Dear Editor,
I refer to your article ‘Ramkarran calls for decriminalizing of same sex lifestyles‘ (May 28).
An enduring hypocrisy and a confounding intellectual laziness accompany some of the pronouncements of persons whom Guyanese would normally consider to be their ‘leaders.’
They ignore evidence, they insult scholarship, they parrot politically correct phrases and ignore the wishes, hopes and dreams of the majority of the population, and in this case illustrate a naïeveté and arrogance that seems aimed at nothing less than the embarrassment of President Ramotar’s beleaguered government in Guyana.
Ralph Ramkarran, smarting from his party’s rejection of his presidential ambitions, may just have outlived his usefulness to the PPP, because his unfortunate pronouncement provides a rallying point for the considerable portion of the population opposed to the party he claims to represent.
Ignorance may be bliss, but unfeigned intellectual laziness does have a price.
We had alluded, years ago, to the fact that Guyana never ceded sovereignty to international organizations in any way. Then, the culprit was former Chief Justice Keith Massiah and the issue was corporal punishment. The arguments still stand. Mr Ramkarran has ignored the evidence offered against Mr Massiah, and in the process illustrates the same inattention to fact, detail and evidence that informed the online response to the AFC’s effort ‘Statement rejecting efforts to ban corporal punishment in Guyana.’
On the issue of same-sex decriminalization, Mr Ramkarran wilfully ignores the evidence in ‘The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality.’ He ignores the significant legal, medical, social and personal disruption that such measures will foist upon Guyana.
On the dangers of transsexualism and cross-dressing, he ignores the significant evidence offered in the online article ‘The Case Against Crossdressing or Transgenderism in Guyana.’ On corporal punishment, he ignores the substantial evidence offered in ‘The Case for Corporal Punishment in Guyana II,’ and offers us nothing but political gabble.
On the Christian response, he ignores the factual evidence offered (as in hand-delivered) to all of Guyana’s parliamentarians (including Mr Ramkarran) in 2010 in the article ‘Universal Periodic Review: Open Letter to Guyana’s Parliamentarians September 2010.’
On the gay-advocacy deception, Mr Ramkarran ignores the strong evidence offered in the online article ‘Christopher Carrico, Collateral Damage, and Britain: Feeding the Beast of Deception on Gay Rights.’
On point of law, he ignores the ominous warning by his colleague in America, Antonin Scalia, who offers in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas that the foolhardy march by his fellow jurists to be swayed by gay activism in spite of rational-basis review has consequences: “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review…”
However conceptualized, Christians in Guyana can no longer afford to be inactive. The time may have come for the best among us to stand in homes, streets, parliament and elsewhere, and fight with everything legally possible for the protection of our faith.
Why now?
Homosexuality and transgenderism are the only two psycho-sexual/mental disorders so identified that set up as their ultimate and non-negotiable goal the destruction of core creation structures in the Judeo-Christian ethos: fact, truth, evidence, law, order, manhood, womanhood, sex, family, marriage!
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
