UK court denies same-sex marriage appeal

| 14/03/2022 | 205 Comments
Day and Bodden-Bush with their legal team

(CNS): The UK Privy Council has denied the appeal by Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden-Bush of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn Chief Justice Anthony Smellie’s 2019 ruling legalising same-sex marriage. The London-based judicial board rejected their argument and upheld the position of the Cayman Islands Government (CIG) that the CI Constitution does not create a right to marry for same-sex couples. Britain’s highest court of appeal for the United Kingdom Overseas Territories found that the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights is clear that marriage is reserved for opposite-sex couples.

Day and Bodden-Bush’s journey to marry began more than eight years ago when they were living in the UK and first wrote to the CIG about returning to these islands with their daughter and entering into a same-sex relationship that would be recognised here.

At the time the CIG had not introduced any form of same civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples, despite its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

However, their efforts were in vain and in 2018, after the general registrar rejected the couple’s application for a marriage licence, they began their legal action and won following a Grand Court hearing.

But the government quickly moved to appeal and secured a stay on the chief justice’s ruling, preventing the couple’s plans to marry that very week. The government went on to win its appeal, which led Day and Bodden-Bush to the Privy Council, where their case was heard just over one year ago.

After learning that their appeal had been denied, the couple’s attorneys, McGrath Tonner, who have represented them from the start of the action, released a statement on their behalf expressing their disappointment. But the lawyers implied that the women were not giving up the fight and were now considering taking the case on to the European Court of Human Rights.

“Notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s 2019 ruling that the Cayman Islands Government can ‘no more justify exclusion from the institution of marriage on the ground that a couple are of the same sex, than exclusion could be justified on the ground that a couple are of different races’, the Privy Council has upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that same sex couples in the Cayman Islands have no right to access the institution of marriage,” the lawyers wrote in the statement.

“With the assistance of their legal team, Chantelle and Vickie are actively considering their legal options, including their right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,” the release stated.

“In the interim, however, it should not be forgotten how much progress has been made in the last five years since Vickie and Chantelle first lobbied the Governor and the Premier to recognize their fundamental dignity as human beings. Were it not for their courage in standing up for their rights, and the rights of many others, there would still be no legal framework for the recognition of same sex couples in the Cayman Islands. Their strength and bravery throughout these proceedings has been truly inspirational.”

The Court of Appeal judgment in the case forced the government into drafting a domestic partnership bill, as the panel made it clear that while the Constitution may not have established a fundamental right to marriage, the couple’s rights were being infringed and the CIG was obligated to provide a legal equivalent to marriage.

But the continued political prejudice against LGBT rights in Cayman was on full display when the premier at the time, Alden McLaughlin, allowed his Cabinet a conscience vote, releasing them from the usual collective responsibility and enabling them to vote against the law.

As a result the governor stepped in and, using his constitutional powers, passed the necessary legislation that provided for the Civil Partnership Act.

But since that was passed in 2020, it has been challenged by a conservative Christian group led by Kattina Anglin, who filed a judicial review, arguing that the governor did not have the power under section 81 of the Constitution to enact this legislation and that the only way that it could have been imposed on the Cayman Islands was directly by the UK through an order in council.

That case was heard by Justice Williams last year and but his decision in that case has not yet been delivered.

With the security of marriage still denied to same-sex couples, that law is even more important as dozens of couples in Cayman have taken advantage of it to legalise their union. If it is overturned, the rights of Caymanian same-sex couples will once again be undermined.

The LGBT activist group Colours Caribean, responding to the Privy Council’s decision, said the court had “reasserted the oppressive political environment of yesteryear” with a decision based on theocracy rather than human dignity.

The group once again called on the UK Government to comply with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee recommendation (point 13) that it bring about marriage equality for all overseas territories through an order in council or legislation, as it did in Northern Ireland in 2019, even though it was a devolved matter there as it is in the Cayman Islands.

“We send our love to Chantelle, Vickie and their daughter, whose brave fight as a family for equality over the last five years sought to make the Cayman Islands a more decent society. Notwithstanding today’s judgement, your fight has given people hope and has helped to change the narrative, steering us on a path that will ultimately lead to equality,” Colours said in a release issued Monday.

“The Privy Council has told LGBTQIA+ people that they have no right to be treated equally, that the Constitution permits them to be segregated on the basis of their sexual orientation and that religious views are to be elevated over and above the values of human dignity, equality, mutual respect and social harmony — all matters affirmed in the Constitution’s Preamble, alongside reference to Christian values.

“We are perplexed as to why the Privy Council restricts expansion of rights and favours segregation by fixating itself on the ‘god-fearing’ aspects of the Preamble only.”

In its judgment, the Privy Council found that the right to marry in the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights was “drafted in highly specific terms to make it clear that it is a right ‘freely to marry a person of the opposite sex’… [I]t is obvious that this language has been used to emphasise the limited ambit of the right and to ensure that it could not be read as capable of covering same-sex marriage.”

The judges added that the reference to “traditional Christian values” in the preamble to the Constitution and in opening section of the Bill of Rights reinforced the point, adding that no argument could be developed to circumvent the express limits on the right to marry in section 14 of the Constitution.

“The Board’s view is that the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights and in the construction which it gave it,” the judges stated in the ruling.

“In the context of the Bill of Rights, section 14(1) is a lex specialis dealing with the right to marry. That right is confined to opposite-sex couples. Sections 9, 10 and 16 have to be interpreted in the light of that lex specialis, so none of them can be construed as including a right for a same-sex couple to marry.”

See the full ruling and 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 (205)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    @15/03/2022 at 8:56pm:

    Sorry, but voting in a country is reserved for citizens.

    If you want a reality check, try insisting to the American government that because you are a resident or a green card holder, you demand the right to vote in America.

    It’s not going to happen because the Rule of Law says citizens only have control over the laws of their homeland, not residents, visitors or tourists.

    Citizens can only vote and clearly Caymanian voters have voted for a national referendum passing a Constitution which defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.

  2. Anon says:

    As a Brit and long time visitor to Cayman I think these two brave women should come and be married in the U.K. and we would recognise it and celebrate it. BOTs frankly shouldn’t be allowed to have the benefits that come with that status without affording their citizens equal human rights.

    • Get ya meat out me Rice Sah says:

      Brit the colonial days are over bredren. Did we can we go to your country and malign the people there and not get our butts kicked. Racism is rampant over there, people starving, Brexit impacting the livelihood of many and all you can think about is us legalizing sex marriage. If I coulda get hold a ya passport I would make sure we stamp it “PersonnaNon Grata”. Get ya meat out me rice bredren.

  3. Anonymous says:

    It is political suicide for any politician to do anything to advance same sex marriage. This is very unfortunate but I suspect that it is the reason why there has been so much dragging of feet going on for so long.

