Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Gay Rights, Direct Rule and a Government in Crisis?

So the UK Government through its Foreign Office is flexing, at last, its constitutional muscle! It has long been the view of this blogger that the 2006 Constitution is not a decolonizing constitution.  Additionally, the referendum, to approve it, was not an act of self-determination. Both contrary to what the Chief Minister has always argued and would have us all believe.  It is scary to think that our Chief Minister is so deluded in this belief.  Support for the view of this blogger now comes in the form of comments and action by the Foreign Office on the issue of gay rights (see the previous blog).

Although the UK Government has stated (according to the Chronic) that all UKOTs, which includes Gibraltar, (in fact more so in its case because it is the only one in Europe, so it is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) that discriminatory laws affecting gays and other discriminatory laws dealing with sexual behaviour cannot continue in Gibraltar.  The UK Government will ensure, it seems, compliance by Gibraltar with international obligations.  Rightly, it points out that constitutionally, external affairs is within its ambit of responsibility and control, which would include compliance with international obligations.

Although the Foreign Office remind UKOTs that it can legislate directly by Orders in Council, it seems to be allowing the Government of Gibraltar time to fulfill these obligations by enacting appropriate legislation in the Parliament of Gibraltar.  Was this not the same as the threat of direct rule levied against the GSLP when they were in Government that was so criticised by the GSD and caused such a rumpus at the time?  Will the GSD Government not be criticised now in equal measure for causing the circumstances that have led to such a retrograde step to be considered by the UK Government despite its proclamation that Gibraltar is no longer a colony?  It seems that initially the Foreign Office have intervened in the proceedings before the Supreme Court (see the previous blog) to put its case and arguments.  In this manner it is seen to act both politely and diplomatically.

What a farce all started by the Chief Minister and the Attorney General.  They ask the Supreme Court to rule on a question, the answer to which is generally known.  The answer given by European Case law (see the previous blog) is that discrimination is contrary to international obligations (the European Convention on Human Rights) and the 2006 Constitution, Chapter 1 of which is based on the Convention.   What a farce that additionally the obvious is ignored, even when the UK government say that if the situation is not corrected by Gibraltar's Parliament, it will impose the law directly from London. Why do the Chief Minister and the Attorney General insist on wasting time and energy and misspending tax revenues (our money) on a pointless  exercise?

The previous blog suggests that the GSD administration do not want to alienate the orthodox christian and jewish vote that it attracts by passing a law that  commonplace in most developed democracies, which conversely is seen to be too progressive by many in Gibraltar.  There may be a second (albeit subservient) reason,namely, that certain GSD Ministers cannot bring themselves to vote in favour of a law to end this type of discrimination because they hold similar orthodox religious views.  Consequently an excuse that they have been forced into doing so by an order of  the Supreme Court would be an ideal solution to both conundrums.

In truth, this is a superficial and badly conceived excuse.  The compulsion to vote to end discrimination does not arise from any declaration made by the Supreme Court; that is simply a statement of existing law.  It arises by the clear and unequivocal reality of the law.  If that is not enough to mollify the conscience of those GSD Ministers then no order of any court can do so.

These Ministers need to decide between their Parliamentary duty and obligation and their personal moral principles and religious beliefs.  Their parliamentary duty is to pass laws that do not discriminate.  If that is irreconcilable with their principles and beliefs, is not resignation a path that they need to consider?  The right path is not to misspend our money on a vacuous crusade seeking to be told by the Supreme Court what is so widely known already.


  1. Plato says:

    Q.E.D. 10 out of 10.

  2. Masterly and I agree entirely.

  3. Fred says:

    I would echo Plato's assessment: A+

    What worries me is that when the launches saga happened all those years ago, and we had that demonstration that culminated with the end of the Bossano era, it was obvious to all that the FCO gave the GSD more than a helping hand: coverage in Sky News, BBC, etc. You have to give it to them, it was an effective strategic communications operation.

