Keriann Lee, Contributor

Lee

THE HIGH level of attention which the issue of homosexuality has attracted in the deliberations of the parliamentary committee on the Charter of Rights is puzzling. So is the approach of the groups which have made presentations on the matter, in particular the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. The members of that group are vehemently opposed to the practice of homosexuality, a position with which many Jamaicans are undoubtedly sympathetic. However, their intense and singular efforts to ensure that homosexuals are told in no uncertain terms that they will never enjoy certain freedoms are perplexing.

UNHOLY ALLIANCE

So singular is the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship in its crusade that it has even appeared willing to compromise on the issue of common law relationships, an arrangement the Church has always eschewed. The silent surprise which met the Attorney-General's revelation that the group's definition of marriage "as being the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others," would also give recognition to common law unions, was rather amusing and indicated the dangers of the church group's narrow focus. Surely, the Church has not abandoned traditional values in its crusade against the homosexuals. Yet, it suddenly appears willing to form an unholy alliance with whoever shares its overwhelming sense of urgency in this matter.

Government Senator Trevor Munroe pointed out in a previous meeting of the committee that many fundamental rights and freedoms of the Jamaican people linger in legislative land while these issues are sorted out. I am inclined to agree. The proposed new Charter of Rights has been in the Parliament for nearly a decade. There are so many issues of critical importance to the Jamaican people that are enshrined in that document.

We should be eager to see that the rights and freedoms of Jamaicans on so many other levels are properly secured, rather than preoccupy ourselves with the sexual relations of consenting adults, which should be nobody's business but their own. To take this position does not automatically mean that one endorses homosexual relationships. Surely one can disapprove of smoking, but respect his neighbour's desire to light up away from anyone else's lungs. Whose business is it but the smoker's?

Confronted with a similar argument on the radio talk show Counterpoint,

Shirley Richards, the president of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, countered with a question about whether incest between consenting adults, an even more taboo sexual practice, should also be made legal. The common suggestion is that if one is willing to compromise on homosexuality, then one must also be prepared to tolerate incest.

Except that incest is not a victimless crime and therein lies the fundamental difference. The high probability of genetic disorders in children of incestuous relationships is the major prohibiting factor. The possible deformed offspring of that sexual relationship renders incest a crime with a victim.

Interestingly, as reprehensible as it may seem to us, some countries do not have laws against incestuous relationships between adults.

The fact is, not everything that offends our moral sensibilities ought to be illegal. The ridiculousness of this approach is obvious. The moralists need to provide another basis for their position. Then we can have a real debate.

Keriann Lee is TVJ's parliamentary reporter.