    We all need to understand that the first and only priority for most politicians is what will get them reelected and continuing to get fat off of the salary and benefits associated with their positions.

    Only a fool would put their trust in a politician in the Cayman Islands.

    • Anonymous says:

      Time for civil war then

    • Anonymous says:

      I certainly agree that only a fool would put their trust in a politician, no matter what country he may be in!!! I can not remember ever having an honest politician anywhere. Wouldn’t “honest politician” be a oxymoron?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Cayman does not have to follow everyones beliefs as everyone does not follow ours. Tit for tat!

  5. Michael Day says:

    You may not know: that in late 2017 my daughter Chantelle and Vickie wrote nicely to the then premier Alden. They pointed out the obvious (and subsequently admitted) breach in the Government’s legal obligations to provide a framework, be it same sex marriage or civil partnership legislation, for them to live here in Chantelle’s homeland. They asked that this be remedied.

    They received no reply.

    They embarked on their long and well documented legal action – all of which could have been avoided had legislators done not only the right thing, but what was legally required of them.

    Given no choice, Chantelle and Vickie took on the system.

    They did so with class and dignity and with the full knowledge of the hatred they would from (some of our) conservatively Christian people and Government.

    Despite the poisonous opposition from members of the (then LA) and the CI Ministers Association, they never once criticized the church, Christian people or other opposers.

    The bravery, class and sheer motivation of the love they have for each other demands respect.

    Vickie and Chantelle- be proud, stand tall and know that through your bravery you have achieved Civil Partnership legislation. Many that are availing themselves of this should buy you a drink!!

    As Chantelle’s Dad – I am proud of both of you. And btw to anyone reading: They are incredible parents and their house is filled with kindness and love. Xx

    • knighthood says:

      Yes indeed, many cheers for these brave and admirable women. All of us in the gay community on Cayman are indebted to them.. Shame on the former premier for not even having the courtesy to respond to their letter. Apparently, he represents SOME people, but not ALL people. Vickie and Chantelle are the ones who should have been knighted, not the former premier.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well the battle doesnt have to stop there. The Governors comments were very telling. He said it is now up to the government to decide if they want to make the legislative changes to recognize same sex marriage. It is possible to change the constitution. UK cannot legislate for us. So it is now you will what your new Premier is made of. He campaigned on the acceptance of same sex unions so will he follow through and amend the constitution or will he fold to his constituents who can vote him in or out. Newlands voters are still predominantly Christian and of that complexion. Pay close attention.

      • Anonymous says:

        @9:32: That is now water under the bridge with the existence of Civil Partnership covering same sex unions. Panton need not do any more.

    • Anonymous says:

      Very strong leaders in our society. Officials in government should follow their lead! They could learn something about fighting for their people and what’s right! We need our own Mia motley in government

    • Anonymous says:

      Michael Day – you are the best Dad. Love this post xx

  6. Anonymous says:

    I wish Chantelle and Vickie all the best and I hope that they will ultimately get the recognition they desire. That said, I don’t know why anyone (woman, man, gay or straight) would want to get married in 2022. Marriage is an outdated institution that, in my opinion, does not significantly benefit anyone outside of the benefits associated with residency and the right to work. For many people marriage can eventually become a significant financial liability and it can also impose significant emotional and health care costs.

    • anonymous says:

      Funny thing is that the institution of marriage remains as popular as ever worldwide, and therefore its benefits would appear to far outweigh anything else. Maybe you are right and all those who choose to marry wrong? Seems a bit of a stretch!

    • Anonymous says:

      Civil Unions provide the legal certificate for banking, mortgage, financial planning, pension, tax, estate planning, adoption, and hospital visitation security and rights. Marriage is a commitment ceremony which can be religious or not, but focuses on the emotional side with expressed vows of fidelity and exclusivity, in front of witnesses. It’s profoundly unclear how either of these things should affect anyone other than the two concerned that are sealing their deal and bond. It is especially confusing why we should allow civil unions under ECHR, but object so strongly to those being bound to another, and/or professing their lasting bond in a private ceremony.

    • Anonymous says:

      With high rate of teen pregnancy, deadbeat gangster daddies, and high divorce rates, the heterosexuals in the Cayman Islands certainly aren’t setting a very high standard for sacrament, fidelity, and commitment. Blocking the commitment ceremony of two people that love each other doesn’t re-frame the terrible track record of Cayman’s heterosexuals.

      • Anonymous says:

        No one is “blocking” a ceremony from taking place. Ceremonies take place all the time for various reasons: baptisms, initiations, officer installations, bar/bat mitzvah, investitures, to name a few. A same sex couple may freely engage in a ceremony of consummation and of their betrothal; they need not have government to vet or grant permission for that. However, it will simply not be recognized for legal purposes as a “marriage”. Best alternative is to call the ceremony a “marriage’ ceremony after being granted permission to enter into a Civil Partnership. The government does not have a copyright on the term “marriage”.

        • Anonymous says:

          It is not just the ceremony but the benefits thereof.

          • Anonymous says:

            Did you miss the part about the ceremony being AFTER entry into a Civil Partnership. Cognise much?
            What benefits are you speaking of? Please provide details. Please elaborate.

    • Rick says:

      People choose to marry for different reasons but the most popular one is simply the original reason; they love each other and want to remain together in a loving relationship that is bigger than themselves because it is sanctioned by God. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is not only our law, it is a fact. Call it what you want, but if you are man and man or woman and woman, it is not marriage. Why not come up with your own framework? Maybe “queeriage”? Just a suggestion. And I do not hate or want to discriminate against gays or anyone else based on sexual orientation. I treat everyone with respect and will always do so. I am simply expressing my own values and beliefs.

  7. Beaumont Zodecloun says:

    No choice now.


    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, it will fall flat on its’ face, but I agree, put an end to this.

    • Anonymous says:

      Civil rights are not popularity contests for voting – they are supposed to enfranchise those without a majority voice from unreasonable oppression. Civil unions are allowed per ECHR, so opposing two people’s private emotional commitment ceremony, in front of their invited guests, and whether done in a spiritual context or not, is beyond silly. Imagine if Cayman’s generations of “baby daddies” had to submit to such a principled standard. There really isn’t any moral high ground for those opposing – only hypocrisy.

      • Anonymous says:

        They have their civil rights, this is about the definition of marriage.

      • Rick says:

        Who is opposing? Civil Union is already legal in the CI. Marriage is a joining of a man and a woman according to the design of God. You do not have to get married to have a relationship but getting married changes that relationship in many ways more than just legal, assuming that you know this and are serious about committing. The real fight here is about destroying the institutions of God; an age-old fight between good and evil. Pure and simple. It will eventually be changed too, I am sure. But that will not be the end of it, because God is alive, awake and in charge.

