CAYMAN MINISTERS' ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP LEGISLATION
As we in Cayman continue to grapple with the contentious and divisive
issue of sexuality and gender, in this case framed in the terms of a
domestic partnership bill, let us be aware of some of the pitfalls that
have been strategically placed before us—in particular before our
Parliament. For it is ultimately our elected representatives who
have to run this obstacle course.
The first alarm that we must sound is for us to discern reality from
illusion. The reality is that our Christian heritage and
worldview does clearly hold love as the ultimate ethic behind our
actions. However, we must not allow our concept and application
of love to be reinterpreted by secularists—especially those who have
rejected the truth expressed in the scriptures about the sacredness of
sex and marriage. In particular, if we are to be guided by the
biblical ethic of love, we must start first with what the Lord Jesus
said was the “first and greatest commandment,” to “love the LORD your
God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
mind.” The “second is is like it: love your neighbour as
yourself,” states Jesus. This is not just a sequential
arrangement, but a prioritised arrangement. We must begin by
loving the LORD God before we can understand and apply the
second—loving our neighbour. Clearly it is not possible to love
the LORD without respecting, loving and keeping his commandments
regarding the sacred character of marriage, and therefore the
sacredness of sexuality and sex. The first divine purpose for marriage
is that, "It was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the
will of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and
nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name." (Form of
Solemnization of Matrimony)
If making a decision about the current domestic partnership bill is to
be guided by this ultimate ethic of love, then we—the public and our
legislators—must not fall into the trap of conflating love with
approval. Love acts in the best interest of others, and not merely to
meet the wishes or desires of those we care about or are responsible
for. To say “Yes” to this bill and then defend one's position by
an appeal to love, may give the appearance of taking the moral high
ground, when in reality it may only be doing what is circumstantially
expedient.
This leads us to identify the second trap we must avoid: equating
desires with rights. The current scenario representing a seismic
shift in western morality has resulted in legislators and courts
seemingly accepting the default position that a desire—whether or not
one seen to be in the higher levels of the hierarchy of human
needs—must be catered to and reframed as a right, sometimes without
sufficient or any consideration of the pressing needs of other affected
and vulnerable parties or the long term good of society.
Drawing upon the biblical ethic of love and morality, we acknowledge
that human desire is the worst possible foundation for determining
public and private morality. What is good, both for the person
and for the community as a whole - old and young, adults and
impressionable children - does not answer to the demands of
fleshly passions, but rather must answer to the question of what is
truly right. This is the real issue. And this is the
criterion that every elected member of our parliament must apply as
they engage their hearts and minds fully in this exercise.
Again, our appeal to both the public at large and our legislature is
that we do not conflate rights with desires, nor conflate love with
approval. It is important to avoid confusing the love expressed
in the scriptures with secularism's counterfeit version of
love. Doing what is right for the right reasons, regardless of
the consequences, is a fundamentally biblical approach to all of
life. This is our appeal to you all.