ANY
APPLICATION OF TWO WOMEN OR ANY APPLICATION OF TWO MEN TO BE MARRIED
TOGETHER IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS - An Essay by Bishop Nicholas Sykes
THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL POSITION
It is well known that there is an impending action of such character in the Cayman Islands. This essay is not about that case in particular, but about any such questioning in general of the rightness of the legal stance of the Constitution and Marriage Law of the Cayman Islands that could arise from the particular case in question and from any others of the same class.
First, it must be clear to all concerned that the Cayman Islands Marriage Law (2010 Revision) defines Marriage as the union of a man and a woman, thereby specifically excluding applications from persons of the same sex to be married together. The Cayman Islands Government General Registry and its staff would therefore be in breach of its obligations if it were to register such purported unions.
The Cayman Islands Marriage Law (2010 Revision) was passed and brought into effect soon after the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 was promulgated and came into effect. It is therefore clear that the legislators and the legal draftsmen of the Cayman Islands Marriage Law (2010 Revision) were of the view that the Law was fully consistent with the Constitution, and presumably the Bill for this revised Law was assented to by the administering authority under the same view.
Nevertheless, if the principal or only argument in this class of case is that the Law as it is written is inconsistent with the Cayman Islands constitution on the grounds of Non-discrimination, the following points about Non-discrimination should be noted in respect of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009.
(1) The right of Non-discrimination in the Cayman Islands is not a "freestanding right of non-discrimination": which is to say, that the right of Non-discrimination does not apply to the "enjoyment of any right set forth by law" (as in a protocol of the European Convention not accepted by the United Kingdom and other countries), but only "in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution" (s.16(1)). Accordingly, Non-discrimination cannot be regarded as being provided by this Constitution to any expanded set of rights that are not already specified in Part 1 of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009.
(2) It follows that the right of "every unmarried man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by law) freely to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family" (s.14(1)) cannot be expanded by the constitutional right of Non-discrimination in the Cayman Islands to a supposed right to marriage to someone not of the opposite sex, and, with that person, "found a family".
(3) Also, subsection (4) of the Non-discrimination section (16) sets out a number of matters of personal law that are protected from legal challenge on the grounds of discrimination, and included in those matters listed in s. 16 (4)(c) is "marriage".
The Cayman Islands Constitution and Marriage Law (in distinction from the recent Bermudan case) offer a clearly worded and clearly protected definition of marriage in the Cayman Islands, which no claimant should have any right or expectation to overturn.
THE RIGHTNESS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
This part of the essay is to answer any suggestion that in spite of its abundant clarity the Cayman Islands Constitution and Marriage Law are nevertheless fundamentally wrong in light of developing understandings about human sexuality in the current age of pan-sexuality and transgenderism, and therefore should be adjusted to reflect this "new reality".
(1) A new opinion is not the same thing as a new reality. While it is true that many people have changed their minds about sexuality, it is not true that matters of right or wrong are changed.
(2) The Wolfenden Report recommended that homosexual practice should be seen to be just as valid a form of sexual expression as the joining together of the reproductive organs of male and female. The form of sex that was practised consensually by adults in private was considered by the report to have no effect on the public square and such forms of sexual expression should no longer be a matter of any legal interest.
As a result of these conclusions eventually being widely accepted, buggery (or sodomy) laws were repealed in many countries of the West, and increasingly such countries as had sufficient influence in other parts of the world (for example Britain with her influence over the Overseas Territories) used whatever legal means were at hand to force buggery laws in their regions of influence to be repealed, even against the wishes of the local populace.
It is not surprising that it was only a matter of time for public displays of homosexuality to become widely accepted in countries that had accepted the conclusions of the Wolfenden Report, and then for "civil partnership" status to be publicly and legally recognised for homosexual relationships, then often swiftly moving on to a legal acceptance of "same-sex marriage". Again, those countries that continued to have sufficient influence in other parts of the world have attempted to use whatever means are at hand to produce similar legal results in their regions of influence.
But is it morally justifiable that countries subject to this influence (as the Cayman Islands and others are) should accept it, either willingly or reluctantly? This paper argues that indeed it is not.
(3) The Wolfenden Report was produced in an era that, seemingly without question, had willingly received the conclusions of an earlier influential report. This report, coming out of the United States, is referred to as the "Kinsey Report", and is probably one of the worst examples up to now of utter depravity cloaking itself in the supposed respectability of an apparently scientific investigation into human sexuality. We should not forget, as well, that the era of the Kinsey Report was not far removed from the era of the supposedly scientific investigations carried out by Nazi investigators upon their hapless war victims or "untermenschen" victims. One Kinsey pedophile collaborator was a former WWII Nazi officer, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck. His young Polish victims had to choose between rape or "the gas chamber." Post WWII he was arrested for a child rape-murder. Kinsey had encouraged the child rape reports and warned his collaborator to "watch out" for the authorities. As we shall see, the subjects of the Kinsey investigations were often just as hapless as the Nazi victims, and indeed in the case of the young children, abused in a manner that can hardly be fathomed. And yet, even today, the "results" derived from such abuse are in the literature given a credence that their genesis must utterly repudiate.