        • Jtb says:

          Marriage is a legal relationship recognised and sanctioned by the state, and must therefore be available to everyone. Good has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

          • Anonymous says:

            Jtb you don’t know dhiiite!

          • Anonymous says:

            Allow me to correct your statement to conform to the reality of constitutional law:
            “Marriage is a relationship established by legal contract, recognised, sanctioned, and regulated by the state, and must be available by right to those who according to law have the capacity to enter into such an agreement and otherwise qualify to be party to such an agreement. There is no such thing as an absolute right.

        • Order345 says:

          This apparently is all about democracy. A small country of three beautiful islands where as the rest of the world have proven that the majority rules in a democratic society. Why is it that the same sex LGBQT couples don’t appreciate and settle with the Civil Partnership Act? Let’s be frank and clear here. If the Governor’s decision is overturned it is possible that a challenge can be made against those unions to void all civil unions made under what would be deemed as an unlawful civil partnership law. What would happen next? No politician, governor or the UK will be able to touch the subject based on the Privy Council ruling. That ruling overrides all other previous rulings from the Grand Court and the Court of Appeals. I did read somewhere that an appeal is being considered which to me is a complete waste of time and money since the Privy Council is the highest court in the land for the Cayman Islands. The European Human Rights Court cannot help them advance any changes to any law, act, regulation or our Constitution in my personal point of view.What needs to be remedied is for the government to bring forth a national referendum on gay marriage,civil partnerships which will surely be subject to an equally comparison question on Caymanian national heritage, cultural and religious beliefs. The Caymanian society is instilled on close religious Christian values regardless if you are in the majority or in minority over this issue. Christianity is instilled in the Cayman Islands Constitution and will always play a great part in the continuation of building a humble,quiet,pleasant and ambient place for all to love for centuries to come. So let’s get to the nitty gritty and cut marl road chat and cut the red tape. Here is the two necessary questions the government needs to put forth to the people. 1. Do you support changes in making it fully legal for LGBTQ persons to be protected, and to be giving the same rights as heterosexuals to marry under section 14, and any other relevent section(s) of the Cayman Islands Constitution? 2. Do you support changes to make further enhancements to section 14 and any other relevent section(s) of the Cayman Islands Constitution to state in clear terms that all marriages, and/or any civil unions, and/or any civil partnerships shall only be between a person born as a man and that of a person born as a woman in accordance to what is registered on each person’s birth certificates at time of birth?

      • Anonymous says:

        Civil rights are for much more than “enfranchising those without a majority.” Even those of us in the majority who find ourselves crosswise with the government need civil rights.

  8. Anonymous says:

    But a constituition is just another law that was made up by the politicians of the time and we all have to live with it forever.

  9. Anonymous says:

    The big question is, who is paying for this?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Great news. The best I have heard all year. Justice has prevailed.

  11. Anonymous says:

    This decision is so gay.

    • anonymous says:

      A while back I noticed my son and his pals (girls and boys) using this reference and asked him what it meant. His explanation was that “so gay” meant “unusual” or “remarkable” etc. Which just goes to show how our language quite naturally evolves over time and is not subject to permanent ownership by any one particular group. When I was young gay meant “happy and carefree”. Maybe it will once again?!

  12. Anonymous says:

    Let us come face to face with the truth in regard to the right to marry and all other rights we think we have: There is no such thing as fundamental human rights. All rights are established by the rulers under whose laws people live. There is no inherent God-given (or evolution-mandated) right for anyone to engage in a state-vetted covenant/contract of “marriage”. Marriage itself is defined and regulated by the laws of the state. I laugh when people screech that they have certain fundamental or God-given rights. God may indeed have intended for certain rights to be held sacred (such as the right to life) but even that right is controlled by laws (both religious and secular. Some states rescind the very right to life in the case of capital murder and other heinous crimes. The deities of the two main religions of the world also set forth conditions under which the right to life may be terminated. Economics may dictate the terms of one’s right to life. Poverty and the inability to afford urgently needed life saving medical intervention can rescind one’s right to live. In the USA– that self-proclaimed bastion of human rights –a study conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School found that 45,000 Americans die every year as a direct result of not having health insurance. Here in Cayman we all-too-often see the jars placed by desperate people pleading for donations to raise money for a loved one to go abroad for urgently needed treatment. The ones whinging about not be able to marry here at least have viable alternatives in the form a Civil Partnership or going abroad to marry. The one whose life depends on urgent treatment would love for the law to provide them with a way to be treated and live. Every so-called right we think we have is merely a license that the state grants us according to its laws and those rights are defined, constrained, regulated, and may be forfeit, according to law. The most compelling evidence of this truth is that the supreme law (Constitution) gives us a “Bill of Rights”. In reality, the Bill of Rights is merely a list of the licenses the State has decided to grant. Freedom and liberty exist as constructs of society and are regulated by the laws under which that society operates. The freedom to marry the same sex, even if it were legal in the Cayman Islands would still be constrained by the state. Cayman, and the laws of almost all other countries allow the state to discriminate using age as a criterion for granting or withholding permission to marry. One still has to apply for permission and pay the relevant fees. Cayman has decided not to grant permission for same-sex couples to marry. I see no problem here. Those who kick against the mores of our society and the way our laws accommodate those mores and proscribe same-sex marriage, may exercise a freedom they do have: the freedom to leave and find the libertine utopia of their dreams in which they can marry, bear children and live happily ever after. Uhh…marry and be happy anyway. God/Mother Nature/ Evolution (pick one) has rained on their family “rights” and put a big kibosh on them bearing children. The voice and spirit of the people of these islands is contained in our Constitution. Unless and until the people of the Cayman Islands decide to change the Constitution, may the voice of the people prevail.

    • Anon says:

      Sorry, but there are some rights that are God-given like right to life, freedom of speech, and to voice your conscience. These rights can never be compared to “gay rights.”

      • Anonymous says:

        @1:36 – please point me to the Bible verse of these “God given rights”. As far as I am aware, according to the Bible there is no God given right to the right to life, freedom of speech and to voice you conscious. Those are rights made and given by man. Not God.

        But I stand to be corrected if you can show me where in the Bible God has given us the “rights”.

        • Rick says:

          Law from the bible, “Thou shalt not kill.” Translation, everyone has the right to life, given by the law of God through Moses to man. Man does not have the right to take life, only God has the right to take your life.

          • Anonymous says:

            Incorrect. The right to life even in the context of Scripture is conditional to being deserving of that right: it is not an absolute or unconditional right and is subject to being forfeit. The Bible contains several conditions under which the right to life may be terminated. The Bible commands subjection to the powers that be and grants them the power of capital punishment. “Thou shalt not kill” is backed up by Genesis 9:6 (RSV) “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;” If you are going to prophesy, I shall suggest you abide by 2 Timothy 2:15 (NAS) “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth”. You totally butchered the commandment against murder.