    But, at the time most decent Gibraltarians were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: we despised Mr Bossano's strategy and the destruction of the social fabric it wrought (much more damaging than buggery ever will be), but we also feared that if London tried to impose direct rule we would all have to make a stand.

    Now one fears that both the new blood in the Convent (not the military chap - they tend to be nice) and his political masters in London may have realised that Mr Caruana will not actually be able to deliver the 2002 dream (us supporting Spain at the World Cup), so they may as well be shot of him.

    What makes this situation even more dangerous is that Mr Caruana may be spoiling for a fight too.

    I don't blame him for wanting to do this, Lord knows that the FCO has lost the plot generally around the world, but this is not the way to go about it.

    Llanitoworld, you warned us a couple of posts ago about a situation that would allow Britain and Spain to exploit... this may be it.

    One word of advice to Mr Caruina... gayly pass the sodding legislation... then let's get about decolonising us... but you may have to give up some of your power.

    I propose a full reform of the House with an end to divisive party politics and for us to be able to elect the best individuals, not parties.

    PS - what the hell was Rooney thinking?! I had already bought an England shirt!!!

  4. I do not believe the UK machinates to undermine Gibraltar. It may exploit situations that arise but no more. I do not believe that they gay rights issue will be used for any ulterior motives. I understand that all Crown Dependencies and all UKOTs, other than Gibraltar and Bermuda, have legislated equal rights on sexual matters. The UK's involvement with Gibraltar is no more than a desire to get Gibraltar up to speed.

    What is more frightening is the potential for the Chief Minister to react badly. He is a belligerent character. He values his position and power too much. He will see the move of the UK as an affront to the people of Gibraltar that he must resist. he will also want to prove his theory that Gibraltar has been decolonised and has exercised its right to self determination as he has preached. This may motivate him into a confrontation with Britain to the detriment of Gibraltar. Let us hope not!

    The party system is here to stay. The best method now to get better and wider representation is to reform the electoral system and introduce some form of proportional representation. No party leader will do this. They value the presidential power that is handed to them by the present electoral system far too much.

  5. I am astounded by the Chief Minister's reaction today. His statement that his government will not signal that homosexual buggery is "OK" at 16 years of age is emotive and inflammatory.

    Is having the age of 16 years for heterosexual sex a signal that it is "OK" to have sex at that age? I do not think so. What it is is a realisation that the law should not punish and marginalise those who do have sex at that age.

    It seems that the Chief Minister and his Government do not understand that the reasons for legislating are deeper and more complicated. A government is not the infallible moral standard bearer nor is it its duty to become surrogate parents to all.

    The Government can make the choice to increase the age of heterosexual sex to 18. What will the electorate say when their 16 to 18 year olds get sent to prison for having heterosexual sex? Or shall we face reality, which is that even today when it happens at under 16 years of age and a girl gets pregnant officialdom turns a blind eye. Will the same happen if it were to be homosexuals that are caught?

    The reaction of the Government signals its homophobic prejudices.

  6. Fred says:

    Spot on again LlanitoWorld. I read it in "The Chronic".

    Who is the Convent "spokesman" that the paper quotes? Who wrote the statement? (Also, should it not be "spokesperson"?. I am not with the political correctness brigade, but this is just sexist).

    I was also astonished that they refer to the FCO's decision as "unconventional". Notwithstanding my overrall view of the FCO, Mr Caruana should be grateful that it is calibrating its intervention so carefully and so respectfully.

    Much will now depend on the Politics of the Judiciary... J.A.G. Griffiths anyone?

  7. Plato says:
    Fred, there's something here that we're missing. I'm intrigued as to what.

    How about this for a conspiracy theory. We all know what the law is on homosexuality. We all know what EU and ECHR law is on homosexuality. Implementation will be mandatory either by EU, ECHR. No problem until now. Then what is the fuss all about? The GSD should never have created this mess.

