beliefs” and the primacy of their position.

    At every turn, the Christian position is destroyed, be that in regards to witches, miscegenation, the age of the earth, the sun and the planets orbiting earth, racism, slavery.. and the religion gets weaker and weaker.. it is not surprising that the only Christianity is only thriving in countries where educational standards are low.

    But in recent years, in a vain attempt to increase their relevance, some Christians have decided that because they can no longer discriminate against Jews, women, non white people, their best target is homosexuals.. But in reality they show they are nothing more than a clock chiming in an empty room. Every argument that is advanced is nonsense… and the above article is no exception.

    The lunacy of promoting a society as warped and unfair as the roman society in a desperate attempt to justify their position is almost as idiotic as the usual tripe of “hating the sin, loving the sinner”.

    The Orwellian sounding “Christian Association for Civic and Political Education” should fill every right thinking person with dread….. no doubt an organisation with the sole intent to revert modern society to the 16th century.

  22. Anonymous says:

    The governor needs to acknowledge the fact the he is responsible for the fallout from any legislation that he forces on the citizens of the Cayman Islands. It is not acceptable for him to force his will on the people today and abandon them tomorrow.

    If you break it, you’ve bought it!

    • Anonymous says:

      Just so everyone is clear on how we got here:

      (1) In 2009, the Cayman Islands democratically passed a Constitution that protects, under Section 9(1) of the Bill of Rights contained in that Constitution, the rights of all people to a private and family life.

      (2) In November 2019, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeals issued a judgment that said:

      “Section 9(1) of the [Bill of Rights] requires the Legislative Assembly to provide [Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush] with legal status functionally equivalent to marriage. Its failure to comply with its obligations under the law in that regard is woeful. That it had such an obligation has been apparent for several years. As the Chief Justice set out in detail, [Ms. Day and Ms. Bush], in broad terms, offered to compromise the present litigation on appropriate undertakings from the [Cayman Islands Government] to establish an institution of civil partnership. Even now, when during the course of argument, the court sought information as to what the [Cayman Islands Government] intended to do, we were merely told they were awaiting the outcome of the litigation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Legislative Assembly has been doing all it can to avoid facing up to its legal obligations. In the meantime, Ms. Day and Ms. Bush (and their child) suffer in the many ways the Chief Justice set out. In our judgment, a declaration in the following form is appropriate:

      ‘In recognition of the longstanding and continuing failure of the Legislative Assembly of the Cayman Islands to comply with its legal obligations under section 9 of the Bill of Rights and in recognition of the Legislative Assembly’s longstanding and continuing violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, IT IS DECLARED THAT:

      Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush are entitled, expeditiously, to legal protection in the Cayman Islands, which is functionally equivalent to marriage.’”

      (3) In 2020, the Domestic Partnerships Bill was proposed in the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to offer “legal protection in the Cayman Islands, which is functionally equivalent to marriage”, which the Court of Appeals of the Cayman Islands has held is required under Section 9(1) of the Bill of Rights contained in the democratically passed Constitution.

      (4) Instead of passing the Domestic Partnerships Bill into law, or providing an alternate law that would comply with the Caymanian Court’s order to offer “legal protection in the Cayman Islands, which is functionally equivalent to marriage”, the Legislative Assembly ignored the Caymanian Court’s order and voted the bill down.

      (5) To ensure that the Cayman Islands Government complies with the Caymanian Court’s own order to afford Ms. Day and Ms. Bodden the rights provided for in the democratically passed Cayman Islands Constitution, the Governor has no choice but to step in to preserve the rule of law because the Legislative Assembly has failed to do its job and ignored an order from its own Court.

      • Anonymous says:

        How many times are you going to copy and paste the same comment?

        • Anonymous says:

          I suppose as many times as it takes for people to stop mischaracterizing the Governor’s action here as forcing something upon Cayman that our own Courts and Constitution actually require?

    • Anonymous says:

      He should have Bill #13 Procreate. If their were only LGBTQs there would have been no world/population.

