And Queen Victoria Rejoiced

[P]eople don’t like change. But make the change happen fast enough and you go from one type of normal to another.

– from Making Money by Terry Pratchett –

I was lying in bed reading when I came across the quote above. It got me thinking. There’s been a lot of hoop-la lately about two things: the proposed new constitution of St. Vincent & the Grenadines, and gay rights. It seems that there’s nothing much else on the tips of peoples’ tongues and pens in SVG these days. I’m probably going to meander a bit here (as usual) because I’m thinking as I type, but eventually I’ll get around to why the quote got me thinking about these two things.

Last week, Paula David, a good friend of mine and one of SVG’s more respected lawyers (she’s honest, dedicated and intelligent – need I say more?), wrote an interesting letter to the papers. She was protesting clause 17(2) of the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Bill 2009, which says that [t]he State shall protect marriage, which shall be a legal union only between a person who is biologically male at birth and a person who is biologically female at birth.

Paula makes some very serious points regarding this clause. She mentions the fact that the clause further cements homophobia in SVG because the problem now has added legal backing rather than being a purely socio-religious phenomenon for which Queen Victoria had a penchant. She speaks about the hypocrisy of the state protecting marriage in this way, while neglecting the major cause of marriage’s erosion –adultery. She mentions the twin fists of religion and minority control. Finally, she throws in the fact that some people are born without identifiable gender, thereby rendering these people unmarriageable under the new constitution.

The whole issue of gay rights has been one of hot debate here (independent of the constitution I mean). Almost every week there’s some letter or other in the paper either arguing for or against the rights of gay and lesbian people (we not really far enough along yet to argue anything bout transgendered people – let us wrap out heads around the gays first, nuh!). Usually the argument is against.

Paula’s letter seems to have generated some buzz. It’s been mentioned on the radio talk shows and a couple people have responded to it in this week’s papers. On Sunday last, there was an interesting discussion on a radio call-in programme. The four-person panel was made up of (if I remember correctly): the host (who’s a well-known lawyer), another famous Vincy legal eagle, the resident tutor of our UWI Open Campus (and our foremost Vincy historian) and a first-year-going-to-second-year student at Cave Hill (I know for a fact that she’s a straight A student because she’s my best friend’s niece, my past student, and also a good friend – she tells me her grades). I think there may have been one more person, but I can’t really remember.

From the sound of it, the panel all thought this particular clause was unworthy of being in the constitution. They looked at it from the legal and historical angles. How can the law proscribe the behaviour of consenting adults? How can the law “protect” something that is essentially a religious convention? A couple of the panelists approached the matter from a human rights angle.

The majority of the people who called in to the show were all in huge favour of the clause. Big surprise, right? The PM actually called in at one point (and sort of hijacked the programme for about half an hour to weigh in on the issue). He said something really important. He mentioned that he disagreed with Sabrina (the UWI student) on some of her views (actually his opinion was rather Roman Catholic – love the sinner, not the sin; and definitely legislate against the sin), but he also said that her thinking bears investigation since it may represent the views of the younger generation. And who’s going to be affected most by the new constitution anyway? Not the younger people?

And this is where I have my biggest problem with this clause and the fact that it is included in the new constitution. Historically, we’ve inherited several laws from Victorian England; the sodomy laws are among this lot. Isn’t the whole purpose of a new constitution to free us of such unsophisticated fragments of our flawed colonial past? I mean the very culture that first made these laws has since abandoned them. We, instead of doing similar, are making them more stringent.

Our government is always reminding us that we’re a modern, post-colonial society. I agree wholeheartedly. But isn’t it a bit antediluvian and colonial to make the lives of minority groups harder rather than easier by pointing out their subordinate status in a document as august as a constitution? I haven’t actually read the thing yet, by the way, so it may, possibly, say something positive elsewhere about sexuality and human rights, but I don’t know. I have to get a copy.

What happens to the generations that will follow us if their values do change? Yes, the new constitution can be amended; but why start off in so restrictive a manner that these amendments will become necessary? Haven’t we learned from the rest of the world? Instead of using this stellar opportunity to free up our laws on a more human rights basis, we are using it to cement the restrictions on an underground minority. As Paula says in her letter, the message being sent by clause 17(2) of the new constitution is that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens, undeserving of the same rights and privileges of everyone else. How can we, in a country that is supposedly in the process of development, treat people with such flagrant disregard?

Here’s the mental image I had when reading the quote from the beginning of this post. I thought of sheep and wolves. The flock of sheep will allow a lone wolf to systematically decimate its ranks. But if the sheep, in a fit of righteous ire, decided to band together, couldn’t they all turn on the wolf, and trample and bite it to smithereens? Follow my fragmentary logic here (and I realize that this analogy can just as easily be used against my theory as for it).

What if, and this is just a whim, what if the gays and lesbians of SVG were to band together and come out of their closets? What if they all decided to take to the streets and march in protest of the discrimination they face every day? Would we ridicule them? Would we point and laugh before throwing stones at them? Would they all lose their jobs and their standing in society? Or rather, would we, despite our heterosexual moral superiority, all of a sudden realize that they exist and are here for good, and need recognition and protection? Would the furor soon die down once we realize that our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters etc etc etc were marching in that parade?

