Roper: CIG can choose to implement gay marriage

| 15/03/2022 | 81 Comments
Cayman News Service
Barbara Conolly MP (left), Premier Wayne Panton and Governor Martyn Roper join the Pride Parade in August

(CNS): Following the judgment delivered Monday by the Privy Council in London on a Cayman Islands same-sex marriage case, Governor Martyn Roper has said that the ruling clarifies a point of law regarding Cayman’s Constitution, which is “that it cannot be construed as including a right for same-sex couples to marry”. But he said this is still a policy decision for the government to make.

Paying tribute to Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden-Bush for standing up for their rights over the last five years, he urged the community to show acceptance, respect and tolerance towards others.

In a statement issued in the wake of the decision by the British court that upheld the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal’s decision that there is no constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry here, the governor noted that many people would welcome the judgment, but the couple who brought the case and many others would be very disappointed.

“I must pay tribute to Chantelle and Vickie for their courage and determination in standing up for their rights over the last five years. They have inspired many through their actions,” he said.

“Same-sex marriage is legal throughout the United Kingdom and in several UK Overseas Territories. Going forward, it is a policy matter for the elected government as to whether it now wishes to introduce same-sex marriage in Cayman. That would provide equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples.”

Although the case was not accepted, he pointed out that the Cayman Islands does now have legislation which grants legal protection to same-sex couples that is functionally equivalent to marriage.

“Up to the end of 2021, 47 couples have used that legislation to enter into a civil partnership and have their rights recognised in law,” he said, noting that heterosexual as well as same-sex couples have used the law.

“It would seem to me that everyday life in our community was not affected by civil partnership legislation. But it is important to those who have entered into civil partnerships. We owe it to all to create a safe environment for people to be who they want to be,” Roper added.

Opposition Leader Roy McTaggart welcomed the decision, saying it had “again clarified the interpretation and ability of the court to amend laws and put itself in the place of the Parliament. If a law is determined by the courts to contravene the Constitution, then it should be for Parliament to have the opportunity to fix it.”

This was the basis of the legal challenge to the March 2019 ruling by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, in which he legalised same-sex marriage, made by Alden McLaughlin, who was at the time premier and PPM leader.

Although he won the appeal, the government was given a directive from the Court of Appeal to introduce legislation to protect the rights of LGBT couples. However, he ensured the failure of the Domestic Partnership Bill when he allowed a vote of conscience, removing the collective responsibility of Cabinet members.

Two of his ministers, Juliana O’Connor-Connolly and Dwayne Seymour, who are both now part of the PACT government, voted no and tipped the scales against the DP Bill. Referencing Parliament’s failure to pass that legislation at the time, McTaggart noted that it was the members now sitting on the government benches who had voted down the law. (See how MPs voted here.)

He said several members of the present PACT Government “vehemently opposed” the Domestic Partnership Bill. “All members of the current Progressives Opposition voted for the bill. The introduction of the Domestic Partnership Bill was the right thing to do as a society that values each and every person within it, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation,” he added.

However, he failed to note that Premier Wayne Panton was the only vocal political advocate for LGBT rights for years. He spoke out against his own colleagues during the first PPM administration and it was his support of gay rights that likely cost him his seat in the 2017 election.

The PPM leader said that voting against the bill was “in contravention of an explicit declaration of the Court of Appeal to provide same-sex couples with necessary protections. Failing which the Court of Appeal said that the UK Government should act.” This was why the governor had used his powers under section 81 of the Constitution to introduce the Civil Partnership Act.

An additional “unfortunate result” of this was that it gave the UK a reason to retain this section of the Constitution and not proceed with a previous agreement to remove the ability of an unelected governor to make laws. “That provision was hard-won during our Constitution negotiations with the UK, and regrettably, it was lost,” McTaggart added.

Like Panton, Governor Martyn Roper has been a consistent advocate for LGBT rights. He had welcomed the chief justice’s 2019 ruling legalising same-sex marriage, and after the Domestic Partnership Bill failed, he used his constitutional powers to roll out the Civil Partnership Act.

However, Roper’s use of these powers to pass the CPA has been challenged. Justice Richard William heard the case in December but has not yet delivered his ruling. The case, brought by Kattina Anglin of the Christian Association for Civics, argued that Roper was not entitled to use section 81 to deal with this issue as it is a devolved area of governance.

