Portia's opinion on buggery review mature
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Please allow me to respond to the Letter of the Day in last Thursday's paper with the caption 'Let the people decide'.
I think the writer missed the point totally and should probably go back and watch the clips of the debate. There was absolutely no condescension in what the opposition leader said.
The question posed was in regard to gays in the Cabinet, and a previous comment made by former Prime Minister Bruce Golding.
Her response was mature and appropriate under the circumstances. No one should be chosen for a job based on sexual orientation. It would similarly amount to choosing (or rejecting) an applicant for a job based on address or religion (in which case, maybe the PM wouldn't hold his current position), or whether or not he/she is a parent.
When Mrs Simpson Miller gave her response, she said, "I do not agree with Mr Golding's position." Then, "I think, we should revisit the buggery laws." Where is the condescension in that? 'We' would be represented by the different civic groups or MPs, who would be included in the talks, and I'm sure there would need to be a vote. If the representatives do not agree with the proposal being put forward, they will vote against it.
I wish that sometimes we as a people would pay attention and realise that it is our own individual condescension and prejudices towards our fellow citizens that have resulted in the kind of society that we have. We may not agree with everything our neighbours do, but it is incumbent on us to respect people's choices, as we seek to become a more productive and efficient society.
And let us not forget: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) The 'sin' of the gay person is no different from the sin of lying (and telling duppy stories), stealing or killing.