With reference to the Stabroek News report its Sunday, February 15 edition, headlined, ‘Cross-dressing case points to “selective discrimination” – law should be repealed, SASOD says,’ acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson’s general perspective is being roundly supported by those who appreciate the overwhelming evidence. Further, whereas her detractors are citing hot air and precious little else, the evidence in recent (2002) law reviews supports her conservative outlook. The law does exist for good social, moral, legal and societal reasons, and those relating to sexual offences and improper conduct have not been invalidated by the passage of time. The Guyanese people and Melissa Robertson will find that science and the law are very clear relative to the debate.
The feeding frenzy initiated by SN’s careless caption in the main ignored the negative social policy implications of Sasod’s arguments. The evidence supports an inevitable conclusion: A behaviour-based group masquerading as a ‘minority’ cannot usurp the value-system of entire nations without challenge. Lawyer Roger Magnuson makes the undisputed point: “The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists… merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate.” (Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy! page 137)
Readers will find that the only reasoned statement in the SN article seems to be that of Priya Manickchand.
It is clear that mere brio and hot emotion will not settle this issue, and Christians and other Guyanese will be pleased to find that the secular evidence supports their religious/moral positions. On the other hand, the arguments of gay militancy are suffused with deception and an agenda to manipulate those trapped in same-sex attraction disorders. Readers have immediate access to three sources for a quick introduction to the issues:
First reading should be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment ‘Homosexuality is not a Civil Right’ (http://www.crrange.com/ wall34.html).
Secondly, readers should realize that Guyana and the Caribbean recently dodged the bullet regarding the ‘decriminalization’ craze that is currently being forcefully argued by gay militancy around the world. There seems to be an abysmal ignorance of the truth regarding the destructive social policy implications involved in these efforts, and we must start the debate now. Readers should assess the article ‘Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality’ (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality). Sasod’s arguments about the “victimless” nature of ‘sexual orientation’ cases is dealt with at pages 21, 23 and 24. Read also the dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia on pages 25-35.
Finally, almost unnoticed by the Guyanese voting public, Guyana’s Permanent Representative to the OAS, Dennis Moses, made an astonishing vote on June 3, 2008 on behalf of the Guyanese people. The incredible fact here is that all Christian and conservative groups were banned from lobbying the politicians at the OAS event, and, despite up to four requests to respond to the article ‘Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution’ (http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 5319369/RESPONSE-TO-OAS-AND-PANCAP-ON-SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-AND-DECRIMINALIZING-HOMOSEXUALITY-AND-PROSTITUTION), neither Dennis Moses nor the OAS has responded to the issues raised therein.
An elitist snobbery seems to have replaced concern for the people’s questions in regional institutions. This is no substitute for good social policy. Instead of recommending repeal of very pertinent legislation, the Chief Magistrate should order prosecution and defence to prepare a judicial review of the 2002 law review ‘Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement’ (by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002, http:// www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc) and other such current reviews cited at page 18 of ‘Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality.’ This would clear the air appreciably.
Magistrate Robertson would be pleased to find that her comments about “confusion” are also raised in the psychiatric community. She should peruse the 2001 article by Dr Joseph Nicolosi: ‘The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual’ (http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf.
Sasod should be rejected yet again.