By a five-four vote the US Supreme Court upheld marriage equality in all 50 states making up the United States of America. The Court affirms, “The right to marry is fundamental.” Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote among other salient points that: “They [gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” Relying on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Kennedy continued, “Under the 14th Amendment’s protections, couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty…The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”

In noting the change in thinking, the Court said: “Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes…”

Justice Kennedy then went on to provide a historical framework surrounding the ideas of marriage. He accomplished this by linking how the ideas of marriage have evolved along with the changing roles and legal status of women. He wrote: “The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society.” He noted further that for years, “A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken.”

In his dissent, Justice John Roberts wrote that the court had taken an “extraordinary step” in deciding not to allow states to decide the issue for themselves, saying that the Constitution does not define marriage. Calling the ruling “deeply disheartening”, Justice Roberts said that those on the winning side of the issue should celebrate a victory. “But do not celebrate the Constitution,” he wrote. “It had nothing to do with it.”

Then Justice Scalia said the Supreme Court’s “highly unrepresentative panel of nine” had violated “a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation”.

It is true. My views on same-sex marriage remain stubbornly fixed in opposition to it. My opposition is anchored in my religious upbringing and acceptance of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I still struggle with understanding the purpose of having two men referring to one another as “husband and wife” or two women doing the same when, by definition, husband denotes membership in the masculine gender and wife of the feminine gender. Declaratively, however, these challenges do not affect my tolerance for same-sex couples, nor do they chip away at my support for gay rights, within the broader context of human rights.

That notwithstanding, my views on civil unions have evolved over the years. Frankly, I hold the staunch view that it is none of my business whom one chooses to love or sleep with, and it is certainly none of my business to demand of anyone to love the way I do. This will remain forever so, because of my acceptance and belief that, regardless of our sexual orientation, we are all masterpieces of God’s creation. Humanity is very complex. Still, according to Biblical teachings, we are created in “the image and likeness” of that master potter whom we call God.

Unlike some in the Christian community, I strongly disagree that acts of homosexuality, which most of us still do not understand, weigh heavier on the “sin scale” than other so-called transgressions such as murder, covetousness, malice, theft, fornication, and adultery. Predictably, fairly or unfairly, more pressure will be brought on countries like Jamaica, that are heavily dependent on tourism, to improve their human rights laws especially to offer equal protection under the law. It will be entirely up to us either to move with the tide or forever remain stationary.

President Obama compared the historic court ruling to a “thunderbolt”; good for him. It appears the rumblings have not, and will not, jolt us in Jamaica to accept the reality that happenings up North undoubtedly affect us down here. Honestly, I was expecting stronger condemnation and incendiary rhetoric from resident Jamaicans. After all, our vociferous objection to homosexuality of any kind is renowned. Perhaps we have come to accept that we cannot “fight city hall” and that as we continue to sing for our economic supper, it makes no sense to “bite the hand that feeds us”. I am certain that, as beneficiaries of foreign largesse, most of us have not reconciled the sexual bona fides of our benefactors. No, not at all, but were we to so engage, I wonder what we would do, collectively, if we discovered that the hands that feed us are the same hands that are tied in same-sex marriages and civil unions.

That aside, an unofficial check with the United States Embassy in Kingston confirms no renouncements by Jamaicans of their American citizenship, immigrant and non-immigrant visas, labour certification or work permits since last Friday’s US Supreme Court decision. It is not only that, but the check also confirms that there have been no reductions in the number of Jamaicans submitting applications for, or making inquiries about student visas, non-immigrant visas, citizenship, immigrant visas, work authorisation, scholarships, medical treatment, and so on, since last Friday’s landmark court ruling. Bet any money a check in with the US Embassy in a year or two from now will yield no different result; if anything, applications are most likely to increase.

It is early days yet, but it should not require too much courage for some Jamaican citizens, pastors, Christians, dancehall artistes, and unrepentant homophobes to register their collective and substantial disapproval and disdain for the US Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality by renouncing their American visas and citizenship. They should start boycotting all US destinations; they should stop buying American-made goods; and they should reject remittances and gifts coming from the United States. Pursuing any of these protest actions would have the potential of shielding unreasonable opponents and bigots from “guilt by association” as well as from any imminent disaster this same-sex “Sodom and Gomorrah” ruling will bring upon the United States. Interestingly, religious dogmatists, who have been predicting the equivalent of a “moral Armageddon” in addition to forecasting unprecedented destruction as immediate and certain aftermaths of this ruling, have suddenly found other causes with which to align themselves.

Fret not thyself, and look not for any such acts of defiance or candour. Furthermore, holding one’s breath in anticipation that Jamaicans would ever opt to carry out one or a combination of these proposed protest actions would be tantamount to the most morbid kind of self-destruction any human being could inflict upon himself. Jamaicans are only selectively and conveniently opposed to same-sex relationships. Just watch how skilfully, and oftentimes ruefully, Jamaicans visiting or living abroad behave around homosexuals and lesbians. We excuse our sudden tolerance by invoking the much-used adage that says, “When in Rome do as the Romans do”. Moreover, when our economic interests are threatened and our social standing hangs precariously on the edge, we invoke the ‘Chronixx Doctrine’ that goes something like this: “I [Chronixx] love every human on this planet and, as hard as it is, I show nothing but perfect love even to the ‘waste man’ dem at home and abroad. Love has nothing to do with truth! And I did not call the president a ‘waste man’.” Chronixx was wrong when he wrote, “Love has nothing to do with the truth…” Chronixx, love has everything to do with the truth, because truth is what defines “perfect love”.

Burnscg@aol.com