    But then Mr Feetham proposed a Bill. Why? It is an accepted fact that noone in the GSD dares make a move without his sanction. Mr Feetham must therefore have proposed that Bill with Mr Caruana's blessings. But Mr Caruana was then and is now against homosexuality, so what is going on. What was the exercise? Perhaps Mr Feetham was led on with a resounding defeat planned by Mr Caruana. Is there a power struggle? I haven't heard anything on this.

    So Mr Feetham's Bill gets defeated and Mr Caruana can now declare his position. Maybe he knew the Foreign Office would get involved. How did he know? If so is there a 'cunning plan' a la Blackadder in existence. If so who benefits. Mr Caruana, Foreign Office or Spain?
    I wonder what your thoughts are on this.Incidentally who are the Parliamentarians who voted against the Bill. Names please. I will never vote for any of them as not only do their views differ from mine but they do not have the integrity to function as impartial politicians for the good of all. Least of all, they knew that their decision was against 'international' law and went ahead and took it. Does anyone know the names of the ones who voted against? Certainly I do have to congratulate Mr Feetham if indeed he proposed his Bill against Mr Caruana's wishes and their is no 'cunning plan' in existence.

  8. The question that needs to be asked is, why was Feetham forced to present a Private Members Bill? It can only have been to prevent a defeat of the Government forcing a General Election!

    Taking the GSD Government's argument to its final conclusion what we need is a law making all sexual intercourse criminal save for the purpose of procreation. I thought an Englishman had been appointed Bishop of Gibraltar and not Caruana ... should someone remind him? Is the Pope still in Rome?

  9. Fred says:


    What you are alluding to has already been hypthesised about by Sancho:

    I personally think its all to do with ego and a false sense of morality (hypocrisy) as regards the sex issue.

    As regards the internal politics in the GSD I'm firmly of the Machiavellian/realist school of thought - I just wish they'd use daggers!

    LlanitoWorld, so no w**king for anyone then if sex is only for procreation?!!! When are burkas and stoning coming into fashion?!

    I find it perverse that these orthodox Jews/Christians/Muslims all become bed fellows when it comes to sex related issues, but are quite happy to slaughter each other over pretty much everything else. Thank God for Jesus!

    Happy Easter chaps, God bless:

    Hospitaller says: "I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God.

    I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers.

    Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness.

    What God desires is here [points to Balian's head] and here [points to Balian's heart] and what you decide to do every day will make you a good man...or not."

    One may be critical about the film, but I think it's a great quote for Good Friday as we remember the Nazarene. [Kingdom of Heaven]

  10. Plato says:

    Fred, thanks. I've read the post and Sancho believes in daggers as well. I am still not convinced that there is not more to this.

    Llanito World, if you are right on the vote of confidence, then why bring the issue up at all in a Private Member's Bill. If you are right, then the GSD has significant internal turmoil.

  11. Brown Cow said;

    The Government's last public statement on this matter reveals their true position. They are homophobic. Rather than put to one side beliefs that they are not willing or able to publicly justify, they have elected to bring Gibraltar to the brink of direct rule and have wasted public resources having the Supreme Court decide a question the answer to which is already abundantly clear.

    In deciding upon this course of action the Government have marginalised young, potentially vulnerable people, who may already be wrestling with their own sexual identity, whilst claiming to have their best interests at heart. Just as it would not be in the best interests young heterosexual teenagers to criminalising their sexual relations, it is not in the best interest of young homosexuals to criminalise their behaviour. The religious and health concerns highlighted by the Government in their submission to the Supreme Court are not best protected by making criminals of young men.

    It is dishonest and disingenuous for the Government to pretend that there is any real issue of law to be decided in this case. There is none. The law is clear. There is only one issue here and it is the personal moral conviction of the Chief Minister and all or some of his Government.

    Rather than act in accordance with the obligations of his Office, in accordance with our constitution, and in accordance with our international convention obligations by legislating to change the law, the Chief Minister has, at public expense, prioritised his personal moral beliefs. Homophobic beliefs which have no place in a liberal democracy. What consenting adults do in private is a matter for them.