      • Anonymous says:

        Does your God confer a duty to spitefully obstruct loving folks that haven’t or shouldn’t invite you to their 10 minute vow exchange? I think there’s quite a bit in the Bible about spite and malice, and also about being guided by your local laws, which, if you check now provide for civil unions in line with ECHR. I think you’ll also find that malice is not a teaching of Jesus, or a qualifying preoccupation for admission to the Kingdom of Heaven, if we’re really so interested in keeping score of that stuff.

        • Anonymous says:

          They are talking about inherent rights of man. But don’t let that get in the way of your god rant.

          • Anonymous says:

            From whence do the “inherent rights of man” come?
            Who specifies and administers these rights?
            What makes then “inherent”?
            Are they absolute and unconditional?
            If not absolute and unconditional, who decides on the constraints and conditions?

    • Anonymous says:

      Put into paragraphs, please. You lost me after 3 lines.

    • Rick says:

      So you believe that just because a law says you do not have a right, or mitigates your right, your God-given rights no longer exist? Then you wasted a lot of money on education and ink on frustration. No law changes your God-given rights; they just interfere with them and only temporarily. The law will not stand, because natural law will win in the end.

      • Anonymous says:

        @4:19 pm
        Ok. Fair enough. We hear the term “God-given rights” bandied about tither and yon by all sides of the debate. Often from those who have not the foggiest idea of the nature of what they are talking about.
        Here are my challenge questions if you use the term “God-given rights”:
        1. From whom cometh these God-given rights?
        2. a)How do you know they are God-given? b)What is your evidence?
        3. If there are God-given rights, then it follows that there are God-given responsibilities related to those rights, and God-given modes of administration of those rights. Where might we find expository documentation explaining the God-given responsibilities and God-given modes of administration of those rights?
        4. a) Who is responsible for administering those rights and ensuring those who enjoy their God-given rights are held to account regarding their responsibilities in exercising those rights?
        b)What is your evidence?
        If you cannot answer these questions then you likely wasted a lot of money on education.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you 14/03/22 7:35 pm! Perfectly said. You expressed my thoughts on this topic much more eloquently than I could.

  13. Anonymous says:

    The constant name-calling, the disparagement of others, notice what side it falls on.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yep, religious attacks against Caymanians taunting us for believing about “an invisible person in the sky”!

    • Anonymous says:

      I find it disgusting that someone can get away with raping a minor, he walks around with all his rights, the security guard is a waste of time being a security guard, yet two people who take care of themselves, the law can decide how they should live. Cayman is one of the most backwards country there is…get your priorities straight.

      • Anonymous says:

        The law dictates how all of us live. That is how society operates. There are no absolute freedoms. Liberty is an illusion inculcated by (and controlled by) the laws of “free” society.

        • Anonymous says:

          The law is made by 20% of Cayman residents. Time to pack up expats, go find a safe civilised country

        • Last Zion says:

          That’s not correct… there are absolute freedoms enshrined by the Bill of Rights.. the Right to life and Freedom from Torture are two such absolute rights.

          • Anonymous says:

            Incorrect. The right to life is is subject to the constraint of law and may be forfeit under the prescribed circumstances:
            From the Constitution:
            2.—(1) Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.
            (2) No person shall intentionally be deprived of his or her life.
            (3) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his or her life in contravention of
            this section if he or she dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are
            permitted by law, of such force as is absolutely necessary—
            (a) for the defence of any person from violence;
            (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
            (c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny;
            or if he or she dies as a result of a lawful act of war”
            I shall suggest you keep up.
            Again, for the slow class: There are NO absolute rights. All rights are subject to the constraints of law.

            • Anonymous says:

              Just my right to call you a pompous ass. That is without any legal constraint whatsoever.

              • Anonymous says:

                Awwwuhhh! Is that all you have? Just a pitiful empty-handed little hissy? My my myyy…(smh+lol) Take a deep breath, smile and go get a cookie and you will feel all better. I take “pompous ass” as a compliment because in the vernacular of the benighted it is synonymous with “One who rightly proclaims the truth, so I will have a hissy because I cannot refute it”. Thank you for the words of encouragement!

      • Anonymous says:

        Backwards you say? Yet people come and don’t want to leave. They come and want to change Cayman to be a place like what they left. So hypocritical. If people don’t like it here they can leave to more “accepting” places.

  14. Anonymous says:

    A couple of decades ago, women could not hold political office as it was against “tradition”.

    Fear not ladies, society will continue to evolve.

    • Anonymous says:

      A bit of false equivalence, no? Women comprise about half of humanity and participate in the reproductive process. A small minority incapable of reproducing will have a steep uphill battle effecting Constitutional change based on a shift in the fundamental mores of our society.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow. Do you understand that you are talking about fellow human beings? Your hatred is impalpable.

      • Anonymous says:

        I am an expat. We constitute more than half the population and happily engage in the reproductive process. Under your principles we should get the vote too.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, in your case you are a majority incapable of voting because our Constitution excludes you unless you otherwise qualify. Since you are incapable of voting you will have a steep uphill battle effecting Constitutional change.

    • Anonymous says:

      “A couple of decades ago”


    • Anonymous says:

      You underestimate Cayman society. Don’t forget it’s the bigots here that own the key to power. This Government certainly won’t upset its voting public, whatever their bigoted, irrational beliefs. Caymanians first remember!

  15. Anonymous says:

    It’s time for all the self professed Christians to get their heads out of the bible and start acting like Jesus.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jesus was and is clearly against all forms of sexual sin, including homosexuality.

      • Anonymous says:

        Can you please quote where in the Bible this is written? To my knowledge, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. It only appears in Deuteronomy along with other, very ridiculous “sins”.

        • Anonymous says:

          Jesus Himself observed the Jewish laws.

          • Anonymous says:

            Please show me where he said something about being against homosexuality. chapter and verse please. Either you can do that or you concede the point

            • Anonymous says:

              Firstly, Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman…. Matthew 15: 19-20 Jesus included sexual immorality in a list of those things that defile a person. 1 Corinthians 7:2 states that because of the existence of sexual immorality each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Romans 1:24-32 states homosexuality is a sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states homosexuality is sexual immorality. Secondly, it is simple-minded to say that because someone never spoke on a topic means that they don’t have a position on that topic. Jesus didn’t speak on a lot of things that we all know and accept in our spirits are wrong, the difference with this is that many refuse to listen to their spirits. Lastly, the entire Bible is the word of God, not just the red letters.

              • Anonymous says:

                Matthew 19:4-6 “4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

                Does this eliminate any other relationship from also being valid? If so explain how. I stress “what God has joined together”

                • Anonymous says:

                  Some clarification is needed:
                  What type of “other” relationship(s) are you referring to?
                  Valid in the eyes of whom?

