UNIBAM President says homosexual rights are basic human rights

Earlier we told you that the churches view the claim on gay rights brought against the attorney general by UNIBAM as an attack on the moral fiber of the nation. According to the UNIBAM executive president, however, the lawsuit is simply a means by which homosexuals are standing up for their basic human rights through advocacy at the Supreme Court Level. If you haven’t made up your mind on the issue, Caleb Orosco defended his case this afternoon.

Caleb Orosco, Executive President, UNIBAM

“Our case isn’t unique in terms of what we’re trying to do. We’re using a democratic tool. The tool is the Supreme Court and the use of the Constitution. We are not unique in terms of bringing constitutional challenges. There are other groups which have done that and have used the court to for finding redress so our case is not unique in that regard. Beyond them politicizing the sexual rights of individuals that they know nothing about really is a dirty. What it means is that gay people or gay men in particular, bisexual men in particular have stood up for basic human rights. What is means is that this case will and have generated a discussion on the basic consciousness of every individual in this country. How would you treat your own blood if they were gay?”

Channel 5

Church rep says marriage can only be between man and woman

On the other hand, Canon Flowers believes the issue extends beyond gay rights. He says the powers vested in marriage officers, specifically priests, are to administer wedding vows only to a man and a woman.

Canon Leroy Flowers

“There is no denying the fact that it is much more than gay rights per se. I think it’s a matter of how do we exist as a society. What are the underlying principles besides just the law all that the government may have to do is repeal that portion of the law but it’s about men getting married, rights and responsibilities given to them under the law of the land. Those are the issues that should be vexing our minds as it were because we need to remember that in the society that the government gives authority for marriage officers. Most clergy persons are marriage officers in this land but that authority is only given by the state. Now if the state has to amend the law can the state now withholds permission for clergy persons to marry same sex couples?”

The case will be argued by a cadre of high profile attorneys. Representing Orosco and UNIBAM is Senior Counsel Lisa Shoman while Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, former attorney general for England and Wales and Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith are representing a group of international organizations who have joined UNIBAM as interested parties. The Council of Churches is being represented by attorneys Rodwell Williams, Eamon Courtenay, Michel Chebat, Jackie Marshalleck and Chris Coye.

Channel 5

I'm not sure how this cadre of lawyers hired to rep the church will deal with their colleagues, family members, friends and neighbors who are gay. I like Father Flowers, but recently was at a funeral he presided over and he said something insulting about Jews and told him about it after the service. I guess this is easier for the church to organize against than actually doing something important, like helping single mothers, kids on the streets, feeding programs and the like, which we really need help with. Its just stupid.

from G. Michael Reid

In February of 1998, the MS Leeward sailed into Belize’s harbor and
created quite a stir. The ship was met at the harbor by placard
carrying protesters comprised of religious zealots and conservatives
who were concerned about the adverse effects that the ship of gay
visitors would have on our country. The ship came and left without
major incident and less than a week later, another ship load of
same-sex lovers were docking with GOD knows how many other ships
following. While Belize certainly seems to have gone to the dogs,
there is no evidence to suggest that any of our current problems are
as a result of any visitor, gay or otherwise, to our shores.

Those who protested seemed to have come to grips with the futility or
their cause and the mootness of their point.
That is until recently, when a challenge to Belize’s law against
homosexuality was mounted in court by the United Belize Advocacy
Movement led by Caleb Orosco. Like hot water bringing out roaches,
this recent challenge has given lure to a latent jaundiced sentiment.
It might not be a majority view but it comes from strong and
influential quarters.

The issue of homosexuality and lesbianism has, for the most part, been
taboo in Belize although most will agree that the practice is almost
widespread. Rumors run rampant about the many prominent citizens who
are believed to be living in said “sin” and if half the rumors are
true, well then the numbers are at the very least, significant. At
some point, the issue will have to be brought to the forefront and
made to undergo the scrutiny of open and intelligent debate.