A sample of the Nazi experiments carried out in the early to mid 1940s may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
A brief overview of the horrifying Alfred Kinsey story is available here http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2014/08/alfred_kinsey_w.html (see below) and
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html
By
Jonathon van Maren
LifeSiteNews.com,
August 25, 2014
He is known as "The Father of the Sexual Revolution," and if you've ever taken a university course on 20th century history, you'll have heard his name: Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey was not only the "father" of the Sexual Revolution, he set the stage for the massive social and cultural upheaval of the '60s, '70s and '80s with his 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and his 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.
These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.
Much less talked about were his other disturbing "findings"--an in-depth study on the "sexual behavior" of children, as well as claims that nearly 10% of men had performed sex acts with animals (as well as 3.6% of women), and that this number rose to between 40-50% based on proximity to farms.
Got that? The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children.
Kinsey's research portrayed people as amoral and sex-driven, and is credited as fundamentally changing the way our culture views sex.
But was he right?
To begin with, the integrity of much of his work has long since been called into question: among his questionable practices, Kinsey encouraged those he was working with to engage in all types of sexual activity as a form of research, misrepresented single people as married, and hugely over represented incarcerated sex criminals and prostitutes in his data.
But beyond this is the simple fact that Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.
For example, where did he get all of his data on the "sexual behavior of children"? The answer is nothing short of chilling. Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her ground-breaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to get his so-called research:
Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal "child sexuality." Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey's research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.
For example, "Table 34" on page 180 of Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" claims to be a "scientific" record of "multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males." Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for "orgasm" by Kinsey's "technically trained" aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 "orgasms." Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child "data" to prove children's need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via "safe-sex" education. These data are also regularly used to "prove" children are sexual from birth.
The man heralded with enthusiasm by mainstream publications such as Time and Life Magazine was nothing less than a monstrous facilitator of child-rape. In fact, he even went so far as to record children shrieking and thrashing in pain, passing out and convulsing as the result of the hellish abuse he was putting them through, as evidence of "orgasm"--especially for children who could not yet speak.
Kinsey's so-called research was simply a quest to justify the fact that he himself was a deeply disturbed man. Dr. Reisman writes, "Both of Kinsey's most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff's wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had 'front' Marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous 'anything goes' bi/gay pedophile paradise."
Got that? The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children. His goal was not just to engage in scientific research in order to see where the data took him, but rather, as one of his prominent biographers Michael Jones notes, to launch a crusade to undermine traditional sexual morality. He did so to wild success--Kinsey's influence on sex education and law in the Western world is absolutely staggering.
Some have claimed that even though Kinsey may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. This, too, proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman:
1. [Dr. Kinsey's team] 'forced' subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man 'married,' reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as "Susie Homemaker."
It is crucially important that people become aware of the truth behind the Kinsey Reports.
Today's pornified sex educators, legal experts, academics, and more disturbingly, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA pushing "inter-generational intimacy," all use Kinsey's work to justify their agendas and lend their causes scientific credibility.
Most people have no idea who Alfred Kinsey really was and how his so-called research was actually performed. I myself first heard of Alfred Kinsey in the first year of my history degree at university, where my professor announced that there "was no Sexual Revolution at all"--because the Kinsey Reports proved that people had been engaging in all sorts of bizarre and criminal sexual behaviors all along.
The real story is horrifying. It is stomach-churning. But it is also crucial that we know how, exactly, we got to this place in our culture of such sexual nihilism.
It is in the horrifying context of the then widely hailed Kinsey reports, following Kinsey's 1948 and 1953 publications, and still widely accepted even now as valid scientific research, that the findings of the Wolfenden Report, made public in 1957 following meetings of a committee that began in 1954, but only first accepted by the Government of England and Wales in 1967, might well be looked at again and reevaluated. The report's dictum on the function of law was "The law's function is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others ... It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour." In particular, the question should be asked again (a question that was given considerable exposure at the time) whether there are not some even "private" acts that the law of a society should certainly concern itself with, in view of the totality of their consequences for the society. On this question Sir John Wolfenden himself may not have been an objective commentator, in that it became known later that his own son was "gay".