          • Anonymous says:

            so its not in the bible, just an interpretation, which can be interpreted in many ways.

            Its interesting that the most mentioned sin in the bible is usury, yet we have a whole sector in Cayman providing funds to Cayman from usury (or your interpretation of usury in the bible).

            It seems the greatest sins are applauded in Cayman, yet it is a place of “Christian values”

            • Anonymous says:

              You fail to fully exegete the passages relating to usury. The admonition against usury was in regard to the mandate to offer a charitable (interest-free) loan to a “brother”. However, “interest-free” did not mean without obligation, to wit:
              A charitable loan had the following features:
              1. There was no interest payment.
              2. It was a moral mandate.
              3. If the borrower defaulted, he could be sold into slavery.
              4. It had a six-year limit, as did the duration of the slavery.
              5. The creditor had to supply trade tools to the indentured servant at the end of the period of slavery.
              6. The day of release was prescribed to be the Yom Kippur in the sabbatical year
              This is laid out in Deuteronomy 15:1-7 and Leviticus 25:1-9.
              So if you want the banks to attend to Charity Lending as per the Biblical mandate, be prepared for slavery. However, (as I have the patience for only so much spoon-feeding) you may do your own Bible study for the framework of commercial loans and loans not from brethren to brethren.

      • Anonymous says:

        Leave Jesus out of your hateful discriminatory business. He would never judge two people in love.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jesus was queer as they come. Prove me wrong.

        • Anonymous says:

          Straw-man argument. Childish as they come. Prove that he is gay since you are the one making the statement.

        • Rick says:

          I invite you to visit the country of Saud or Qatar and make said statement about their Prophet. Say thanks to the Almighty that you live in a peaceful and TOLERANT society, that allows all points of view, including the blasphemous statement that was allowed on this forum.

    • Anonymous says:

      Acting like Jesus? You mean when He made a whip and chased the unrighteous out of the Temple? Hmmmm…

      • Anonymous says:

        They were deemed “righteous” under the religion of the day.

        • Anonymous says:

          Exactly. The “religious” society had so far departed into Godlessness that they were tolerant of that which was worthy of judgement. Perhaps our Christ-claiming society could learn from this lesson. Tolerance is often the camouflage for evil.

    • Anonymous says:

      You don’t have to be a Christian to be against gay marriage.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The Chief Justice has spoken
    The Court of Appeal has spoken
    The Cayman Island Government has spoken
    And now the Privy Council has spoken

    And now we the people of Cayman are just saying “Amen”

  17. Anonymous says:

    Please do not forget that our constitution is written the way it is because the UDP members (Big Mac and his fries) of the 2008/9 LA refused to agree to ANY advancement unless this section was as it is.
    Hopefully more adanced MP’s will simply amend the marriage law to allow persons in love to commit to each other. What is there to be afraid of?

    • Anonymous says:

      Laws of any country cannot circumvent the conciliation of that country. The Privy Council has made it clear that the constitution was written to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Therefore any change to the marriage law will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down upon challenge.

      • Anonymous says:

        The Privy Council judgement expressly states that the constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriage and that the Cayman Islands parliament can legislate to provide same-sex marriage. Please do not comment if you have not read the judgement.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Social media is swarmed with ignorance yet again. Most of those bitter bigots never comment on anything apart from same sex marriage issues. Come on, use internet and learn some basics which you preach : Sodom, not Sadom, definitely not Sadam. Good Lord that ignorant illiteracy is tiring. Read a book or something. Learn something practical. And come up with something better already than Adam and Steve. Use brain. Ooh …

  19. Anonymous says:

    This is wonderful news!

    • Anonymous says:

      For all those whom love double standards and oppression…

    • Anonymous says:

      Best news in a very long time. Thanks be to God 🙏🏼, common sense has prevailed.

      • Last Zion says:

        Invoking god and saying “common sense”… this could have only been worse if you said that the decision was rationale and then invoked god…

      • Anonymous says:

        Please explain to me how does it make your life better? Unless you relish in the misery of others?

  20. Anonymous says:

    I am thrilled that the Privy Council upheld the CI constitution. For those who do not like this ruling, you may be thankful one day that your constitutional rights are upheld by this same constitution.

    The Caribbean is still very conservative and I suspect even if this went to a referendum vote, it would be voted down.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not if the Caribbean territory, specifically like the Cayman Islands, has very liberal immigration laws which make it easy for expats to become Caymanian which carry with it the right to vote.

      In the end, numbers is the only thing that counts in a referendum vote.

      And if the Census proves what everyone already knows that there are more new Caymanians being granted Caymanian Status, then they probably have the majority numbers to carry a referendum vote since generational Caymanians are already outnumbered in our own homeland.

      And since it’s a democracy where the majority votes win, be careful about thinking that this ruling means we’re in the clear.


  21. Anonymous says:

    Meanwhile, seven years ago…

    What’s the hold up Mr. Premier? Your words are empty and meaningless.

    • Anonymous says:

      What exactly do you want Mr. Premier to do? The former Premier brought a bill for domestic partnerships (not same sex marriage) and it was voted down. Dwayne, Julie and Kenneth already voted against a domestic partnership bill.

      Here is a little history lesson for you taken from

      On 6 October 2016, the Legislative Assembly of the Cayman Islands voted against holding a referendum on the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The proposal was voted down 8–9. It was filed by MLA Anthony Eden after the Immigration Appeals Tribunal ruled to allow the same-sex partner of a work permit holder to remain in the Cayman Islands as a dependent on his or her partner’s permit. Premier Alden McLaughlin expressed his opposition to the referendum proposal.

      In the weeks prior to the 2017 elections, legal expert Dr Leo Raznovich invited same-sex couples on the island to challenge the implicit ban on same-sex marriage in Cayman law, arguing the lack of express prohibition in the Constitution and local legislation to same-sex marriage triggers sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution. A domestic partnership bill was introduced to the Legislative Assembly on 26 June 2020. The legislation would allow same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register a domestic partnership, and enjoy several of the rights and benefits of marriage. Governor Martyn Roper called it “a welcome step on the path to ensuring that the rights of everyone in the territory are upheld and that Cayman law is compliant with the recent ruling of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal”.

      The bill was rejected by a 8–9 vote on 29 July. MLA Kenneth Bryan who had previously expressed support for the bill eventually voted against it, causing it to fail.

      Premier McLaughlin repeatedly indicated during the bill’s debate that failure to pass it would likely result in the Government of the United Kingdom stepping in and imposing domestic partnerships or same-sex marriage on the Cayman Islands.

      On 30 July, Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Stephen Doughty wrote to UK Overseas Territories Minister Baroness Sugg urging Her Majesty’s Government to step in. On 5 August, Baroness Sugg approved the use of the Governor’s reserved powers under section 81 of the Constitution of the Cayman Islands to enact a law recognising same-sex civil partnerships. On 10 August, Governor Martyn Roper published a new version of the domestic partnership bill, along with consequential amendments to eleven other laws, that he would enact into law following a 21-day public consultation period. Following the consultation, the title was changed from “domestic partnership” to “civil partnership”.

