A Canadian – assisted Study on the life, challenges and existence of Guyana’s Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Community has just been released.
It could be described as “troubling”, especially for the GLBT community itself and for all liberal, open-minded, human-rights-oriented Guyanese. For it has found that, from colonial-type discriminatory legislation to community and workplace bias and stigma, the daily existence of members of that component of Guyanese society find it difficult, sometimes dangerous, to exist.
They suffer from a plethora of discriminatory acts, physical and mental abuse, rejection and even threats and vindictive assaults from law-enforcement people who should be protecting their rights.
However, I’ll return to this specific issue, as it is played out in Guyana, from time to time. (As I’ll treat the Drug Trafficking Phenomenon).
Related to the above though, are these thoughts I shared whilst in New York, when that State passed – “Same-Sex Marriage” legislation last year.
I just happened to be in New York City, New York over the past week-end when the New York State government negotiated just enough votes to legalise same-sex marriage in that State. And for even those not too concerned with such goings-on, the new law and its implications held centre-stage in the collective mind of millions in the sixth and now largest of the American States to “bless” such unions.
So since I had essayed a return, to related concerns and the role of our local Guyana SASOD in promoting and protecting GLBT rights, it was easy to decide to share with you, some of the intrigue, drama, colour, triumph and despair surrounding last Friday’s “marriage-equality vote” in New York.
Why? Because, this is a social issue that won’t ever go away, worldwide, including Guyana. Because the legal permission given to and by New York’s government is both symbolic and symptomatic, but in a very practical sense, also in terms of the altering of centuries of human institutions and perhaps humanity itself. And because, naturally, the New York law also speaks to the challenge to longstanding religious teachings and traditions, even exposing (the usual) contradictions in the Christian Church itself.
GOD’S OWN CHILDREN, GAYS…
To me, whilst in New York, it was obvious that the issue generated four main elements: religious/moralistic, human/ civil rights, politics and economics.
I share the religious, moralistic implications first. When you talk Christianity and Bible here, I sense you’re speaking “older generation” mainly. The Christian-minded called numerous programmes to remind of the Bible’s teaching about man-woman relationships, about marriage and about why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God’s wrath. And the New York Roman Catholic Bishop expressed outrage at the legislation. Even though one of them- Archbishop Dolan- was constrained to apologise and explain (afterwards) that he had “nothing” against the Gay community and loved them as God’s children; he was, however, said, mindful and protective of the Church’s concept of marriage.
(The Bishops still held that the “marriage equality” law “is another nail in the coffin of marriage”, and that the State had no right to tamper with something so timeless and sacred to the human condition).
Poor Bishops, When traditional, purist Christians supported their position (a la Romans Chap. 2) others called in to quote Bible scripture which pointed to actual homosexual relationships amongst respected Bible characters and which also allegedly represented marriage as a mere convenience for the sharing of property (read Abraham and Samuel). Poor Bible!
Moral values have changed drastically globally; human rights now often threaten to compromise responsibilities to be decent about those freedoms. The impact of same-sex marriages on the current generation under twenty-one remains to be appreciated (scientifically). And even as I was grappling with whether the NY politicians were really representing their constituencies’ preferences in terms of Man’s law vis-à-vis God’s law, reliable polls showed that a majority of New Yorkers approved of the new form of marriage. Just where do we go from here? (Read my (outrageous?) conclusion below).
Whether in New York or Guyana, massive education and behavioural change will have to flow from such legislation. And don’t ever think me facetious or ridiculous when I say that it is possible, say, fifty years from now, that some persons may demand laws to allow them to marry their favourite cat, dog, or donkey! Discuss…
You must be logged in to post a comment.