[Catholic Caucus] (Catholic) Church supports move to legalize homosexual acts in Trinidad and Tobago

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad - The Catholic Church in Trinidad and Tobago has declared its full support for an April 12 High Court decision that paved the way for making sodomy legal in that country.

At this time, it is still a criminal offense that carries a prison sentence of 25 years.

In an April 13 statement, Archbishop Charles Gordon of Port-of-Spain said sodomy “is a serious moral offense, but it should not put someone in prison for 25 years.”

Gordon cited the Vatican’s December 2008 intervention made at the 63rd Session of the United Nations: “The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination toward homosexual persons should be avoided and urges states to do away with criminal penalties against them.”

Most of Trinidad and Tobago’s legislation is inherited from its pre-independence days as a British colony, including the “Buggery Laws” - a reference to laws governing sodomy. The Sexual Offences Act of 1987 still contains statutes from the English Buggery Act of 1533.

The Sexual Offences Act does not apply to, “an act of serious indecency committed in private between a husband and his wife” or “a male person and a female person, each of whom is 16 years of age or more, both of whom consent to the commission of the act.”

“It’s really discriminatory, when you think about it,” said Father Martin Sirju, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Port-of-Spain, “because there are heterosexual people who practice this sexual expression, and they are not the ones being targeted in this. It’s just one group.”

And, of that group, it was still the relatively powerless who would likely suffer, “because the one who gets exposed, let’s face it, is the underdog,” added Sirju. “Those are the ones who get exposed, not the privileged, not the well-placed people.”

Gordon said he knew people believed that repealing the laws “will open the door to same-sex marriage.”

“These may well be strategies that are tied together. We need to deal with them separately,” he said, adding, “We will oppose same-sex marriage in every way possible.”

He reminded the faithful, however, that: “Mercy is the epicenter of the Gospel message. Homosexuals should be protected, and we should ensure that they are not subjected to discrimination or violence … They should be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

In his ruling, Justice Devindra Rampersad called the laws “unconstitutional,” adding that: “This court must and will uphold the constitution to recognize the dignity of even one citizen whose rights and freedoms have been invalidly taken away.”

The decision comes at a time when many are fearful that a wider LGBTQ agenda may be taking root in the Caribbean.

Trinidad-born LGBTQ activist Jason Jones, who brought the case contesting the law, told local media he intended to continue the fight for same-sex marriage and adoption.

In 2015, Jamaican lawyer Maurice Tomlinson brought a case at the Caribbean Court of Justice challenging the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize, which denied entry to homosexuals.

The case was thrown out when it was proved that Belize prohibited anyone, homosexual or otherwise, entering the country as sex workers or intending to profit from such gains, and that Trinidad and Tobago’s Immigration Department “does not apply this prohibition to homosexual CARICOM neighbors,” so, as a national of a member country of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Tomlinson would not be denied entry.

The following year, the Belize Supreme Court legalized sodomy after Belizean activist Caleb Orozco challenged the Criminal Code. The local Catholic Church had supported keeping the act illegal.

Addressing religion-based objections to changes in the law, Rampersad stated: “This conclusion is not an assessment of denial of the religious beliefs of anyone. … However, this conclusion is a recognition that the belief of some, by definition, is not the belief of all and, in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, all are protected, and are entitled to be protected, under the constitution.”

In the days preceding the Trinidad and Tobago case, religious and secular groups marched through the streets of the capital voicing their concern. Following the decision, they declared their intention to continue protesting in various ways until the matter is recalled July 4, when the court is expected to make recommendations on attorneys’ submissions on how to proceed.

The Trinidad and Tobago government has declared its intention to appeal the ruling; the matter is expected to be eventually heard in the U.K.-based Privy Council, the highest court in the country.

The definition of sodomy in different legal codes through the centuries has varied, but in general, it covers "acts against nature" or "unnatural intercourse" (meaning, not normal man-woman procreative acts) involving men, women, or animals.

"A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality.
Sodomy law - Wikipedia

"In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony."
Sodomy legal dictionary

"Sodomy is a 'crime against nature'. Sodomy laws generally criminalize oral or anal sex, between consenting adults even in the privacy of their homes. As recently as the early 1960s, all 50 states had some sort of criminal law that outlawed consensual sodomy."
definitions.uslegal.com Sodomy

"In the law, the term sodomy refers to anal or oral sex, whether between a man and woman, two women, or two men, and was historically considered to be a criminal act."
Sodomy - Definition, Examples, Cases - LegalDictionary.net

You're certainly not going to be able to allow some groups in society to do oral/anal buggery, and others, not.

“The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination toward homosexual persons should be avoided and urges states to do away with criminal penalties against them.”

However, Just Discrimination toward persons suffering the homosexual disorder is advocated:

SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

II. Applications
10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The "sexual orientation" of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing" (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to "manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that "any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as "family" participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.