      On 4 September 2020, Governor Roper assented to the Civil Partnership Law, 2020 and 11 consequential pieces of legislation which came into effect on the same day. Under the changes, civil partners are allowed to jointly adopt, share health insurance, immigrate together and enjoy other rights extended to married couples. Civil partnerships are open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Premier McLaughlin said he felt “utterly humiliated” that because of the Assembly’s failure to pass the bill, as required by the Court of Appeal, the UK Government had been forced to intervene. On 29 October 2020, Samantha Louise Erksine and Alice Hillman Lopez became the first couple in the Cayman Islands to enter a civil partnership.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Wayne Panton

    “What would [a referendum] resolve? I’ve heard comments from the other side … that it’s time to put this issue through the ultimate democratic process, to a referendum, and resolve it one way or another and put an end to it. How does a referendum put an end to an issue which involves real people, human beings, how they feel, how they’re born? …

    “It is no different from whether you’re born with brown skin or light skin, or you’re short or tall or any other feature.”

    • Anonymous says:

      Democratic? Only 20% of Cayman can vote

      • Anonymous says:

        Where else in the world can you go and vote in another country’s elections..not even the USA would allow such foolishness.think before you speak and this has nothing to with the topic at hand and strictly with you thinking you can vote in our elections without being a Caymanian, be it born or status holder.

        • Last Zion says:

          This is not correct… if you are Irish, you can voke in the UK’s elections if you live there. If you are a commonwealth citizen and you live in the UK, you can vote there as well.

          if you are a BOTC or PR holder, you should be able to vote in Cayman.

          • Anonymous says:

            Well, that’s one opinion.

          • Anonymous says:

            Why should we allow BOTC or PR holders to vote? Commonwealth membership is confined to sovereign countries only; therefore, Caymanians not having been granted British citizenship, have no right to vote in UK elections.

    • Anonymous says:

      The whole world doesn’t evolve around gayness. Stop trying to make it so.

  23. Anonymous says:

    If gays want to marry just go somewhere that allows it. Cayman is not there yet.

    Similarly the crimlization of Marijuana consumption is outlawed here unlike the rest of the world.

    Cayman is not there yet.

    Imagine how Elvis feels.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Wayne be the change you want to see. Amend the outdated constitution bring us out of the dark ages. Criminals enter our country everyday. Marry Caymanians and are entitled to benefits/rights. Why? Oh yeah right because they are straight. Law abiding self sufficient Caymanians are not entitled to the same because they are gay. How backward is that?

    • Anonymous says:

      Or pretend to be straight. As often the case.

    • Anonymouse says:

      Dark Ages….. Is there not a Civil Partnership in place now…… Which is the same thing. Are you waiting for a single word that makes the same thing the same thing?

      That webpage didn’t appear suddenly. Turn on your flashlight. Switch mode to rainbow and see what was created to make you happy. There is your piece of cake so try it out. Even cis gendered heterosexuals can use it too. Mmmmm mmmmmm delicious.

      • Anonymous says:

        Your opinion doesn’t really matter, Gods WORD say’s it’s a SIN, I Believe it and that should be the end of it. And now our Constitution protected us and Privy Council upheld it. God is good all the time !!
        I am sending prayers to you and remember Jesus Love You 😍

        • Anonymous says:

          Jesus loves you? Even if you are Gay? Thought it was a sin? Mixed messages – much

        • Anonymous says:

          God is indeed good! Now let’s get after those who trim their beard, eat fruit off a tree within 4 years of planting, and enough of this wearing mixed fabric in clothing! Especially let’s get rid of those who mistreat foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”

      • Anonymous says:

        If it were the same thing, then why all this opposition?!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Banana republic where’s the Cayman kind here absolutely disgusting its 2022 not 1972

    • Anonymous says:

      Don’t like the way we think or our Beliefs, then I pray you a fully vaccinated and may you find peace and comfort in your next choice of destination, or better yet ‘when in Rome you do as the Romans’, join them don’t try to change them. God is love ❤️

  26. Anonymous says:

    Once again Cayman proves why it needs to be managed from afar and cannot be trusted with its backwards beliefs and bigotry.
    Your (made up) ‘god’ apparently created all beings, including those who are LGBTQIA+

    You can’t have it both ways people

    • Anonymous says:

      We have been fine without you for 500 years.

    • Anonymous says:

      @2:49: Benighted people often use your line of thought. However, I shall proffer that God created people to feel emotions. One such emotion is anger. However, God expects that His people will exercise control over their emotions and not allow rage to spawn action in the form of committing mayhem upon others for no justifiable reason. By the same token, God created sexual attraction, but He expects humans to be master of their desires and not give way to base desires resulting in prohibited behaviour. So your argument fails. The prevailing Christian belief is that marriage is a sacred union between members of the opposite sex. Any abrogation of this is allowing base desires to cause sinful actions. According to your logic it would be ok for me to commit mayhem upon you because God created me to feel rage and so I can act upon my base feeling–the rage– rather than control it as He commands. The Bible sets forth what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Regardless of how He “made” us, He expects that we will control our base desires and not act upon them contrary to His precepts.

    • Anonymous says:

      As part of the way the Cayman Islands are “managed from afar” we are subject to the rulings of the Privy Council. Guess what, BoBo? The Privy Council said our constitution prevails in the prohibition of gay marriage. BOOM!

  27. Slacker says:

    Piece of shit constitution, (in more ways than just this) which is why I voted against it.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I support this decision 100 %.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Chants and Vickie, we support you as do many other people. If it takes a referendum to change the Constitution so be it, we will definitely vote for it.
    Aunty Jacqui

  30. Anonymous says:

    This is what you get when you let kooky medievalists preachers help write a society’s constitution. It’s the gift of hate and ignorance that keeps on giving.


    • Anonymous says:

      Multiple public meetings were held in each district and people were invited to make verbal and written input into the drafting of the new constitution. To imply that preachers had inordinate influence is the false whinging of those suffering from posterior discomfiture. If preachers gave input it is because they had no less right to express their views than anyone else. Our Constitution is a document of, by and for the people of the Cayman Islands. This is the document that people gave permission to set forth how they would be governed. That governance does not include same-sex marriage.

  31. Anonymous says:

    why is everyone here more upset about gay people not being able to legally marry (which really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things), and these same people don’t care that the cayman government shut borders for two years, restricted the most fundamental human right that is freedom of movement, and destroyed the tourism industry, for what essentially is the flu?

