15th August 2020
His Excellency, The
Governor of the Cayman Islands
With all due
respect, as citizens of the Cayman Islands, we wish to voice concerns
regarding the present situation and the anticipated bills and
amendments you have set out to pass into legislation for this nation.
First, we are
saddened that you would try to force a set of moral values on us
against our will.
We have read the
Constitution and find nowhere the right assigned to you to pass such
legislation. Section 81 dealing with the Governor’s reserved power
refers back to Section 55 which limits the areas in which you are
able to act. Section 55 defines the areas in which you are able to
act as:
(a) defence;
(b) external
affairs, subject to subsections (3) and (4);
(c) internal
security including the police, without prejudice to section 58;
(d) the appointment
(including the appointment on promotion or transfer, appointment on
contract and
appointment to act in an office) of any person to any public office,
the
suspension,
termination of employment, dismissal or retirement of any public
officer or
taking of
disciplinary action in respect of such an officer, the application to
any public
officer of the terms
or conditions of employment of the public service (including salary
scales, allowances,
leave, passages and pensions) for which financial provision has been
made, and the
organisation of the public service to the extent that it does not
involve new financial provision.
None of these
refer to internal matters relating to the issue at hand.
Article 8 of The
European Convention on Human Rights states
Right to respect
for private and family life
1. Everyone has the
right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and
his correspondence.
2. There shall be no
interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this
right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of
national security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
Clearly, Article
8 provides for a nation to override individual rights of some people
to protect and uphold the morals of a nation for the nation’s
wellbeing.
The European Centre for Law and Justice reported on a pivotal case
with regard to the matter at hand.
On June 9, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its
decision on the case of Chapin
and Charpentier v. France (n°40183/07). It questioned
the French courts' decision to annul the “marriage of Bègles”
contracted in 2004 between two men, in violation of French law.
By this decision, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously
recalled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not
include the right to marriage for homosexual couples, neither under
the right to respect for private and family life (art. 8) nor the
right to marry and to found a family (art. 12).
More precisely, this new decision confirms a series of judgements and
particularly recalls that:
-
The question of same-sex marriage is “subject to the national laws
of the Contracting States” (§ 36, making reference to the Schalk
and Kopf v. Austria judgement (n°30141/04);
-
Article 12 confirmed the traditional concept of marriage, which is
the union between a man and a woman and "does not impose an
obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant
same-sex couples access to marriage" (§ 36, making reference
to Gas and Dubois v. France, n°25951/07, § 66);
-
Article 12 “cannot be interpreted as imposing such an obligation
on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex
couples access to marriage”. This recall of the recent judgements
of Hämäläinen v. Finlande [GC] (n°37359/09), and Oliari and
others v. Italy (n°18766/11 et 36030/11) has a very strong impact
since it recognises the theoretical limits of the interpretation of
the right to marry (§ 39);
-
In regard to the right to respect for private life (guaranteed by
Article 8) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 14),
“States are still free (...) to restrict access to marriage to
different-sex couples", (making reference to Schalk and Kopf ,§
108 and Gas and Dubois, § 66)
-
States “enjoy a certain margin of appreciation as regards the
exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition” of
same-sex relationships, and its differences concerning the rights
and obligations conferred by marriage (§ 58).
The ECLJ welcomes this decision, which it considers consistent with
the correct interpretation of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The ECLJ notes, however, that this decision does not totally
rule out the possibility of a future development in the Court
position in favour of a right to same-sex marriage as part of a right
“to the recognition” of stable relationships. It also recognises
that such an interpretation cannot be based on the wording of the
Convention.
https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-non-existence-of-a-right-to-gay-marriage
Clearly, if a
government determines to base its laws on its set of moral values, it
has that prerogative.
Thus, Your
Excellency, Cayman remains within its legal right to not recognize
same sex relationships as marriage or equivalent to marriage.
We need to discuss
the matter of morals further. The importance of moral values to a
society is critical to its existence. So many references exist for
this, but let us present a few here.
Sir John Glubb, a
distinguished British military officer, wrote THE FATE OF EMPIRES and
Search for Survival in which he made some relevant comments which
apply to any society, not just empires.
p. 17 speaking of
the decline of the Arab Empire he wrote:
The works of the
contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are
still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in
which they lived, emphasising particularly the indifference to
religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals.
p. 41
Of course the
majority of men and women continue to marry, to produce families and
to observe the normal relations between the sexes. Nevertheless, the
reversal of the sexes seems to be a sign of decadence.
Finally on p. 42 he
writes
No statement could
be farther from the truth than the claim that ‘my morals are my own
affair and are nobody else’s business’. The morals of every
one of us are of vital importance to the future of our country.
The Clinton Memorial
Library contains an article by Brad Keena called Ten Signs of a
Culture’s End. A number of his points deal with morals.
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/social-change/ten-signs-of-a-cultures-end/
The bottom line
here is that societies follow cycles of rise and decline and decline
in morals signals a decline of the society in general. Why would
the people of the Cayman Islands want to hasten the decline of our
society?
A society which
ignores God’s Word and His instruction will sooner or later, and
usually sooner, find itself in a moral morass. We doubt anyone wants
to live with these negative consequences.
We already see in
other nations the muzzling of anyone who speaks the truth of the
Bible. This applies to many different areas in addition to same sex
relationships. May we remind you that the law codes of many nations
are based on biblical principles such as do not steal, do not murder,
do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc.
Eliminating any of God’s instructions undermines the entire set of
values. If we say that we don’t have to honor our father and
mother, then why do we have to obey the instruction about not
stealing, or not murdering, or not committing adultery?
The final, and probably most important thought, has to do with
protection of children. By assenting to legitimizing same sex
relationships, we automatically remove the consciousness of right and
wrong in the minds of our children. What happens is that all
scripture is undermined. We cannot pick and choose which moral
values we want to keep and which moral values we want to relinquish
and God’s Word clearly states that males sexually involved with
males is an abomination to God. People can change their laws, but no
one can change God’s moral code. If we are prohibited from
teaching children right from wrong, (i.e. that two males or two
females sexually involved with each other is wrong) our society
suffers a great blow to its integrity and wellbeing. God’s eternal
wisdom is beneficial for all people at all times and should triumph
over any humanistic empathy.
We believe on the
basis of a misinterpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (mirrored in the Cayman Islands Bill of Human Rights)
which allows a nation an exception for the protection of health or
morals, that your introduction of these bills and amendments
interferes with our right as a nation to make that exception.
Obviously our Court
of Appeal did not take into consideration the ruling in the case
Chapin
and Charpentier v. France (n°40183/07) as set out
above when it made the ruling handed down last November. We find
this surprising since the Court should take all relevant legal
precedent into consideration. The ruling by the European Court of
Human Rights clearly indicates same sex couples do not have the right
to marry or found a family.
Again, we believe a
misinterpretation of Section 81 and Section 55 of the Constitution of
the Cayman Islands means you are overstepping your authority to take
the course of action you have set out in this matter.
For all of these reasons we would expect you to withdraw all the
bills and amendments you have proposed to enact.
Sincerely,
Robert and Pamela
Crysler