The governor argued that because of the direction from the Court of Appeal and because of the Cayman Islands’ international human rights obligations, which had been breached for years, the powers he holds under section 81 applied.

If the court disagrees with this argument and Anglin wins the case, and if the current Parliament does not then pass the Civil Partnership Act, the governor has said that he would secure an order in council from the UK.

See the full statements in the CNS Library.


Share your vote!


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

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Category: Laws, Politics

Comments (81)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    The day he does it will not be a happy day for the Cayman Islands.

    He can run up his mouth now about human rights, but mandating and forcing people out of their jobs and livelihood because they refused to take the COVID vaccines, he was fine with and didn’t recognize that they had any human rights.

    Forget about human rights in Cayman until equality rules.

    Lastly civil partnership is available the activist need to learn to stop when they have a win.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agree. Time for Roper to leave.

    • Anonymous says:

      100% agreement.

      Roper needs to stop playing with politics and creating divisions in this little place.

      Both sides have equal access under our laws, albeit 2 different ones.

      Both sides have lost ground.

      Both sides have comprised.

      Move on. Life and let live. Love and let love. Love is love.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The Constitution needs to be amended to delete just two words “opposite sex”. Either we recognise and celebrate that there are now a full spectrum of self-ascribing gender identities in 2022, or we are condemning ourselves to the wrong side of history and to further UN and ECHR challenges and negative headlines. Will we recognise that these people exist in the 21st Century, or not? Will we collectively recognise and accept them as a household? Simple as that. That’s what this is about. It’s not just c1650 minister sermons and fables of sacramental-level heterosexual marriage, which is a whole ‘nother level of hypocrisy. Doesn’t bother most of us, since it’s not any of our business frankly.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ahhh! And the slippery slope is revealed! Now you are demanding that Caymanians abandon our social sensibilities and “…recognise and celebrate that there are now a full spectrum of self-ascribing gender identities. The USA made the moronic “make transgenders equal” error and now self-proclaimed “women” are using women’s bathrooms and competing against real women and girls in sports. That is beyond sad, beyond pathetic! Give an inch and the activists are never satisfied. They do not stop until their extremely minuscule minority have turned the inch into miles and they have sway over it all and real females are marginalised and overcome by men. Females in the USA are being forced to compete with men. NO! Not here! I hope people can now clearly see where the LBGTQI+++ “equality” agenda is heading. In my math book Men do not = women.

    • Anonymous says:

      A marriage between a man and man, wonderful.
      A marriage between a woman and a woman, wonderful.
      A marriage between a man and a woman, wonderful.
      Self-ascribing gender identities however, is nothing more than woke ideology which is confusing and harming the younger generation.
      This ideology detracts from those most in need of help along their journey.
      The bandwagon of self-ascribing genders is simply a political agenda.
      As most things have become these days.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why is it every time a child is raped or a gang wannabe shoots someone y’all are so quiet. 2 people in a loving consenting relationship want to make it official and you freak out. What a bunch of fake ass christians. You look in your own closet of sins before casting hate.

    • Anonymous says:

      Perfect comment – so so true

    • anonymous says:

      My goodness, you need therapy, sportsfan. Such anger!

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeh I think the level of child abuse here is probably something you are justified to be angry about…
        But hey, we’ll bury our heads in the sand and pretend that doesn’t go on all the time! Just no gay marriage! Cos, god! Or something

      • Anonymous says:

        Pretty sure you need the therapy if that doesn’t sit well with you. It was a perfectly put comment.

        • anonymous says:

          “What a bunch of fake *** christians”.

          Blimey, let’s add a course in not using filthy language and correct punctuation to the mental-health therapy, sportsfan! You need help, seriously.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Don’t understand what all the fuss is about, a union between and man and a woman is called a marriage, a union between two of the same sex is called a civil union. Both have the same rights.

    • Anonymous says:

      There are two sets of rules in a place where equality should reign. You actually highlight how petty it is that anyone can go to the court house and sign similar paperwork, yet only “opposite sex” may invite their guests and family to a private vow ceremony lasting somewhere around 15 minutes. Who are the injured parties?