      CNS: Luckily for your world view, heterosexuals make up about 95% of the global population and there are 8 billion of us so we’re probably not going to go extinct through lack of procreation. Stop being silly.

      • Anonymous says:

        My homophobic aunt just spilled the beans and said by not making it easier to be gay they’re more likely to stay in the closet and go have kids to please their family.

        Plausible? Yes. Wrong? Entirely. Live and let live. My friend had a marriage for 15 years, divorced, and is currently waiting to form a domestic partnership (same sex).

  23. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for your thoughts, Christina.

    So that we can better follow your logic, I would appreciate it if you could kindly provide the evidence for your suggestion that the legal recognition of same-sex unions would reduce the rates of opposite-sex marriage or birth rates. I am having a hard time understanding how opposite-sex couples would be any less inclined to marry or to have children if same-sex couples (who presumably aren’t marrying opposite sex persons regardless) were to be afforded basic recognition of their existing relationships under the law.

    I’d also appreciate your thoughts as to how the 1939 case you cited, which I believe relates to the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution, should be squared with our own Caymanian Court of Appeals’ judgment just last year in 2019, which found that the Bill of Rights in our own Caymanian Constitution actually requires that rights functionally equivalent to marriage be extended to same-sex couples, and that the extension of such rights would not be incompatible with the Constitutional protections afforded to opposite-sex couples in that Bill of Rights?

    You also cite the European Convention on Human Rights to suggest that national authorities are categorically best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society. How do you square that with the fact that our national authority on matters related to the interpretation of our Constitution—the Cayman Islands Court of Appeals—has ruled in this matter in the aforementioned case, and required the legislature to act? Or the fact that the European Court of Human Rights, which is tasked with interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as our own Cayman Islands Court of Appeals, has held that same-sex couples must be afforded with rights that are functionally equivalent to marriage?

    Does our own Court and our own Constitution not reflect our interpretations of family law, the laws of the Cayman Islands, the rule of law and the separation of powers? It seems to me that the Governor is not “acting on his own desire to pass the bill”, as you might suggest, but because the rule of law in these islands is threatened when the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly has ignored a directive from the Cayman Islands Court of Appeals that directly arises from the obligations we have under not just the European Convention on human rights, but also the Cayman Islands Constitution.

    • Dazed and confused says:


    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps, given she stresses the importance of marriage for child raising, Christina can also share why she thinks that gay couples have less stable relationships than heterosexual ones, particularly given the evidence she cites from the UK and the obvious evidence we have here of single parent families.

  24. Anonymous says:

    What a shame the bible doesn’t say it is wrong to have 5 kids to 5 different baby daddies before you’ve had a stable relationship or worked a day in your life. If it did, all you people banging on about the importance of two-parent homes and loving families might actually do some good for society.

    But who am I kidding, the fake concern for the “good of the child” is just a disguise you use to justify your hate and intolerance towards gay people, you don’t actually give a damn about families.

    • Anonymous says:

      It does actually. It’s call Adultery. It’s all over the bible.

      May be you should try reading it before making ignorant and arrogant presumptions.

      • anon says:

        i wish you would read the comment with as much attention as you read your bible, or perhaps you aren’t actively reading either and have misunderstood the definition of adultery and simply don’t know what is meant by baby daddies. let me educate you.

        adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse

        baby daddy: the father of one or more of a woman’s children, especially one who is not her husband or current partner.

        you see the initial comment is talking about women out in the world popping out babies like rabbits with whoever happens to take their liking that day, to be clear this man can be and most of the time is single and has no interest in becoming a father or even being in any kind of relationship with said woman.

        Maybe you should try reading a dictionary before making ignorant and arrogant statements using words you probably have not understood.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Muh both sides!

  26. Anonymous says:

    Ultimately the Governor is the boss and the UK is the reigning supreme power. So if we don’t like it, we should all leave the island.

    • Anonymous says:

      No. If we do not like it we should declare independence. The problem with this place is they want their cake but want to eat it too.

  27. Concerned Caymanian says:

    If Christina wants to argue biblical and Roman guidelines…why arbitrarily draw the line at just gay marriage and domestic partnership?

