Family Life is of paramount importance

By Christina Hislop Rowlandson MSc DIC
Accredited Civil-Commercial Mediator
7 August 2020

Royal Assent if given to a ‘substitute Marriage Bill’, as I personally refer to it, would have drastically changed the state of legal unions for the purposes of having children and other matters. The Bill was debated and voted down in two days amid little public fanfare. Six of seven official Members of the Opposition in the Legislature resolutely voted ‘no’ along with a Government Backbencher Member from West Bay and two prominent Cabinet Ministers with responsibilities for social affairs - the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education. George Town seems to have been the weakest link with five out of seven MLAs voting for the Bill. Credit is due to all those who stood up to be counted on the Cayman Islands value system and to members of the community who participated in raising awareness.

The Constitution of the Cayman Islands and its Marriage Law provide a very clear definition of marriage. In Ladore v Bennett [1939] it was said that “Parliament cannot evade a constitutional restriction by a colourable device” i.e. by calling it something else. Former President of the Court of the Appeal of the Bahamas and retired Privy Councillor Dame Joan Sawyer DBE shared her view of the Bill: “by its very words it clearly intended to confer on persons entering into such ‘partnerships’ the ‘security and benefits’ of a marriage while not actually calling it a marriage. In other words, it intends to accord to persons of the same sex, all the rights and privileges accorded to married persons under the Marriage Laws of the Cayman Islands”.

There is a need to consider the purpose of marriage legislation. Marriage law supports stability of family life, the integrity of marriage, imitation of nature, and the protection of children. The Marriage Foundation based in the UK champions marriage for the good of society especially children. Research by the Foundation revealed in 2017 that 72% of parents were married in the previous Prime Minister’s seat of Maidenhead and that 25 out of 26 of her Cabinet MPs’ constituencies backed marriage as the best family structure to raise children. The Foundation’s research also reveals that a stable relationship of the parents is the single most important factor in a child’s healthy development. Half of all UK teens are not living with both parents and family breakdown is the #1 predictor of teenage mental health problems. The main causes of breakdown are relative poverty, lack of parental resources, father absence and instability. The Foundation’s Chairman witnessed the catastrophe of family breakdown over forty-four years in the family courts and says, “We owe it to the next generation of children to get serious about marriage as a crucial public health issue”.

Perhaps the Romans had this in mind when they developed Family Law. Known for its profound legacy in English law including the Cayman Islands system of laws and Continental legal systems, Roman law has been referred to as the “genius for good order and organised common sense”. For Romans marriage was a social fact with certain legal consequences. Matrimony, a word derived from mother, was the joining together of a man and a woman, implying a united lifestyle, a partnership for the whole life involving divine as well as human law. Romans had a highly developed sense of what constituted a desirable and lawful union. There was a plethora of rules, bars and impediments in an attempt to prevent undesirable marriages. For example, marriage between a guardian and their ward or the guardian’s child and their ward was prohibited as was marriage between an adopted child and the adoptive parent and with a sister or brother-in-law. Prohibitions were a highly developed area of family law.

Considering our own foundational moral heritage and the fact that this Bill goes to the heart of society with its impact on family life, school and church life, and public health and medicine, invariably raises the following questions. Would passing the Bill be in the best interests of the people? Would it conflict with natural and domestic laws and erase barriers that prevent undesirable unions? Are the MLAs best qualified to determine what is desirable and what is not? Were scientific arguments raised? According to the European Convention (Convention) of Human Rights national authorities are categorically best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society. These authorities base decisions on science, ethics, research and domestic law and policy. The Cayman Islands Legislature exercised that role and did so against the backdrop of a Convention that supports the special rights afforded to a couple in a traditional marriage.

The ‘no’ vote therefore respected family law, the laws of the Cayman Islands, the rule of law and the separation of powers. The outcome was also a massive win for women by supporting their privacy, dignity, proper place, personal identity and honour to marry and found a family at the same time as accessing education and economic life. The ‘no’ vote also pleased the Crown’s subjects because it honoured biblical precepts and the islands’ Christian principles. Voting ‘yes’ for this Bill would have been a brutal assault on marriage, a solemn union with important consequences, and our nation’s intricate system of values and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, the Governor is now acting on his own desire to pass the Bill. The effect of this on the fundamentals of our democracy has not gone unnoticed and momentum is naturally building to reclaim this matter and defend the Cayman Islands way of life. It is being led by lawmakers and the Christian Association for Civic and Political Education and a great many other stewards here and in the region. Only last year environmental stewards said ‘no’ to further destruction and led a successful legal battle against a Bill catering to special interests. Together we now need to stand up for social as well as environmental good governance.

It should be noted that for the purposes of the conflict of laws a ‘country’ is any territorial unit having its own separate system of laws whether or not it constitutes an independent state politically. The UK cannot therefore be the relevant country for the purposes of those branches of private law. There is no such thing as the law of the UK.

May God save the Queen, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and us. Ultimately If we ‘honour our fathers and mothers’ all will be well.