    The Government have already indicated that they will not signal that it is ok for 16 year olds to engage in buggery. It is an emotive statement cynically designed to draw the public's attention from the fact that discrimination in this matter relates to the arbitrary age at which society decides young people are old enough to engage in sexual relations. Whether we want to make buggery or blowjobs illegal for all or none is an entirely separate matter.

    To my mind the statement suggests that a possible outcome of this matter is raising the age of consent across the board to 18. That outcome would be a truly sad and retrograde step for Gibraltarian society. No matter what the outcome, Gibraltarian democracy has already suffered a great deal as a result of this episode. And to what practical end? None at all, other than satiating the Chief Ministers desire to remain true to beliefs that he is not willing or able to justify in public.

  12. The Chief Minister argues in his case to the Supreme Court that if anyone is being discriminated against it is heterosexuals because it is they who are prohibited from partaking of anal sex. Agreed, so having conceded that, anal must be allowed as between heterosexuals to prevent discrimination against them and in favour of homosexuals. If it is allowed, then the Chief Minister no doubt will in his perverse thought process ease the law by setting the age for that at 18 years as is the case for homosexuals; this does not resolve the issue.

    By section 99 of the Criminal Offences Act sexual intercourse is defined by reference to natural and unnatural (buggery) sexual intercourse. If heterosexual sexual intercourse is permitted at one age unless homosexual sexual intercourse is permitted at the same age discrimination will persist.


Additionally, it is not just buggery that is engaged. Section 116 of the same Act forbids indecency between men both in public and in private. This is also permitted with consent as between men over 18 if in private. Prohibiting buggery before the age of 18 will not solve the discriminatory aspect of men not being permitted to engage in indecency in private.

    What about discrimination as against women? Women can engage in lesbian acts seemingly as from the age of 16. Men are prohibited from doing so until the age of 18. Will lesbianism be forbidden until the age of 18 to avoid discrimination? That would be a retrograde step! What do women have to say about that?

  13. The Chief Minister argues in his case to the Supreme Court that if anyone is being discriminated against it is heterosexuals because it is they who are prohibited from partaking of anal sex. Agreed, so having conceded that, anal must be allowed as between heterosexuals to prevent discrimination against them and in favour of homosexuals. If it is allowed, then the Chief Minister no doubt will in his perverse thought process change the law by setting the age for that at 18 years as is the case for homosexuals; this does not resolve the issue. 

    By section 99 of the Criminal Offences Act sexual intercourse is defined by reference to natural and unnatural (buggery) sexual intercourse. If heterosexual sexual intercourse is permitted at one age unless homosexual sexual intercourse is permitted at the same age discrimination will persist.

    Additionally, it is not just buggery that is engaged. Section 116 of the same Act forbids indecency between men both in public and in private. This is also permitted with consent as between men over 18 if in private. Prohibiting buggery before the age of 18 will not solve the discriminatory aspect of men not being permitted to engage in indecency in private. 

    What about discrimination as against women? Women can engage in lesbian acts seemingly as from the age of 16. Men are prohibited from any form of homosexual sex until the age of 18. Will lesbianism be forbidden until the age of 18 to avoid discrimination? That would be a retrograde step! What do women have to say about that?

  14. First I would like to congratulate you on this blog which fills a gap in Gibraltar's decimated news media. On the subject of the age of consent I was interested to read Charles Gomez Q.C's suggestion in the Chronicle that the question be put to a plebiscite. Far too many decisions are taken without public consultation.

  15. Charles Gomez, whilst a well renowned lawyer, is sadly not a QC. What was probably more interesting was Robert Vasquez's reply published in yesterday's Chronic, which explained that the referendum on the 2006 Constitution was essentially a referendum on this issue.

