Orville W. Taylor, Contributor
I THOUGHT that the gay rights debate had been 'forgotten' although I could never put it behind me. However, it is firmly on the 'agender' again.
Last month, a movie strangely titled, Brokeback Mountain was named best picture by the Producers Guild of America (PGA). A PGA award squarely puts a movie or actor on target for the March Academy Awards for film, commonly known as the Oscars. In what might very well be the last straw that breaks the camel's back, the movie is about a pair of homosexual cowboys. It is not set in the Australian 'Outback;' but in the American Wild West.
Now, famous American country western 'singer' Willie Nelson, who actually rasps as if he swallowed a grater, has done a song indicating that many cowboys were gay. By the way, did you ever notice that despite there being many black people tending horses, farms and ranches in the Wild West, little is told about black cowboys?
Well, just to provide a little black history fact, there was a black cowboy named Nat Love who perhaps to calm the fears of the Whites, renamed himself 'Deadwood Dick' in 1869 and became one of the most accomplished cowboys of any colour in American history. Bet Willie Nelson won't sing about that, eh!
ANGRY CONSERVATIVES
Anyway, 'back' to the film. The movie by Taiwanese director Ang Lee, is making many conservatives "velly ang lee," as my former schoolmate from Hong Kong says. It has been banned in a number of countries including his parent country, mainland China. Furthermore, at least two states in the haven of human rights and democracy, the U.S.A., have banned it as well.
The truth is, America, and most of the world is not yet ready for the flouting of traditional family values. Similarly, the Bush administration along with a considerable opposition support, has generally challenged the legalisation of same-sex marriages and same-sex unions in that country.
Nonetheless, against the tide of great discomfort regarding homosexuality, the Jamaican parliament is on the verge of passing a bill of rights which many church people fear will do the following: Prevent teachers from forcing religious dogma unto their students via devotion and religious instruction; make pastors liable for 'hate' speech due to their zero tolerance to 'immorality', allow for legal abortion, and most nerve-racking in a homo-antipathetic society, the decriminalising of homosexuality without repealing the anti-buggery laws.
There is indeed basis for fear because the international trend has been towards the separation of church and state. The church folk are opposed to any notion of taking God out of the classroom of course because we are a religious country. However, there is a difference between being religious and being Christian because as we know about the Biblical teachings, they are very dogmatic and bar every other religion from heaven for believing that there is any other path to paradise except through Jesus.
As a man who grew up loving Jesus and fearing His father, God, I understand how the Christians feel about not having the right to force their teachings on youth. However, I also understand the dangers of being religious zealots and bigots who have no tolerance for other religions or persons of different consciences. Therefore, I appreciate the discomfort felt by my Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Sellassie I- worshiping Rastafarian friends, who have to sit through an intolerant set of teachings that condemn them as heathens and pagans while they are in school trying to get secular qualifications.
What the Christians seem to have forgotten is that the reason that their faith became established and grew as it has over the centuries, is precisely because the Pharisees and Saducees in Israel and the Romans and others were opposed to any challenge to their own teachings. They should remember that religious intolerance led to the unjust execution of Jesus and the martyrdom of many of his followers later.
The separation of church and state is like a rebellion against a 'one order' anti-democracy. Remember that Bin Laden and many Islamic fundamentalists are mortally opposed to any other religion or lifestyle. We must tread carefully!
As regards the issue of homosexuality, the fear that the church folk feel is real and justified. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that when the state enters into a person's home, breaches his privacy and discovers his homosexuality, it is unconstitutional. Simply put, the judgement in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, says that whatever a person does 'behind' closed doors is his business. Thus, adults are free to have private consensual gay sex (if it can be called that) as long as it is outside of the scrutiny of the public.
INALIENABLE RIGHT
Nonetheless, as opposed to the homosexual lifestyle as I personally am, I strongly believe that a person's privacy is an inalienable right as long as he does not use it to engage in conduct that is likely to be injurious to the national or public good. Therefore, if he plots to kill, steal, rob or rape in privacy, there is no protection. However, if he is a 'sneaky-freaky', that is his business.
My problem with the current impasse is that the bill seems to be strangely hurried and is sneaking homosexuality 'through the back door.' This I oppose because we need national debate.
Without the contribution of a wide cross section of the population, the issue will not have the benefit of a larger social intercourse and thus, cannot be properly debated. Indeed, since the parliamentary group is surreptitiously only discussing among themselves without the contributions of the 'commoners', it can only be considered a 'master debate'.
Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