I know this is merely speculation since I don’t think Vincentians – gay, straight or enamoured of livestock – will ever really band together in sufficient numbers to protest anything. Not and get results at any rate.

On a related note, another clause in the new constitution allows for religious leaders to hold political office. Apparently. Huh? Whatever happened to separation of church and state? If we have religious leaders in parliament, are we not then allowing people with a morality bias (and a congregation to placate) to dictate our lives? Doesn’t this lead us down the path of theocracy rather than democracy? But that’s a matter for another post I think. This one has already gone on too long, and I want to include Paula’s letter so you can read it for yourselves – it’s a brilliant piece of writing (better than mine for sure).

________________________________________________________

Paula’s letter:

The following is a reproduction of clause 17(2) of the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Bill 2009: "The State shall protect marriage, which shall be a legal union only between a person who is biologically male at birth and a person who is biologically female at birth".

So it’s come to this: we are so proud of our homophobia that we want to enshrine it in our Constitution. I will probably be talking to the wind, but for whatever its worth, here goes.

I am writing because I don’t trust myself to speak. This development is so upsetting that I fear I may become at best, incoherent and at worst, abusive.

The would be framers of a Constitution worthy of our soon to be ennobled Caribbean civilization wish to keep us permanently mired in the state of being an intolerant, unkind, backwater. The professed intention of clause 17(2) is the protection of marriage. How that intention can be furthered by a constitutional provision is anybody’s guess. I cannot fathom how it can be, but I am willing to be steered in the right direction by those more perceptive than myself.

Marriage is worthy of protection. It is quite possible that it is in particular need of protection in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Our divorce rate is staggering. I often marvel at the fact that Caribbean sociologists consistently posit that marriage is relatively rare in our communities. If we aren’t getting married, who are all those people crowding the gallery of the Court House every Friday, waiting for the hearing of their divorces?

I have a not insignificant divorce practice. I, therefore, have some knowledge of the threats to marriage in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. A major threat to marriage in our society is adultery. It is certainly the cause of a disproportionate number of divorces here. The noble framers of our Constitution bill have not seen it fit to attempt to curb the behaviour of the adulterers in our society. Instead, they’ve chosen to attack the gay community. Did they sing “Boom Bye Bye” after they said their obligatory commencement prayer at the beginning of each meeting? Okay, I’m becoming abusive. See why I can’t talk?

Are the framers of the Constitution bill unaware that a significant number of gays in this society are men married to women? Are they unaware that this phenomenon exists because “stigma and discrimination” (thank you HIV awareness campaigners, I’m sure you won’t resent my borrowing of your catch phrase) forces these men to seek the cover of a socially acceptable domestic arrangement? Are they aware of how harmful these arrangements can be to both parties to a marriage and any children they may have? Don’t they know any man who lives the lie of a marriage he cannot find fulfillment in? Are they so blissfully ignorant that they have never heard of a woman who struggles to cope with the knowledge of her husband’s homosexuality; or worse, a wife who is completely unaware of her husband’s true sexual orientation until she learns of it in a very unpleasant way?

Or maybe they know and they just don’t care. The tragedy of this is that I have a nagging suspicion that the inclusion of this clause was motivated by nothing more significant than empty posturing; that it is no more than infantile attention seeking behaviour. They want it to make BBC Caribbean news. They want their 15 minutes of fame. Of course, part of the motivation most certainly is pandering to the church; the same thing that motivates Caribbean politicians to have “visiting relationships” (read Enid Clarke’s “My Mother Who Fathered Me” if you’re unfamiliar with the phrase) with various churches.

Or maybe each society needs a vulnerable community that it can beat up with impunity. Maybe it is an incurable feature of the human condition. Apartheid South Africa beat up blacks. Hitler beat up Jews. Israel beats up Palestinians. White America beats up black America. Jamaicans beat up gays. Vincentians are proposing to trump the Jamaicans.

Which brings me to my next point; how can we, the sons and daughters of slaves, bring ourselves to discriminate against any group of persons because of something they cannot help and which in the grand scheme of things is utterly insignificant? Just as we cannot help being black and just as our blackness in the grand scheme of things is utterly insignificant, so too, gays cannot help being gay and in the grand scheme of things their sexuality is utterly insignificant. I suspect that this is where the Bible thumpers will start jumping up and down. If you’re going to repeat to me the arguments I read in our local papers every week don’t bother. I’ve heard them; they’re lame. The judges’ findings of fact are not consistent with the evidence.

There are gay doctors, lawyers, street sweepers, musicians, bankers, business people and gardeners all over our society leading productive lives; each doing his or her own part to ensure that the wheels of this society keep on turning. How dare anyone attempt to accord them second class citizenship and try to enshrine it in our Constitution? How dare anyone send a message to every little gay boy and every little lesbian girl that “You are a thing apart. You are a thing unacceptable. You are a thing unworthy”?

I will end by inviting the worthy framers of our Constitution bill to consider the effect of clause 17(2) on persons who are born intersex. You have made it clear that you intend to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Do you also intend to discriminate against persons whose gender may not be capable of determination at birth?

Paula E. David