Byron Buckley, News EditorBEFORE JAMAICAN legislators like Delroy Chuck make any move to grant legislative reprieve to homosexuals they should take note of the result of such accommodation in the United States of America (USA).
Mr Chuck, the Opposition spokesman on Justice, sided recently with international and local human rights groups in their call for the Jamaican Government to repeal the buggery law. Chuck argued that as a rule the law should not interfere in sexual or bedroom matters. But Mr. Chuck should think again and consider the effect of such a principle in the USA.
Alerted to the danger of homosexuals tainting the sacred institution of marriage, American voters lurched to the political right in an effort to protect deeply held values. As commentators in the U.S. have noted, by returning George W. Bush to the White House the electorate seemed to have voted against their economic interest, and voted instead for security. This vote for security, I submit, is not only about attacks from terrorists; but, more importantly, attacks from those within their midst who would threaten the social values that underpin their society.
TOLERANT APPROACH
For years lawmakers at the federal and state levels in the U.S. have taken a tolerant approach to homosexuality and its practitioners after all, America is the bastion of liberty in the world! Recall the decision by former President Bill Clinton to shield gays in the U.S. Military by introducing the policy of "don't ask, don't tell". That decision removed, at least officially, discrimination against homosexuals in one of the most conservative of workplaces the military with its macho creed.
Other landmark achievements by the gay community include the election of a few openly gay representatives to Congress, as well as the ordination of an openly gay Episcopalian (Anglican) cleric, Canon Gene Robinson. The latter move caused shock waves in Anglican and wider religious circles worldwide. More concessions to the gay community include the right for couples to enter into civil unions, enabling them to enjoy some privileges that approximate those enjoyed by male/female married couples.
In a recent column, Mr. Chuck tried unsuccessfully to dismiss my arguments in a previous commentary that the law indeed had a place in the bedroom. I cited incest, adultery and paedophilia as examples where the law applied in the bedroom, and hence the law against buggery should remain in force. Chuck, in disagreeing with me, sought to argue that the bases for the legal sanctions against the offences I mentioned had to do with points of law unrelated to sexual preferences. Delroy, my point is: regardless of the basis in law for outlawing paedophilia, incest, bigamy or adultery, these are bedroom activities that fall under the ambit of the law. And the society wants them and buggery to remain there!
LAYMAN REASONING
If my layman reasoning is too simplistic for lawyer Chuck to appreciate, then he should heed the advice of a fellow officer of the court, Shirley Richards. "Let us be very careful for the same argument which is currently being used to decriminalise homosexuality, that is, freedom of choice of the individual (in the bedroom), is the same argument which can be used to decriminalise incest and bigamy," warned Mrs. Richards, an attorney-at-law, in a public affairs piece carried in The Sunday Gleaner of November 28, 2004. Mrs. Richards also cited a 1992 ruling by the Court of Appeal in England which upheld charges under the Offence against the Person Act that were brought against a group of sado-masochists, who willingly commit violent acts during sexual intercourse. Mrs. Richards reported that the court upheld that it "was not in the public's interest that a person should wound or cause actual bodily harm to another for no good reason" even if the victim consented. Anyone understanding the male physiology can see how this case applies to buggery. Nuff said.
Today the call is to repeal the buggery law; tomorrow it may be to allow gay marriages as Americans found out to their horror.
Byron Buckley is a News Editor at The Gleaner.
