The campaign for the Presidency of the United States becomes more interesting with each passing day. Keen observers always thought that the economy would be a major issue, and that national security would also feature heavily, but within the past seven days, gay rights and whether people of the same sexual orientation should have the legal right to marry has become the major talking point.
Both the vice-president and president have come out in favour of the legal right of gay persons to marry, and analysts and the religious leaders are giving us their opinions. Once again the debate has reached our shores with local antagonists facing off against each other in verbal combat.
These deeply personal decisions of sexual orientation now known as gay rights have been around for a long time, but in recent years the lobby for these rights to be placed on the same legal level as those of the traditional heterosexual couples has gained rapid ascendancy, with many high-profile personalities either speaking out or “coming out” in favour.
We must not bury our heads in the local sand. It is an issue for this country too, with some persistent voices already being heard making the case for such “rights” to be accorded legal approval, and we anticipate that the clamour will be the louder now that President Barack Obama has given his views.
Let us be blunt. There is a copycat element in these small islands that shows that once the Americans or British approve of a course of conduct, then we think it healthy to follow. It may have been cultivated through American cultural penetration, or through British colonialism, but it is a fact of life; and we must guard against it.
There are some matters that transcend national boundaries and the issue of human rights and the different or discriminatory treatment of humans on the basis of colour, faith or gender are generally recognized as repugnant to the usual norms of accepted human conduct.
Battles have been fought on colour, faith and gender and indeed in some parts of this world they continue on these fronts. Sexual orientation is the latest of these battlegrounds, and it may be understandable that a president who practises Christianity will wrestle with the conflict between his faith and his deep training and work as a former professor of constitutional law.
Therein lies the problem, for the religious principle clashes with the legal rights issue, and also implicated are the social, cultural and political issues of the particular country. As we said, the local debate has not been long in starting, and we feel that certain issues should be clear.
Ours is a small country without the several and diverse shapers of opinion. Larger countries have many newspapers and television and radio stations on which all the competing views may be heard. We have to guard against being swamped by a tsunami of one view or other. In the second place, these sensitive issues are personal and national.
At the national level, it is for the collective voice of the people of this island to decide whether they wish to recognize the equality of marriage rights for gay couples. Critical questions will be our size, and our culture. It cannot be a major factor that other countries approve or disapprove; for Independence means that we decide these issues for ourselves as a sovereign nation.
Yet during the course of whatever local debate takes place, we must not forget that deeply embedded in the issue are some of the most personal decisions one can ever make, and that religious and political principles add complexity to an already intricate matter.
President’s Obama’s views are not the last word. Not in this country. Not by a long shot!