    He went further and explained how that self-same referendum was being shown by recent events to be an endorsement of Gibraltar's colonial status rather than an exercise of the right to self-determination as disingenuously argued by the GSD. Some members of the "NO Campaign" warned against having a referendum to adopt the 2006 constitution precisely for this reason.

    Plebiscites do not play any role in a democracy based on the Westminster model. Referendums should be the exception rather than the rule and only on fundamental issues.

    Finally, thank you for your support and congratulations. I agree that Gibraltar's news media is neutered but will refrain from commenting on the reasons. Any commentary would be speculative so each reader can reach his/her own conclusion!

  16. To hold a referendum on the sex/age discrimination issue would only serve to further damage and lower the status of our referendums. LLanito World is right.

  17. Llanito world - Perhaps the reason why there is some level of discrimination towards homosexual men is because history and indeed science have taught and shown us how different men are from women.

    As bloggers have been all to keen to point out on this site recently we have seen Catholic priests been brought to the spotlight (and rightly so) for their disgusting behaviour.

    A famous American television show called "To catch a predator" shows how men will drive hundreds of miles to attempt to have a sexual relationship with boys aged between 10 - 13. The makers of the show actually say that they have tried to catch women but don't succeed because women are not as sexually motivated or hungry as their male counterparts.

    A bit further back and we have the sick and disturbing story of J. Fritzl.

    We also have NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association which well..I believe the name says it all.

    It is counterintuitive to see all this happen time and time again and yet want to change the law to facilitate homosexual men who MAY want to prey on younger children.
    I believe that perhaps there is a public worry that this could happen, it certainly is my worry.

    I myself have homosexual friends and know that very few of them knew they were gay until their very late teens, and none of them wanted to have sex until they were out of their teens.

  18. May I suggest that you make your first point to all women who in the present day and age seek equality and equal treatment. Thank you for your admission that discrimination exists. $Right, wrong or indifferent that is not permitted by law.

    Catholic priest were accused of paedophilia. No one is suggetsing the legalisation of paedophilia! No one is suggesting that the age should be less than 16! Indeed in this blog no one has said what the age should be.

    I note what you say about women not being as sexually active. I think teenage preganancy statistics contradict this position. Indeed this argument is not even accepted by the Roman Catholic church whio have set the gae of consent for females to marry at 13, precisely because thia is considered the age when capacity to bear a child arises.

    Do not judge all by the worst criminlas. One judges humanity by its intelligence, discipline, reasonableness and othe attributes that distinguis us from animals.

    Why is it homosexual men who prey? This is prejudiced and homophobic. There are numerous examples of heterosexula men and women who have done the same, the Moors murders, the recent women nursery teachers come to mind, research would undoubtedly reveal more. The worry should be wider than just homosexula men! This is a worry that the police need to relieve people of but with heterosexula predators also.

    You argue against yourself. I agree that many (even most) homosexual men do not discover their sexual preference until late in their teens. then what is the issue? It is also reassuring that none of them wanted sex until they were out of their teens. perhaps heterosexual males and females should learn a lesson and take a leaf out of your friend's book.

    have you discussed these matters openly with them?

  19. Your first point is a classic feminist approach of wanting to be viewed and treated equally. However as much as you try men and women are different both physically as well as mentally. Women have the maternal instinct which a man could never have, as well as the power to carry a child within them. Regarding equal rights, a man is not allowed to have paid maternity leave, nor is the father of a child generally allowed sole custody within the first 5 years of a child’s life if the mother is still around, like these there are many other discrepancies in the law which differentiate men from women.
    Your third point which attempts to counter women not being as sexually active is flawed in that you are comparing a woman’s maternal instinct and want to create a family to a mans hormones and lust. Which I do believe you ought to apologise for.
    Your fourth point – I believe you are putting words into my mouth I am not judging or condemning all homosexuals, I am merely pointing out that there is a very real worry of paedophilia occurring. I am pleasantly surprised to see that the Vatican also share this view.
    One disregards history at their own risk. After all a pretty picture can be painted of anyone, that doesn’t paint them completely though.
    Your fifth point – I was referring to the homosexual men who form part of NAMBLA, to catch a predator and all those who fall within the category of being homosexual paedophiles. Also regarding the Moors murders I note that it was the male who sexually abused the victims and not the woman which further goes on to reinforce my previous point which said that men are more sexually hungry than women.