For example, the question should again be asked, "How can it be a reasonable and logical conclusion that the private life of citizens should be exempt from legal consequences?" Are not most destructive acts planned privately in advance? We live in an age of so-called "terrorism". Are not most of these acts planned privately? Certainly they are!
The question therefore becomes important whether or not even private sodomy is an act (in some sense like the private planning of terrorist acts) that is dangerous or harmful to the community in a long term sense. A positive conclusion to this question would be contrary to the currently fashionable narrative that sodomy, whether anal or oral, is a variety of normal sexual expression that has no worse consequences for the society than adult, consensual and private acts of sexual interourse (which in this essay always refers to the joining together of the reproductive organs of men and women, conveniently defined as men or women by the chromosomes of all their body cells).
Following the lead of the conclusions of the Wolfenden Report (Kinsey-influenced as it appears to have been) many legal developments have bought into this contrary narrative: for example, the understanding of sodomy as a set of acts separate and different from sexual intercourse has been widely erased from the legal lexicon - and consequently from much of the public square - by a false, unreasonable and unethical misapplication of the Principle of Non-discrimination.
To continue to do this is no longer supportable scientifically, as can be shown from the following references:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016
http://www.caymin.ky/APANotBornThatWay.html
It is currently not possible to argue with either ethical or scientific conviction that what this essay has called sodomy is a normal sexual expression for anybody.
(4) The question may remain, however, about whether such non-normal sexual expression is actually bad or dangerous enough to a society for it to fall under legal condemnation. This is obviously a question that should have been studied and answered carefully before legal amendents to old sodomy laws were attempted. To have actually enforced the blanket removal of such laws without studying this question carefully and thus opened up a society to arguably severe dangers by a process of stealthy dictatorship is nothing less than shocking. Old laws do indeed often need amendment; but fashionable ideas based on neither ethics nor science and imposed through legal erasure by brute force on unwilling communities must be seen to be by far the greater peril than the old laws themselves.
The legalisation of non-normal sexual activity can be clearly seen, in hindsight, to belong to a trajectory that includes the legalisation of homosexual civil partnerships and same sex marriage. It would be impossible for any law to have given legitimacy to the second or third of these without the the first having cleared the legal hurdle. The fraud of Alfred Kinsey and his henchmen was an undisputable part of this appalling trajectory. Since same-sex parenting was legally normalised in some jurisdictions as a result of this trajectory, reliable data gradually became available on the childeren involved, and unsurprisingly, it shows, evaluating the same group of people over a long period of time, that securely married opposite sex parents give best results for an optimal outcome - see https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-data-on-children-in-same-sex-households-get-more-depressing
It was not just stability that mattered, but also biology, love, sexual difference, and modelling. So, among other questions, the question needs to be asked: is the thrust to change the nature of marriage really a human rights issue, or rather overwhelmingly a "human wants" issue, an effort to satisfy individual adult cravings at the expense of the rights of weaker participants in the human interaction? Similar issues arise from studies about longevity, health and the public good.
(5) Finally, we must now recognise that the Kinsey-inspired trajectory does not stop at the legalisation of same sex marriage, but rather proceeds to a sort of abolition of marriage, parenthood and the family as we understand it altogether. We have already begun to see the "next wave of the pansexual indoctrination of society" in the form of "gender uncertainty" invading the state schools of the West. See http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Gender_identity_in_public_schools.pdf (see below for its Conclusion)
The United Nations itself may not be far behind.
(6) CONCLUSION
Scientific advances have proven the truth of the natural law concept that human beings are created either male or female, and that the sexual differentiation is complete with eight weeks of conception. Societal change agents seeking to further Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent, criminal pseudo-science used rare instances of children born with ambiguous genitalia, or tragically a boy whose genitals were damaged in surgery, to create a new social construct of “gender identity” and to deconstruct the “barriers” of “gender binaryism.”
Despite mounting evidence of the fallacy of their theories, the change agents have persisted in pursuing their agenda through orchestrated efforts to change public opinion, the law, public policy and academia. Now, the agenda is moving into the public schools, which are still reeling from the introduction of “comprehensive sex education” and the sexualization of the entire educational experience. Young students whose brains have not fully developed and cannot undertake the complex reasoning necessary to process sexual messages will be required to abandon biological reality and accept the idea that “gender” is a multi-faceted concept that does not necessarily correspond with a person’s physical, emotional and psychological reality. Women are again being driven into compromising positions, and put at risk of harm from the new “sexuality” that would again relegate them into the position of second class citizens, exposed to harassment and rape to fit the newest pansexual ideology.
The consequences of this latest manifestation of the pansexual worldview are far-reaching and potentially traumatically devastating to the next generation.