18 July 2020

Christian Association for Civics and Political Education PO Box 625 KYI-I107 Cayman Islands           [link to video on endangerment at footnote 7 below]

Honourable Members of the Legislative Assembly
Honourable Attorney General Samuel Bulgin

Dear Hon MLAs and AG,


The Christian Association for Civics and Political Education, a Non-Profit Organisation of the Cayman Islands, is supported by a substantial active group of Caymanians in presenting to you the following legal statement on the current Domestic Partnership Bill1 now before the house.

The Domestic Partnership Bill 2020 is the first step in dismantling the institution of marriage. Traditionally understood, marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman intended for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, for the procreation of children and their nurture. By contrast, the Domestic Partnership Bill, offers a circular, meaningless definition of the term "domestic partnership" by simply stating that"a domestic partnership means a domestic partnership formalised and registered in accordance with this Law". It defines the term by referring to the term.

While the Bill extends protections to all persons wishing to enter into a domestic partnership, its intent is to continue the process of social reorganization to afford special rights to special persons who identify as members of the LGBT community and by extension, provide a marital arrangement unsupported by the Constitution2

Despite their best efforts, LGBT activists have not been able to deprive the word "marriage" of its essential meaning through a constitutional challenge in the courts. Unconvincing judicial semantics in the case of the Attorney General v Day and Bush3, led the Court of Appeal to declare that two women, Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, are entitled to legal protection in the Cayman Islands, "...which is functionally equivalent to marriage". The Court reached this conclusion after finding that the framers of the Constitution had no intention to confer a constitutional right to marry upon same sex couples. Distinguishing between constitutional law and ordinary law, the unelected Court of Appeal demanded that the elected Parliament pass ordinary law to bypass the clearly expressed will of the people as enshrined in the Constitution. In declaring the respondents right to the functional equivalent of marriage, the court awarded them the substance of the thing. Recognizing the limits of its power to compel the legislature to do so, the Court of Appeal noted "It is not appropriate to require undertakings from the Attorney-General."

 To understand the substance of the thing one must ask what does it mean to "found a family"4? Can a same sex couple "found a family"? The answer to those questions is unequivocally  "No". Basic biology reveals that same-sex couples cannot have sexual intercourse, consummate a marriage nor procreate. Sexual intercourse requires anatomical complementarity. Consummation of marriage requires sexual intercourse. Anatomical complementarity and sexual intercourse are required for procreation. Procreation is essential for a man and woman to found a family. Therefore, a same-sex couple cannot biologically or morally found a family.

The degree to which the institution of marriage will be dismantled is foreshadowed, but not specified, by Part 13, which deals with "Breakdown, Dissolution and Financial Relief', Part 16, which deals with "Consequential and Related Amendments", and Part 17, which deals with "Provisions Relating to Marriage". It should be noted that Part 17 goes so far as to recognize certain same sex "marriages" contracted abroad. Effectively, both same sex "marriages" and domestic partnerships would be recognized in the jurisdiction should the Bill become law.

The Bill states that the Matrimonial Causes Law5, the Maintenance Law6, rules and regulations, and a plethora of laws which underpin the social order and honour family as traditionally understood are to be amended. Terms such as marriage, husband and wife, next of kin, widow and widower, and divorce are to be made applicable to domestic partnerships by prescribing equivalent terms and therefore domestic partnerships would not just be equivalent to marriage, they would be equal to marriage.

In legalizing domestic partnerships as the equivalent of marriage, the educational curriculum, what children are taught in schools, would have to reflect, and promote, homosexuality and same sex unions. To do otherwise would constitute discrimination. In other countries where LGBT rights to same sex marriage is law, we have seen the erosion of the right of parents to raise their children according to their religious beliefs and conscience, the right of children to be protected from moral endangerment and other harms, the advance of comprehensive sexuality education which promotes sexual rights for children, promiscuity, abortion, gender dysphoria and confusion. The range of physical, social, psychological, and spiritual harms are well documented by sociologists and medical science.7

The Domestic Partnership Bill is a piecemeal approach to dismantling society as we know it. It is a hoax to perpetrate a bigger crime against family and fundamental freedoms. We call upon well thinking Caymanians to reject the Domestic Partnership Bill in its entirety and ask Parliament to enact laws that protect our children and our future. Constitutional provisions related to privacy and family life should be amended to affirm their true meaning and avoid doubt of the position of Caymanians which favours marriage and its traditional meaning.

We shall be grateful if in your deliberations you will be fully aware of the widespread understanding in the country about this Bill that it will be fundamentally injurious to our constitutional democracy and that you will vote accordingly.

Yours truly,
Kattina Anglin Chairwoman.
c.c. Cheryl Neblett, Portfolio of Internal Affairs

1 Legislation Gazette No. 47, Supplement No. 1, 26th June 2020.
2 The Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009, UKSI 1379
3 CICA 9 (2019)
4 Fn2, Article l4(1)
5 Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision)
6 Maintenance Law (1996 Revision)
7 https://youtu.be/afDZPivGIo4

Titus 2:7-8 ESV Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.