    Finally your sixth point – what I was trying to get across is that if homosexuals don’t find themselves until later on in their teens why then lower the age of consent?

  20. Point 1, chauvinistic.

    Point 2, you avoid commenting on paedophile priests.

    Point 3, sexual desire in women in your mind equals maternal instinct ... interesting!

    Point 4, it was not the Vatican that agreed with you. It was some random commentator. The Vatican does not admit to a predominance of homosexuals in the priesthood, do you?

    Point 5 you take your point about NAMBLA out of context. It was made in the context of your equating homosexuals with paedophilia.

    Point 6, nothing in this blog suggests what the age should be. It talks of equalising the age. Th law ignores what is happening in society at its peril. Does society really want to criminalise consensual acts in private, with the consequence of potentially imprisoning young people (male or female) and tainting them with a criminal record for the rest of their lives? Would you, as a parent (if you are), be prepared to report to the police your 16 year old son (if you have one) were he to admit to you that he had committed buggery? THAT IS THE ACID TEST. If you are not so prepared then do not advocate a law that you are not prepared to see upheld.

  21. I have heard that a number of Christian churches have hired Charles Gomez to object to the equalisation of the age of consent for gays and that there is to be a hearing in court next week. Does anyone have any news on this? the fundamentalists are finally comong out!

  22. Cofucius he say:

    This morning's Chronic says that 6 Protestant Churches appeared in court to argue that the discrimination between heterosexual sexual intercourse and buggery is constitutional because sexual intercourse is legal and buggery is illegal. This makes a refreshing intellectual foil to the herds of lawyers who blindly argue "equality at all costs" and I suppose make a nice living from stating what they think is obvious but may not be so obvious after all. Why is the Catholic Church not supporting the protestant? As usual Carlito Gomez has put the cat among the pigeons, well done. By the way, why is Unite using members subs to pay 2 lawyers Keith Azopardi and Kenneth Navas to argue for "equalisation". As the Chief Justice Dudley said, not all Unite mambers may agree with the idea.

  23. The arguments will be heard in court but, if what you say is accurate, that argument is circular and cannot be convincing. It is the very legality of homosexual acts with consent and other matters in that is in question, so its present illegality cannot be an answer to the very question posed.

  24. PORCULLIS says;

    I am not a solicitor but this time I don't think your right Llanito world. I don't think that the case is about making anal intercourse legal but whether the exeption for men over 18 should come down to 16. If this is so then the Envangelical alliance have a point.

  25. The case is about not discriminating and so equalising the age.

    As Dudley CJ is quoted as having said that " ... he would be simply ruling on whether or not the difference in age was unconstitutional, not on what the age of consent should be. 'Whether it's set at 16, 18, 21 or 64 is not going to be a matter for this court, I don't think'..." (see Chronic 17th April 2010).

    The outcome of the case will determine who is right.

  26. I agree with Porcullis, i think that you haven't understood the case Llanito World

  27. Llanito World
    How is acknowledging the men and women are different and therefore can be afforded different rights chauvinistic? I think the following is apt to this situation – Facts are stubborn things.

    Sexual desire between two heterosexuals has the potential to create life. Whereas sexual desire between two men or even two women is just sexual desire, it is just sex. It has no end product.

    I am afraid that you are wrong there llanito world. I don’t know if you know much about the Vatican or the Catholic Church but I doubt a Cardinal can be referred to as a random commentator especially when referring to the Catholic Church. I feel I must point you to this article where the author claims that this Cardinal is in fact the Popes right hand man, and not some random commentator.
    I believe this also covers point 5.