What Caleb Orosco has done is to bring this issue right into our faces
and is forcing us to take a long hard look at our biases and
convictions regarding this matter. Many are taking the hard-line
stance of intolerance and condemnation while others employ the age old
axiom of “God loving the sinner but hating the sin”. Some are
questioning whether we should truly label same-sex matters as really
even a wrong or a sin or only a GOD given right to choose. There is
also the possibility of it being a predetermined condition. Which
brings us to the very crux of this matter; are people born that way or
do they choose to be what they are?

This entire argument is bogged and mired at that very premise which
must first be properly defined and clarified before we can begin to
move forward. Countless studies and research have been done, and
continues to be done, which ranges from isolating DNA to observing gay
behavior in animals. As of yet, the jury is still out and no one
absolute explanation of homosexuality has been found. The question has
rightly been pondered; would society even accept the answer should it
be found and happen to not coincide with the majority view of the day?

As far as I understand it, Orosco and his UNIBAM are asking the courts
to distinguish between homosexuality and bestiality. I find no major
problem with that. I believe that sexual intercourse between two
human beings (however wrong it is perceived to be) cannot be equated
with sexual intercourse between man and beast. By the same token, I
am not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nor would I advocate
for open acceptance of homosexuality. I am not convinced though, that
one would necessarily lead to the other. A press release from the
Council of Churches and the Belize Association of Evangelical Churches
presents a rather flawed argument and one that is laden with
ridiculous presumptions.

UNIBAM is described by the Churches as “being heavily influenced by
foreign interest who seek to impose a worldview that directly
contradicts the supremacy of GOD as reflected in our laws…” Many
homosexuals are in fact, staunchly religious and can be seen in church
on more regular a basis than most heterosexuals I know; so where is
the challenge to the “Supremacy of GOD?” The release goes on to
suggest that the UNIBAM lawsuit “challenges our national sovereignty
and threatens our very way of life, not least by targeting our
children.” Disturbing if true but why do I feel that they are reading
way too much into all of this? The question is, “what are we afraid
of?”

Are our convictions and morals so fragile that we would be influenced
by the mere observance of behavior different than ours? Or is it a
case of sexual insecurity? There have been instances when those
crying out the loudest against homosexuality were found to be
themselves engaged in their own “unnatural acts.” A classic example
was evangelist Ted Haggard, who while bashing gays and lesbians from
the pulpit, was secretly using drugs and seeking sexual gratification
from a male prostitute. If you ask me, hypocrisy is a much bigger sin
than homosexuality.

Notice I have made no attempt at disclaimer here; I feel no need to.
I am quite secure in my orientation and worry little about anyone
accusing me of carrying a torch for homosexuality. I am just not
homophobic and find it as repulsive as racism or any other type of
prejudice. I prefer to live by the words of the poet, Joaquin Miller
who wrote:

In men whom men condemn as ill, I find as much of goodness still
In men whom men pronounce divine, I find so much of sin and blot
I do not dare to draw a line, between the two where GOD has not.

from another friend in response to the above...

When i was a child growing up in the old capital, this type of talk was forbidden, period. And harsh mocking terms were used whenever this issue was raised. That is just historical fact in Belize of decades gone by.

The Church, Homosexuality & the Constitution

Written by: Godfrey Smith

The tripartite combine of the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Evangelical Churches recently issued a reactive, near hysterical press release in response to the case brought by Caleb Orosco and the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) seeking to decriminalize consensual homosexual conduct in Belize. 

While reason has never been the handmaiden of religion, the Church’s release was embarrassingly unhinged; it accused UNIBAM of being influenced by “predatory foreign interests” who seek to impose a worldview that directly contradicts the Supremacy of God, challenges national sovereignty and threatens Belizeans’ way of life. 

They’ve got it quite wrong. UNIBAM’s case has the rather narrow compass of getting the Belize Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code that states that every person who has carnal knowledge against the order of nature with any person shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.

The case does not seek to establish a new right to engage in homosexual acts in Belize, as contended by the Churches.  That right already exists through the constitutional safeguard of the right to privacy. UNIBAM seeks, rightfully, to torpedo section 53 of the Criminal Code (as it relates to criminalization of consensual sexual intercourse between adult males) which is at odds with that constitutional right. 