    I don’t expect any of these people to actually respond to my comment with any facts, I already know any responses will be emotionally charged “But I feel”…

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, 2:22, for starters, because it wasn’t “essentially….the flu”. But you don’t sound like the sort of person to argue science/medicine with so I’ll leave it at that.

      • Anonymous says:

        3:41pm – your statement “you don’t sound like the sort of person to argue science/medicine”

        you are the type of buffoon who would have burned someone alive for saying the earth isn’t the center of the universe 1000 years ago.

        science is about proving/disproving hypothesises with data. If you stopped watching CNN (propoganda that makes money from views/clicks), you would realize that the survival rate of covid is 99.999%

        You are pathetic.

        • Anonymous says:

          Survival rate is 99.999%?

          Well one thing you have just proved is that @3:41 was exactly right.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen. The two are not related. One could be equally upset about the border regulations! Or more, or less… there is no correlation.
      Imagine saying that you can either be upset about covid related issues, or environmental ones, but not both!

  32. Anonymous says:

    Cayman Islands Constitution:

    14. – (1) Government shall respect the right of every unmarried man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by law) freely to marry a person of the OPPOSITE SEX and found a family.

    As mentioned many times before this even went to the privy council, the constitution would need to be amended or legislation would need to be passed for same sex marriage to be a thing in the Cayman Islands.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, people dont understand that however.

      You cant just have the court change a constitution. It doesn’t work like that. The first instance ruling is incompatible with the constitution, the constitution must prevail.

      • Anonymous says:

        We don’t have a constitution, understand that.

      • Anonymous says:

        Worked for the democrats when it came to stealing an election, changing the voting laws that were set via the constitution, most of those around here pushing for gay marriage and trying to destroy the constitution would be those same democrats, liberal supporters, they have no care for the laws of the country unless they control the laws, as they say, “by any means necessary”

    • Anonymous says:

      Just want to point out that same sex marriage is not incompatible with the constitution as written. It’s just not explicitly endorsed. But the constitution is not written in such a way as to explicitly prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex.

      • Anonymous says:

        More sophistry. The constitution explicitly defines marriage in terms that do not include persons of the same sex. You may as well argue it doesn’t prohibit marriage between houseplants. When the scope of marriage is explicitly defined there is no need to list all the many things that are not included.

      • Its the law. says:

        That is not what the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council said. And that is not what the Constitution says. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights expressly states that – “Government shall respect the right of every unmarried man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by law) freely to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family.”

    • Anonymous says:

      “respect the right of” not “shall grant exclusively the right to” – respecting a right means ensuring that right always exists. How does expanding the scope of persons that are able marry so as to include persons of the same-sex disrespect or stop opposite-sex couples from marrying?? Why do two people that love each other and want to commit to each other for life in the same way stop or harm anyone else from marrying?!?

      • Anonymous says:

        The constraint is expressed in the clause “…to freely to marry a person of the opposite sex…” One more time for the slow class: The only right recognised is the right to “marry a person of the opposite sex.”

        • Anonymous says:

          Same-sex civil unions are an ECHR civil right. Nothing anyone here can do about that reality except to impose desperate and antiquated obstructions to the associated 10 minute beach vow exchange at the private event none of you were invited to. Get a life you jerks.

          • Anonymous says:

            Once more time for the slow class and purveyors of lies:
            No law in the Cayman Islands prohibits or obstructs a private (or public) vow exchange ceremony.
            Do better and learn the truth.
            Same-sex civil unions are provided for under law in the Civil Partnerships Law. 1.Enter into a civil partnership.
            2.Invite people to your wedding.
            3.Exchange vows.
            4.Kiss and proclaim yourselves to be married if you wish.
            5.Enjoy your honeymoon.
            [Be happy. At least you do not have to worry about unwanted pregnancy.]

    • Anonymous says:

      Read the judgement. It expressly states at the end that the constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriage.

      • Anonymous says:

        For the slow class:
        In its judgment, the Privy Council found that the right to marry in the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights was “drafted in highly specific terms to make it clear that it is a right ‘freely to marry a person of the opposite sex’… [I]t is obvious that this language has been used to emphasise the limited ambit of the right and to ensure that it could not be read as capable of covering same-sex marriage.” The Privy Council concurred with the prohibition.

  33. Anonymous says:

    its like one step forward, two steps backwards around here.
    over to you wayne and governor….

  34. Concerned and outraged says:

    An absolute shame, an indictment of Perfidious Albion and their treachery to upholding international human rights law. Just another example of our continued bad relationship with the so-called ‘mother country’ – they will not support our rights but will happily interfere whenever they want (beneficial ownership registry?). Cayman should cast aside Perfidious Albion and refocus our relationship towards self-sufficiency and supporting our Caribbean brothers.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please remember to take your medication daily. Seems you must have forgot today.

    • Anonymous says:

      It was your Cayman Ministers Association who insisted on this wording in the Constitution. Maybe they should refocus their attention on not taking away rights from their fellow Caymanians?

      • Anonymous says:

        That is a silly premise. What rights were taken away? There was no provision under the old constitution that bestowed a right for same-sex couples to marry. One has no rights except as the law provides. It is the Constitution that bestows and protects rights. You speak as if people had inherent rights separate from the body of law. This is not so. The right to marry is not a right that transcends the law. The Constitution is clear as to who has a right to marry: an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

        • Anonymous says:

          Faced with a choice between making marriage available to all, or only a certain segment of society, the CMA insisted on the latter. To suggest that in doing so they did not take rights away from some Caymanians is sophistry at best. As a matter of basic legal principle, unless something is prohibited, it is permitted.

          • Anonymous says:

            Where your specious argument fails is that you cannot demonstrate that same sex marriage was ever a legal “right” in Cayman Islands. In order for something to be “taken away” it must have been in actual existence in the first place.

  35. Candid says:

    The judgement is good in that it is a correct interpretation of the Constitution. The Chief Justice’s judgement has not been approved by two higher courts, a total of 8 senior
    judges. The real question now is whether Cayman or the UK is ready to amend the law to make same-sex marriage legal.

  36. Anonymous says:


  37. Anonymous says:

    Sounds good to me. Civil unions accomplish the same thing. It would be even better if the laws passed by the people or their representatives were followed, rather than the dictates of the unelected Governor. It amazes me that the LGBTQIA+ people would impose their agenda by any means available against the will of the people.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve says the court and I agree.

    Saying Homo couples should be able to marry like Hetero couples because we are all humans is like saying an apple is an orange because they are both fruits.

    Gay marriage No, civil unions Yes.

    • Anonymous says:

      I appreciate the effort it must have taken to come up with such a terrible analogy

      • Anonymous says:

        I appreciate your opinion of my analogy. Even though it’s hard to for you to swallow the courts decision it is a correct interpretation of the law.

        What concerns me more is the children envolved who are led to believe this is normal.