    Point 6, I think the law should have a say on consensual acts in private. A classic example is euthanasia for those who have MS and other such diseases which stop them from committing suicide. The law clearly states that euthanasia is illegal, however what you are saying is that the law shouldn’t have a say in it if both parties consent. I am not comparing buggery (as you so aptly put it) to euthanasia, I am however comparing the notion of consent in both situations, and how ridiculous it would be if the law did not have a say. If you are not happy with that example try replacing euthanasia was alcohol or drugs.

  28. Point 1, as a classic catholic argument you traduce the reply. I leave that to your conscience but will not lock horns with you on the biological argument (it has very complex genetic aspects that I cannot pretend to understand or that are relevant to the matters raised in this blog) nor on the moral or religious aspects. I intend to write a blog asking individuals to examine their consciences if they are faced with real life situations within the family. I fully believe in moral and religious principles but even the Catholic church recognizes that we are sinners and that God is a forgiving God. It is a sad event to condemn an individual to civil imprisonment and a criminal record for ever for his sexuality. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!

    Point 2, I recommend that you read the Catholic catechism. This is not a justification for fornication. The sins are not unequal in the eyes of that church.

    We will agree to differ on 4 & 5 but do not just read what he Cardinal said, look at the commentary and reactions. Let us see how sexual scandal within the catholic church unfolds. Malta is now proving fertile ground for this!

    Point 6, your comparison with euthanasia is outrageous. It deserves no reply. You take my comment completely out of context, The context was clearly in relation to sexual acts that are so widespread in society. would you want your daughter jailed and marked for the rest of her life with a criminal record if she had illegal consensual sex in private at an acceptable age? The issue is what age is acceptable to all forms of common sexual activity, of course there is serious issues to be considered in that issue, but always bearing in mind the consequences on the persons involved and on society generally!

  29. Llanito world,

    I believe you are confusing the issue, you are confusing sin and the New Testament with law. Your quote refers to judgement. I think that the quote which more aptly fits this situation (also from the New Testament) is “render unto Ceaser the things that belong to Ceaser, and unto God the things that are God’s”. After all were the law to follow your quote there would be no legal system because according to the Catholic Church we are born with natural sin. Surely you are not advocating that criminals should get away with their crimes merely because no one on earth meets the Catholic Churches requirements for judgment?

    Point 2, again unfortunately you are confusing the Church with the law. The point i was trying to put across is why should the law create circumstances where it is legal to do something which is otherwise illegal just for the enjoyment of that person/group of people? An example which I would like to point out is smoking Marijuana. This as you know is an illegal act, however the law has accommodated those who suffer from serious pains and diseases to take marijuana legally as it has been found to have pain relieving qualities.

    Point 6, Aah Argumentum ad Lapidem.. Well if you refuse to acknowledge Euthanasia then perhaps you may want to look at the same scenario I posed earlier but with alcohol instead of Euthanasia. I believe alcohol should fit nicely in your description since it is also an act “widespread in society”.

  30. Orwell please!

    The person who confuses sin with law is you. Yes judgement as in one person judging another. In civil life the quote has no place law and judicial judgement reign. Of course I am not advocating what you again choose to traduce in the inimitable style of religious argument. Do not judge me either. I believe in sin and right and wrong. The issue does not concern that.

    I commend that you read my last blog "SEX". It deals with all these issues in greater detail and depth (albeit in a reasonable number of words for this type of publication).

    Point 2, I fail to understand what you are saying but I think the point is answered in the blog "SEX".

    Point 6, again I commend that you read my blog "SEX". It is not that I refuse to acknowledge euthanasia. It is that I believe that you have chosen a despicable example. I do not say the law should never have anything to say on anything consensual. again, congratulations you traduce the argument. My point was made entirely in relation to consensual SEXUAL acts after a particular age. Alcohol IS controlled in this manner ... it cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16!

    Please read my blog "SEX" it deals with all these issues!