Particular sections of the laws of Belize are challenged very regularly in the Supreme Court on the ground of unconstitutionality.  UNIBAM’s case is not a “challenge to our national sovereignty” as apparently perceived by the Churches; it is an exercise of a democratic and constitutional right to insist on equal protection of the law and to assert the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the Church.

UNIBAM’s case is not an insidious attempt, as contended for by the Churches, to eventually trump universally recognized rights to religious freedom and expression; quite the opposite in fact. It is an attempt to ensure that religious zealotry does not trump universal human rights law which prohibits the criminalization of sexual identity, including lesbian and gay sexual identity. 

Understanding how the court declaration that UNIBAM seeks contradicts the Supremacy of God has proven as elusive as the Cheshire cat, perceptible perhaps only to those prone to celestial flights of fancy. 

At the 63rd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Declaration on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity on 18th December 2008, the Vatican’s delegation stated that:
 

“The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them.”
 

Rev. Philip J. Bené, Legal Attaché to the Vatican’s Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations stated that same month that

 

“The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.”
 

On December 2nd 2008, Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Vatican Press Office, issued a statement that the rejection of all forms of unjust discrimination (which is enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) not only excludes the death penalty but all forms of penal legislation that are violent or discriminatory towards homosexual persons.

Far from contradicting the Supremacy of God, UNIBAM’s cause is sanctioned by the Vatican itself – something the Roman Catholic Diocese should have checked before aligning itself in support of maintaining the criminalization of homosexual conduct and, by so doing, contradicting statements sanctioned by the Pope whose pronouncements on such matters is infallible.

It could hardly be blasphemous to say that if the Pope is against criminal penalties against homosexuals then, by virtue of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it means that God is in favour of doing away with such criminal penalties against them. 

Papal infallibility, it may be recalled, is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error. If anything, it is therefore the Belize Roman Catholic Diocese’s position – not UNIBAM’s court challenge – that contradicts the Supremacy of God.

The Belize conclave of Churches, in registering their opposition to the case, invoked that part of Scripture that says that Man is created in the image of God and therefore has an inherent dignity and worth.

Curiously, this was the same teaching that the Anglican Bishops of Southern Africa quoted in opposing the criminalization of homosexual people in that part of the world. They stated:
 

“…we are united in opposing the criminalization of homosexual people …We emphasize the teachings of the Scriptures that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore must be treated with respect and accorded human dignity… As Bishops we believe that it is immoral to permit or support oppression of, or discrimination against, people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and contrary to the teaching of the gospel; particularly Jesus’ command that we should love one another as he has loved us, without distinction.”

The Belize Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are either ignorant of the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican or are deliberately misleading the public on the position of their respective Churches.

The head offices of Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church have made clear that whilst not endorsing a lesbian and gay lifestyle, they are fundamentally opposed to the use of the criminal law to regulate sexual identity.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the International Commission of Jurists and the Human Dignity Trust who have joined in support of UNIBAM’s case as Interested Parties are not foreign interests challenging our national sovereignty and way of life. 

The criminalization of gay sexual identity is a violation of international human rights law and therefore necessarily attracts the interest and involvement of the international community. These three organizations reflect the concerns of the international legal community.  Belize cannot enjoy the benefits of being a member of the international community when it is convenient to do so, but opt out of international human rights norms when it chooses to.

This will not be the first time that the Church in Belize has confronted the Constitution and lost. In Wade v Roches, a local cause célèbre, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Chief Justice Conteh that the Roman Catholic Church had discriminated against Ms. Roches, contrary to her constitutional rights, by terminating her employment as a teacher after she became pregnant. It did not matter that Church’s published policy was that their teachers could not have children out of wedlock.

Lest it be forgotten, religion, like race, has been the cause of some of history’s most tragic wars and the perpetration of some of the worst atrocities against human beings.  To champion the obvious: where there is a conflict between religious articles of faith and universal human rights law, universal human rights must always trump religion.  Equally, where there is a confrontation between the Church and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail. 

Flashpoint Belize