      • Anonymous says:

        It is an absolute lie perpetuated by rabid deceitful woke activists that “only “opposite sex” may invite their guests and family to a private vow ceremony”. There are no laws against a gay “wedding” ceremony taking place to celebrate your union/partnership. No wonder people are disgusted with this whole mess. Perpetuating blatant lies does not win you any friends. Do better.

  5. Roy Base says:

    Sir Alden was right ! just say NO to this foolishness. close this chapter and move on !

  6. Anonymous says:

    cig could also implement protection for its citizens gay or not!?

    • Anonymous says:

      I am a pensioner on $1000 a month, it is not enough to run a/c or barely have enough to eat. The government has taken away my ‘right’ to live and retire on a basic standard. Even though I paid my into my pension the sum of 300k I have no ‘rights’ to it. I would be better off dead, then at least my beneficiaries will get my pension as a lump sum.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m very sorry to hear this, but it raises a very serious point that we should all be aware of, $300k sounds like a lot (which of course it is) and $1000 per month sounds like a very small amount to live on in Cayman (which again it is).

        However, lets consider you retire at 60, and are getting $1000 per month from a $300k pension pot, your pension will run out when you are 85. – End of pension, no further means to support yourself.

        If you increased your monthly amount and had $1500 per month from a $300k pension pot, and retired at 60, it would run out when you were 76.

        Now, you might have paid $300k into a pension and it might have increased dramatically, or you might retire at a later date, either one would provide a bigger pot to draw from.

        However, if a working adult works from 18 to 65 and earns an average salary of $60k, (not that I’m suggesting that they necessarily would) and pays 10% into a pension pot (which of course that could only pay 5%), they will have pension payments of $282k. Clearly a good pension pot will appreciate over time, but it something that we need to recognise is a huge issue that we should be aware of.

        • Anonymous says:

          You forget that the remaining pot should continue to grow, at a conservative 4% per year that would replenish the withdrawals. The 1k isn’t enough for a pension.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well said and so true! Not able to do any house repairs, fix car and other essentials. What is the point in saving after so many years of working in some abusive work environments and now been abused again by having to live on 1000 a month. Either allow those who want to continue working to do so or give us OUR money! Why is Speaker of the House and others in Government still allowed to work? Which employers hire even 55+? People are working through 70’s in UK and other countries if they wish. Cayman government needs to stop concentrating on itself, votes, greed and do something for it’s people.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Each country has a right to create its own laws, and also enforce them. Laws are based on many things including religion and cultural values.
    If a particular law does not suit me or other values in a country, I would not go there to live, let alone try to change another country to suit me.

    It’s all about choice. Just Google how many countries there are in the world and there is bound to be some that will suit those who have come to Rome and don’t wish to do what the Romans do. Several flights to Miami each day are now back operating, please make your choice but don’t remain here as the minority and try to change what we historically have valued. Last time we checked we don’t have the minority bound with chains and anchored in these islands.

    • Anonymous says:

      Everyone is a minority in some way. Be thankful it’s not your rights you disapprove of. You have a nerve to tell you fellow countrymen to leave just because you down really wish them well.

      • Anonymous says:

        But that is the rub. There are recognised human rights but like it or not same sex marriage is not one of them. But it has been recognised that it is good to have something akin to marriage- ie Civil Unions. That is where Cayman is at the moment. It’s a fact. Same sex persons have a regime similar to marriage in a civil union.

        • Anonymous says:

          That’s not the point. The person who I disagree with doesn’t appear to approve of any legal recognition for same sex couples. They are dismissive of the issue and completely unaware of what amount of problems the lack of any legal framework for same sex couples to be legally recognized has been causing. Not to mention quite rude and ignorant.

          • Anonymous says:

            @11:16:
            What you decry is a non-issue in the Cayman Islands: there is no “…lack of any legal framework for same sex couples to be legally recognized”. Your comment is making an issue of a problem that does not exist here. If people oppose it, so be it, that is their right, but their dissatisfaction does not negate the law. The Cayman Islands government have provided the legal framework for same sex partnerships.

            • Anonymous says:

              Cayman islands Government did NOT provide it. It was the Governor. He had to. Because the Government purposely failed. Did you literally just hop on the subject? Where have you been all the time?

            • anonymous says:

              Thank you for your well-reasoned response. Absolutely correct.

