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 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