The Caribbean CAUSE congratulates the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the Cayman Islands on their decision to reject the Domestic Partnership Bill. We also encourage the citizens of the Cayman Islands and other territories to seek clarification on some of the terms used by Governor Martyn Roper in his comment on the decision by the MLA. These terms include “human rights”, “rule of law”, “clear legal obligation” and “end discrimination against same sex couples”.
A good place to start is with “human rights”. Where do these come from? Human rights come from the worldview or philosophy within which the state forms its laws and public policies. Within which worldview or philosophy are they constructed in the Cayman Islands and why that particular philosophy? It is clear that the worldview for law and public policy in the Cayman Islands acknowledges design and purpose in the universe because the citizens of the Cayman Islands chose of their own free will to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In a worldview that acknowledges design and purpose, homosexuality is abnormal so there can be no “right” to homosexual behaviour in the Cayman Islands. Such a claim is illogical. The people of the Cayman Islands therefore cannot be bound to the ruling of a court that clearly does not recognize their worldview for law and public policy.
This brings us to “the rule of law”. ‘Rule of law’ means that all persons and institutions are required to obey the law. Does this mean that everyone is obligated to observe any and every ruling a court makes? The answer to that question is No. For example, in seeking to enforce the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Caymanian Court of Appeal relied on a worldview which was completely different from the one on which the Caymanian constitution was based. Had this been successful the Cayman Islands would no longer be a democracy but rather would be under a tyrannical juristocracy. Judicial tyranny is not an aspect of the rule of law.
Since as stated above human rights are framed in the context of a worldview and a court does not have the authority to alter or impose the worldview for law and public policy on the State, the claim that the Cayman Islands have “a clear legal obligation to end discrimination against same sex couples” is not a coherent argument in the context of the world view reflected in the Caymanian constitution.
The Members of the Legislative Assembly who voted against the Domestic Partnership Bill upheld both the rule of law and the democratic tradition in the Cayman Islands by resisting a clearly flawed ruling by the courts. They are to be applauded for their principled stand in the face of the continued use of raw power by advocates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) ideology.
• Jamaica – Dr Wayne West – (876) 372-7304
• Anguilla – Rev. Phillip Gumbs – (264) 476-1156
• Barbados – Dr Veronica Evelyn – (246) 842-8088
• Cayman Islands – Bishop Nicholas Sykes – (345) 916-7373
• Cayman Islands – Ms. Kattina Anglin – (345) 922-6644
• Curacao – Pastor Said Flores – (599) 9560 3911
• Trinidad and Tobago – Bishop Victor Gill – (868) 292-0972