I write to take issue with your SATURDAY SUN editorial, dated December 13, 2014, in which you made a public relations plea for Government to give recognition to same-sex unions in proposed changes to domestic violence legislation.
Government must not support any legislation that seemingly helps or recognises homosexual unions, as such legislation will then be used as the thin edge of a wedge to open the door to homosexual “marriages”. We will be allowing the elephant to put his trunk into the tent before he finally imposes himself.
For it does not take a Queen’s Counsel to argue that if Government tacitly recognises the need to protect people in informal same-sex unions from domestic violence, then Government cannot sensibly “discriminate” against such people in their quests for formal same-sex marriages. Doing so would give rise to an incongruous situation, if having prosecuted a woman for physically abusing her lesbian partner with whom she is in a domestic relationship, the state insisted that they could not legally formalise their domestic relationship in “marriage”, a position that could not withstand a court challenge.
As the situation currently stands, the victim can bring a common assault charge against the perpetrator as would be the case if they were merely room-mates sharing a house. Therefore it is not as if they have no protection under the law. But what is desired by homosexual activists is state recognition of their relationships.
Interestingly enough, these same homosexual activists insist that the gender-neutral buggery law discriminates against them. This suggests some mental confusion.
The Freundel Stuart adminstration must not be conned by your public relations campaign on behalf of homosexual activists. I also wish to congratulate Minister Denis Lowe for protecting the social and moral fabric of this country.
It is shameful that you seek to justify yourself on the basis of the peer pressure argument that other countries are doing it, therefore we must do it too, and by using the most dysfunctional and undesirable aspects of heterosexual relations as a defence.
Additionally, your brandishing of the magic words “discrimination” and “human rights” does not mean that the interests of homosexual activists must take paramountcy over all other considerations. They have conned you into believing that they are victims when indeed they are aggressive challengers.
For it is scandalous to describe a “family” as “man and man” or “woman and woman”. This is equivalent to outfitting a child with two left foot or two right foot shoes; the children know that such relationships are intrinsically wrong. To the question, “Where is your mummy?” the child will then respond, “He is over there”. This is why the children are confused and traumatised for they recognise a lie when they see it.
One expects a more responsible editorial from a leading newspaper.