      • Anonymous says:

        To those who would come here expecting us to overturn our social mores, we wish them well.
        We absolutely wish them well: Wishing them well is the very essence of what “Bon voyage” means.

        • Anonymous says:

          Actually the very essence of what “Bon voyage” means is ‘safe travels’ translation: ‘Good Journey’

          • Anonymous says:

            @1:18:
            Exactly.
            Wishing them well…
            (Glad you caught the “journey” part, and thus grasped my meaning.
            May God grant them a safe and very speedy journey to the utopia that will welcome them arriving to overturn the social norms of the people. Cayman is not yet that place, thank God.

        • Anonymous says:

          Does that apply to Caymanians too?

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe that is the same argument slave owners used when they were told they had to set their slaves free.

    • No Voters to progress says:

      CNS… let’s not hide the list of those now elected who voted against the Domestic Partnership. Let’s remind everyone the names of those in the government. They say they are transparent.

      No Voters in PACT:
      Chris Saunders (IND)
      Bernie Bush (IND)
      Kenneth Bryan (IND)
      Dwayne Seymour (IND)
      Juliana O’Connor Connolly (PPM)

      • anonymous says:

        Many thanks for the list. Not quite clear what precise purpose it serves, though. Care to explain yourself?

    • Anonymous says:

      This is a very invalid argument. So me as a Caymanian, must pack up and leave MY country, because I’m bisexual? Where am I going to go? I can live in the UK, but it’s not my home. CAYMAN is my home, how dare you tell me to leave my home because of your bigotry.

      • Anonymous says:

        You can stay but you will have to accept your Civil Union right and forget about Gay marriage. Seems like a sensible compromise to me

        • Anonymous says:

          Thanks for your unrequired permission allowing us to stay in my own hone! What are you sensibly comprising? Maybe your condescension and arrogance.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “The Christian Association for Civics”?! Jesus wept. And no wonder.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Christian ideals, every man is created equal. They don’t accept abortion. Everyone has the right be born, grow up and get married, have thier own family. Unless they are gay, then no. Its just disgusting. How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves saints when they can’t even accept the love of 2 people. Let them marry each other. Its not a math test. Its not hard. You don’t even have to be involved. They just get married and you do nothing and you go on with your life. Pretty easy.

    • Anonymous says:

      They don’t even know who we are really but they don’t want us to have same rights that they have. Rights, not obligations. I mean how bad-minded one has to be to sleep well after stealing others equal rights? All in the name of a religion, which never really solves a problem, but creates a billion.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Why does this Governor consistently get in involved in domestic situations. From giving Alden knighthood to overturning the votes of the Parliament..I have nothing against gay marriage, what I have a problem with is this Governor ruling us with a heavy fist.

    This Governor has used his powers to bring in civil unions and now that he has lost this battle with gay marriage is now “stoking the bear” so to speak to lay his mark once again.

    I will be happy when I see him board that BA flight for the last time..

    • Anonymous says:

      Somebody has to, remember, Cayman is a BOT, not an independent country. It’s his job, if you haven’t noticed. UK has the upper hand.

      • anonymous says:

        OK, I’m a somebody, and, yes. I actually do know that Cayman is a British Overseas Territory, which is irrelevant to the gist of the poster’s contention that our present governor has been overstepping what has historically been the accepted role of a governor in the Cayman Islands. Have you notice that?

    • Jtb says:

      Why does the governor get involved?

      I dunno. Moral courage, maybe? Decency? Or just the fact that it’s his job.

      • Anonymous says:

        It’s not his job this is a devolved matter

        • Anonymous says:

          Wrong. Human rights issues are not devolved ones. You are part of UK, last time I checked. It is his job. Someone had to do it since many lawmakers ignored LOCAL court ruling creating even a bigger mess. He had to deal with it and good thing he is here.

        • Anonymous says:

          It only remains devolved so long as the MPs legislate to expediently pass and amend laws to avoid international rights abuses and headlines. There is a limited number of requests and deadlines, after which, the FCO and Governor may choose exercise their reserve intervention powers on behalf of the Queen.