    You could argue Roman law and biblical passages which forbid interracial marriage, women’s suffrage, wearing blended fabrics, eating selfish, and punishing adultery and heterosexual deviancy should also come into play as those also statistically negatively impact family structures.

    Also, Christina seems to forget what the Roman’s position was on slavery and on homosexuality. If we left it to this LA to be on the right side of slavery or of domestic partnership vs. human rights violations with the hollow excuse of Christian morals, we would not be in any better shape.

    The next arguments usually trotted out are that expats are forcing this and should just go home (hint hint, there are gay Caymanians) and dubious claims that there would not be a disastrous impact to Cayman’s financial and tourism sectors with unemployment skyrocketing and the country being in far worse shape due to people caring what goes on in someone’s bedroom.

    Divorce rates, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, sexual assault, and adultery are all more prevalent amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals and were issues long before gay marriage, and the fear mongering of trans activists and slippery slope does not mean you can justifiably deny rights to homosexuals.

    • Anonyminniemouse says:

      Considering she is of the opinion that the defeat of the DPB in the LA was a “massive win for women” as it puts us in our “proper place’ so that we have the “honour” to be given the opportunity to ‘marry and found a family” i don’t think she is a massive fan of feminism and the women’s suffragette movement anyway.

  28. so much hot air says:

    The above seems to be a great deal of hot air for the purpose of saying, “We (bigoted straights) are the chosen ones, and the rest of you (gays and the many open-minded straights who support them) are not.” Sorry, but your opinion will NOT prevail in the end. Sooner or later, gay marriage is coming. And Cayman WILL survive gay marriage when it does come. No one — not one person on Cayman — will find that his/her rights are diminished. EVERYONE will gain. This is the inevitable result when society treats ALL its people fairly and equally. Another thing: Apparently, you are unaware that gays, too, value family life highly. In fact, our families are not much different from yours. For heavens sake, open your eyes to this obvious fact. Finally, you do NOT have any legal or moral right to discriminate against a class of people. So when fairness comes, you will have lost nothing because you never had such a right in the first place!

  29. Anonymous says:

    The author should be commended for the facts that she has obviously so well researched and placed into an adequate, but very insightful paper on the subject presented. The other great legal minds in our community, could do well by immediately organizing a public series of debates on this subject of immense national importance, so that the full consensus may be shown to the decision makers.

    My own views personally is that ultimately this is a matter for a referendum.

    • Anonymous says:

      Basic human rights should NEVER be subjected to a referendum. Ever.

      Nor should they be ignored due to sayings in a book which was written centuries ago, in a completely different era. Don’t forget that at that time, women’s sufferage and slavery were perfectly acceptable, according to the Bible!

    • Anonymous says:

      Sometimes, that which is made to appear well-researched through selective citation, quickly falls apart when even the slightest amount of academic scrutiny or logic is applied.

    • Dazed and confused says:

      It’s nonsense…. legal nonsense. You might as well debate with a stone…

  30. KSS says:

    Ugh. Seriously?!

  31. JTB says:

    What a load of absolute garbage.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Loving your work with Roman Law Christina. Have you googled “homosexuality in ancient Rome”? I’m guessing not.

  33. Divorced Caymanian says:

    Based on the logic of the writer one cannot be in a happy and loving relationship and raise good children without being married as man and wife. Must be nice to live in that bubble.

    Why then does Cayman have such a high rate of divorce? I am divorced and my wife and I are successfully co-parenting our kids.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Well at least you took a stab at it…

  35. Anonymous says:


    Clear as mud. Please write so your readers can at least understand the thrust of your argument.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Wow someone took all the time to write that out when probably less than 10% of Caymanian children are born in wedlock.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Has the author ever committed a sin or currently living in sin?

    The point is only God will judge you. There is nothing worse than self serving hypocrites. Caymanians that talk about God’s rules yet live their lives and manage their personal affairs to another standard is why the churches do not hold the sway they used in the wider community.

    I am not perfect and yes I am a Christian that knows God is love and I ask myself often what would Jesus do?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Another misguided soul. Bless her little heart!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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