On Friday, the US Supreme Court decided by a narrow 5-4 but nonetheless landmark decision to legalise same-sex marriages in that country.The move ended a hodge-podge of legislation in that nation which varied according to each state's attitude to the contentious issue, and the decision will not end the debates and difficulties that will follow the decision.Mississippi was seriously considering halting the issuance of marriage licenses altogether.
The state's House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson, a Baptist minister, vowed to do everything in his power "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi." In an unusual turn, many of the most popular and highly placed results on search engines were not about such political conflicts and disagreements, they were, instead, posts about the legal ramifications of the change, which represents a tectonic shift in the underlying law for same-sex couples.
For the first time, on a national basis, the same laws apply to all married couples, putting partners of the same sex in the same legal category as other life partners.This applies to personal affairs such as estate planning and joint financial arrangements.The stunning Supreme Court decision did not happen spontaneously, like some miraculous flaring of goodwill.
It was the result of decades of stress-testing the fundamental principle that all men and women are created equal and should enjoy the same rights under the US constitution.In decades to come, the impact of that reaffirmation by that the highest court in the United States may begin to fade, like memories of lawful discrimination against African Americans or the disenfranchisement of women voters.
The law may not always be successfully enforced in the face of religious doctrine and personal or even community prejudices.But what is noteworthy, and what makes the question of wider adoption less than straightforward, is that some strong opposition to it, on religious grounds, has come from places such as the African-American church.
Notwithstanding the fact that many had drawn parallels between the civil rights and gay rights struggles, the religious convictions of the black leaders would not allow them to countenance marriage as being any other arrangement except between a man and woman.The strongly held and deeply rooted religious objection to same-sex marriage should give proponents in T&T pause.
Attitudes in this country to gay and transgender people–as shown by vitriolic social media reaction to the mere mention of transgender activist Jowelle de Souza in political discourse–are still a work in progress, even though, generally, they have softened over the years. The question of same-sex marriage is an altogether different, and tougher, proposition than simply demonstrating more enlightened attitudes to gay people.
So, in our country, that discussion remains ongoing. No-one expects any of the parties to try to push T&T to the benchmark that the US has set. But there remains much that could be done in addressing the ancient and draconian laws that remain on this country's books regarding matters that should, sensibly, remain the personal choices of consenting adults.
T&T, along with 41 of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth still rely on British legislation more than 200 years old to criminalise relationships between same-sex couples.That debate about separating the guidance of the Church from the responsibilities of State, is perhaps one worth entering into.