    • anonymous says:

      Yes, this particular governor has indeed played a very active and vocal role in matters which ordinarily would be left up to Caymanians to determine. It has all been rather unusual to have a governor championing one side in a controversy rather than remaining neutral, which in my opinion would be the proper approach for a transitory, non-Caymanian and unelected official. Of course we are entitled to our opinion but throwing your weight around? Highly inappropriate, in my view. We live in a democracy and
      when a majority agrees on something – including issues we personally disagree with – that should be respected, in this case that the institution of marriage is reserved between a man and a woman. In all honesty, if you don’t like that well then fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t try and upend and treat as irrelevant the democratic process. That’s just not on, is it?

    • Anonymous says:

      Governor Roper please remember you are here to represent HM the Queen, you Do Not Represent the People of the Cayman Islands or their wishes. Oh how I wish we had Real Men like Dr. Roy, Cadian Ebanks, Jim Bodden or Haig Bodden or than iron Lady Miss Annie; if so we would be seeing some Fireworks and Caymanians would have some true representation today.

      • anonymous says:

        Well said. The governor most certainly does not represent the views, opinions, values or wishes of the people of the Cayman Islands, although he would have us time and time again believe that he does. This is a blatant falsehood, dear readers. He only represents, as the poster accurately stated, HM the Queen i.e. the U.K. government. Let us be clear in this regard.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The Privy Council is wrong on this point! It’s not that the Constitution doesn’t include a right of gay marriage. It is that the Constitution defines marriage. Therefore, any marriage law that confers a right of marriage outside of the constitutional definition is out of bounds and illegal. A law cannot circumvent a constitution. This argument that the matter is about the constitution creating or not creating a right to gay marriage is a clever trick that many involved have used to divert away from the fact that the definition is clear and the intent of the drafters is clear. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Do it Wayne. We support you and will vote for you again if you stand up to the minority.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ha Wayne loves being Premier too much to upset his Cabinet members

    • Anonymous says:

      @3:52
      Yes! Please do support it Wayne! Please! Support it so we can once, and hopefully for all, be rid of you in Cayman politics. And take your PACT-less Clown Car down with you.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I don’t understand why he says “standing up for their rights”. Isn’t the whole point that it’s NOT their right?

  14. Anonymous says:

    I can’t understand why anybody would want to get married in 2022. It’s likely to eventually be a massive liability for one of the parties to the contract. All of the supposed benefits are available with a domestic partnership so it might be best for those have a moment of insanity to just go along with that form or punishment. Ask anyone that has been divorced.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Do it Wayne. Go ahead and do it… Those Newlands people will make sure you never get elected again…
    Go ahead big man – lets see what u got..

  16. Anonymous says:

    It’s now up to our government and the people of Cayman. I support gay marriage! But in a democracy, majority rules; and if the majority don’t want it, we really can’t argue with that and hopefully in generations to come, things can change.

    • Anonymous says:

      The majority of the US South supported slavery in 1860 and the majority supported segregation in the 1950s.

    • anonymous says:

      Thanks for your very reasoned comment. This has always been my contention as well. I just wish persons in positions of prominence (in particular those who have been appointed and have come from overseas for a limited period of time) respected this as well.

  17. Anonymous says:

    We’ve bigger issues to deal with at this time.

    • Anon says:

      Yes, I agree. Cayman has a lot of bigger issues that we should be prioritizing. That is exactly why something as trivial as same-sex marriage should be allowed without question. It’s 2022, hatred rooted in hypocrisy is getting really old at this point.

      Imagine getting worked up about something like this when our own people can’t even afford to live here anymore.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes like corruption and equal enforcement of all Cayman laws regardless of race, immigration status, nationality, wealth, social class, gender identity, and sexual preference.

    • Anonymous says:

      You always have bigger issues to deal with when it comes to equal marriage. Did you hear about multitasking? Besides, it should have been addressed many and many a year ago. But due to lack of good will nothing was done. And when the local court addressed the situation, many of your elected government members conveniently ignored the ruling. So when is the time for you? Another hundred years?

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s your reason for preventing a loving committed couple from exchanging their lifetime vows in a 10-15 minute private bonding ceremony with their guests and family? Are these jerk interference rights codified somewhere other than the rotten CIMA membership’s heads, because they aren’t written anywhere in the Bew Testament.

      • Anonymous says:

        That is a silly argument. No one is denying anyone the right to have a ceremony. Enter into a Civil Partnership and have your ceremony. Even call it a wedding and self-proclaim it a “marriage”. No one is denying you that right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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