Editorial | Well done, Pope Francis

Pope Francis’ greenlight to Roman Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples is not the same as endorsing gay marriage. It is nonetheless an important acknowledgement that love cannot be constrained by bigotry or artificial barriers, and is always worthy of grace and divine favour.

With respect to Jamaica, the Pope’s action is hopefully an invitation to deep reflection on the inherent right of citizens to privacy and freedom of association, as well as for a retreat from the vengeful God of fire and brimstone, and the abandonment of the legal voyeurism that keeps in place the law against anal sex, otherwise called buggery. At this point in the 21st century, the State should have no interest in peeping into people’s bedrooms, or any wish to determine the sexual preferences or practices of consenting adults.

As is constitutionally decreed in Jamaica, the Roman Catholic Church still, despite action by Pope Francis, adheres to a concept of marriage as a union between a man and woman – a sacrament ordained by God.

But on Monday, the 87-year-old Pope, in line with his still-evolving pastoral mission, reversed the Church’s position against blessing same-sex couples – which, essentially, is an act aimed at bringing its recipients into a sacred, spiritual relationship with the Divine.

But the Vatican made it clear that blessing same-sex couples should not be conflated with the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, to make that distinction between the same-sex blessings and the rites associated with the sacrament of marriage, the Vatican stipulated that blessing same-sex couples should not happen at ceremonies to formalise civil or same-sex unions. Neither should it take place, or in circumstances, where there are “clothing, gestures or words that are proper to a wedding”.

Restrictions apart, the Pope’s decision breaks new ground and further underlines the pontiff’s deep appreciation and acceptance of people’s humanity. No matter how flawed, it is worthy of grace.

For as the Vatican observed in its decree: “When people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. The grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous, but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else.”

EXPLICIT INFRINGEMENT

In Jamaica the anti-gay movement remains strong. These days it transcends street culture. Increasingly, it is led by American-supported, fundamentalist Christian organisations and churches. The language of the domestic debate largely echoes that of America’s culture wars around opposition to the expansion of gay rights and abortion and liberal education.

Under the nearly 160-year-old Offences Against the Person Act, people who engage in anal sex – or the “unnatural” and “abominable crime” of buggery, as it is termed in the law – can be jailed for up to 10 years.

It does not matter whether they are consenting adults, or a husband and wife engaging in sex in the privacy of their home. The State, notwithstanding, commands a right to be a Peeping Tom, and if it so inclined, to haul the ‘offenders’ before the courts.

It matters naught that the law has not been used in this fashion for a long spell. The fact that it exists is an explicit infringement of a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, freedom of association, and free expression.

But infringement of rights is permissible because, as the Constitutional Court recently held, the buggery legislation is one of the pre-Independence laws protected by a saving clause in Jamaica’s Constitution. It has been used as a cudgel against gay relationships. Although relatively few buggery cases have been brought in recent years, the discrimination and stigma the law encourages often push same-sex relationships into the closet, or prevent gay and other LGBTQ people from using state services, including healthcare, for fear of being ridiculed.

And with seven out of 10 Jamaicans declaring to be against removing the buggery law, or endorsing same-sex unions, the Government believes there is no basis for expending political capital on this matter. There is nothing to be gained, it is felt, in repealing the law. In fact, some politicians perceive it to be a political benefit to promote anti-gay, macho rhetoric.

PRIVATE SEXUAL MORALITY

Yet, courts elsewhere in the Caribbean, particularly in Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, have struck down buggery laws and discrimination based on sexual orientation. And given rulings by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Guyana’s saving clause it is expected that the buggery law will also eventually fall in that country – once it is challenged in the courts.

But it should not be dependent on the courts to repeal laws that are clearly offensive to constitutional rights and freedoms. Doing so is specifically within the gift of Parliament and the leadership of the country.

Indeed, even before the ruling by the Barbadian court that the buggery law was unconstitutional, the country’s prime minister, Mia Mottley, pledged to introduce legislation to legalise same-sex civil unions. Leadership matters!

No one, at this stage, expects Jamaica’s leaders to go even that far. Removing the buggery law would be a start.

It is not the State’s place to operate a Star Chamber on private sexual morality when that behaviour does not infringe the rights of others nor undermine the general mores of the society.