There is a big debate raging in our midst which has social, religious, legal and, some may say, moral implications for this society.
We refer to the issue of homosexual orientation, and whether there is, or ought to be, a “right” for people to practise such orientation as consenting adults in private.
Questions of this personal nature which touch upon the moral fabric of the society are not always easy to answer; for what appears to be an answer to the “rights” question may offend those who see the issue purely as one of morality. Usually, that morality is influenced, if not shaped, by reference to the doctrines associated with religion.
So long as we are organized as a society which recognizes the personal freedom of the individual, counterpoised against the duty of each of us not to so follow his personal proclivities when they interfere with the rights of his neighbour, these problems will arise. But in some respects, the current debate does not clearly enough separate the exercise of that individual and personal freedom from the harm which may be caused to the state if such personal freedoms and choices are stretched to the limit.
For many years in this society, we have practised a certain tolerance for those of different sexual orientation. It was something of a “live-and-let live” and the law did not tolerate any criminal harm being caused to those who were different simply because they were different. Nor did the law tolerate any harm being caused to any other person through the criminal infliction of aspects of that lifestyle on another by any of those of different orientation.
It may be a short step from that approach to ask that the law be changed to allow consenting adults in private to indulge in same-sex relations without fear of the criminal law being invoked if they are caught; but it is an enormous giant step from that position to ask that sexual orientation be recognized by our Constitution as a human right.
That is where the current debate is muddled, because the founding fathers of our Constitution, in our name and on our behalf, decided that sexual orientation was not to be regarded as a fundamental right; and it would be a monstrous act if such a legislative change were done without the fullest and deepest debate in our society.
Let us be clear that we know of no such change, but such a debate should include the church, the law, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and lay people whose reputations as clear-thinking people have been well established.
At the same time, we fully recognize the power residing in our judiciary, after full argument, to correctly interpret the true meaning of our Constitution in keeping with the truth that all constitutions are rightly regarded as living instruments whose true import and relevance to societies can only properly be uncovered against the canvas of contemporary realities in which competing interests of the individual and the state are finely balanced and declared.
But there can be no mistaking the enormity of any decision or act which accords such relations the status of constitutional rights; for that is a very far step from tolerating different orientation or even removing the criminal sting from its practice in private.
We caution against such decisions being taken lightly, fully cognizant that the fabric of the entire society is deeply involved.