        For analogy sake, the point I was trying to make is that one of these things is not like the other so how can they be viewed the same.

        A hetero couple can procreate whereas a homo couple will have to adopt unless children are already involved.

        To me children are like sponges, if we keep placing this before them as an acceptable practice then obviously they will be biased to becoming gay.

        I accept gay people but I don’t think it is right or what God intended for humanity.

        • Anonymous says:

          @4.10 Wow! Just wow! The level of ignorance you’ve just displayed is truly off the scale. Being brought up by a gay couple means the child will be gay? Quite incredible stupidity there. And your last sentence is equally as dumb. You definitely DON’T accept the LGBT community with langauge like ‘homo’.

          You’re certainly correct on one thing though. Children are like sponges. And they’ll absorb hate, intolerance, bigotry and loathing just like you did. Crawl back to your 15th century cave please and let the world keep revolving. And please don’t procreate either.

        • Anonymous says:

          East End facility can’t open soon enough.

        • Anonymous says:

          The court plainly failed to apply relevant equality protections of the bill of rights to the marriage laws that functionally execute the right to marry separately from it’s judgement on the right to marry for opposite sex couples as it ruled doesn’t protect same-sex couples.

          Such a judgement, rather obviously, does not provide any legal basis to exclude laws that enforce that in one way or another partly or completely enforce a constitutional right from still being subject to other parts of the constitution.

          The court ignored this legal argument in it’s entirety despite it being readily presented by the plaintiffs in both this case and the Bermudan case, instead falsely treating it as if the plaintiffs attempted to cross-apply different constitutional rights directly onto each-other. – While the reality is that both attempted paths just simply had the same functional outcome of mandating same-sex marriage be legalised, had they been successful in court.

          In doing this, the court basically created a baseless, unconstitutional and complete exception to the general applicability of the constitutional equality provisions as it pertains to the rights granted in the law if/when those rights aren’t themselves explicitly constitutionally protected. You know: The constitutional equality provisions that are supposed to make sure that rights granted by law, rather then constitution, don’t discriminate.

          I very much disagree with you here that the courts decision is a correct interpretation of the law: While I agree with the court that the specific article relating to the right to marry, only appears to protect opposite-sex marriages, the same cannot be said for the courts decision to fail to apply equality protections to the laws which happen to execute that right. I firmly believe this ruling explicitly contradicts the constitution.

        • Anonymous says:

          Eve was technically a transgender clone, but I guess they don’t teach you that at Sunday school.

          • Anonymous says:

            This is how I would teach it to my Sunday School class: Where the silly “transgender Eve drivel fails is that the benighted ones who blather that tripe do so thusly: “God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into a woman.” In order to further their codswallop they must assume that God could not or did not simply do what God does best and executed a miracle by entirely transcending the laws of genetics. No transgendering is needed by an omnipotent deity thank-you-very-much. The whole creation story is one of miracles, yet the pernicious purveyors of the “Transgender Eve” twaddle must constrain a miracle of God by the laws of genetics in order to further their twisted narrative. Recall that in creating Adam, God took of the clay of the earth and transcended the laws of chemistry and physics and biology by fashioning a man and giving life where there was no life. So technically Adam was a transubstantiated rock? Where does folly end with the transgender guff? Now, where the “transgender Eve” malarkey is exposed for being dung and actually indicts the whole deluded movement is this: if Eve was the perfect woman, she had the genotype of a female. Thus, she was neither a clone nor transgender. In this light, the main confoundation of transgender “women” is that they do not, cannot, will never, possess the genotype of a female, they are usually all male. Thus, equating a perfect biological female, Eve, with a woman-wannabe male is a tad bit disingenuous at best. (As for pronouns, I call males “he”). With that, I bid all adieu.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually that isn’t what the Court said at all, but it would be asking too much for you to actually read the judgment. It simply said that gay marriage was currently prevented as a matter of law by the wording of the Constitution, wording which was inserted at the demand of what passes for religious leadership on the islands. They should be ashamed.

    • Anonymous says:

      If anyone ever questions the education levels of the average anti- gay marriage nut please direct them this way

  39. knighthood says:

    It’s a sad day for Cayman. However, cheers for the tremendous courage of Vickie and Chantelle. They deserve a knighthood a lot more than the former premier.

  40. Anonymous says:

    What a backwards hateful country this is.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Bigotry wins.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous says:
    26/02/2022 at 7:54 pm
    Sorry, the UK can walk and chew gum at the same time (we hope). This matter was in the judicial/courts, it is being slowed down for political reasons.

    And as for Island Pace… That is a term referring to Caymanians from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s not exerting themselves – I resent that! Any attempt to portray it for vacationers is simply that! Does not apply to us.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, it applies to many of us. I still believe it is about 90%. I still think it is a large part of their upbringing by their parents……….. but I could be wrong. Maybe ii’s inherited.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Heart breaking news for you all. I really hope one day all of this nonsense is behind you and you can live happily and equally .

    • anonymous says:

      By “all of this nonsense” I suppose you must be referring to the clearly expressed will of the Caymanian people. Sounds like the thinking of a tyrant, to me. Thank God we live in a democracy.

    • Anonymous says:

      Let’s vote on it & see – but allow all residents to vote. After all, they all have to live according to the laws here.

    • Anon says:

      It is not heartbreaking. Stop being dramatic. They are living together in peace and have a child. And the governor passed civil partnership. What else do you people want? Next it will be the gender transformation garbage…this is the right decision for this country, it is for each country to define marriage as they wish.

      • Anonymous says:

        I feel sorry for you and your backward thinking. There is no hope for you if you don’t feel any empathy for these people. No hope at all.

        • Anonymous says:

          Just because it doesn’t agree with your opinion does not make it backward, just different than yours.

      • Anonymous says:

        Let’s deconstruct your logic: Why are two committed, civilly-unioned, partners so adamantly not allowed to invite their own guests and family to a private beachside ceremony to express their emotional vows to each other? Why does that 10-15 minute ceremony affect all these spiteful cretins that weren’t invited? I doubt they want your zany minister to play the role of the Officient. What then is the grounds of the objection? (a) you won’t be invited, and (b) if you were invited in error, and can’t suppress your own inner jerk, and be happy for a couple taking that leap together, don’t come!

        • Anonymous says:

          Let’s deconstruct your lie: Nowhere under our laws are two committed, civilly-unioned, partners adamantly not allowed to invite their own guests and family to a private beachside ceremony to express their emotional vows to each other.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not. You lot are a dying bigot breed.

      • Anonymous says:

        Funny how the word bigot always comes up when associated with the gay thing. Do you know what it means? I would be happy for a referendum because I am confident the constitutional definition of marriage would be upheld, but you would probably still whinge. When do you start your campaign in Muslim countries that throw gays off buildings? Seems to be a much bigger problem than a definition of marriage.

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.