I was interested to see that in the recent election exercise in the USA, although the Democratic Party won the presidency, and increased its majority in the Senate and the Congress, it lost ballots in three States which would have redefined the institution of marriage to include same-sex unions. In Arizona, Proposition 102 won by 56 per cent to 44 per cent; in Florida, Amendment 2 passed by 62.4 per cent to 37.6 per cent and in California, Proposition 8 passed by 52.2 per cent to 47.8 per cent in a hard-fought contest.

In California, campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised US$35.8 million and US$37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day, and surpassing in spending every campaign in the country, except the presidential race. Republican presidential nominee John McCain released a statement of support for Proposition 8. Religious organisations that supported Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and a group of Evangelical Christians. The Mormons strongly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to donate money and volunteer time.

While Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama stated that he personally considers marriage to be between a man and woman, and supports 'civil unions' that confer comparable rights rather than gay 'marriage', he stated that he opposed Proposition 8. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden also opposed the proposition. Republican California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he opposed and twice vetoed legislative bills that would recognise same-sex marriage in California, he opposes Proposition 8. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic member of congress from California, voiced her opposition to Proposition 8, as did the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

The bishops of all six Anglican dioceses in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008 (therefore supporting gay marriages). Southern California's largest collection of Rabbis voted to oppose Proposition 8.

Issue of equality

All 10 of the state's largest newspapers editorialised against Proposition 8, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'no' vote on Proposition 8, Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", Apple Inc also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the 'no' campaign. Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8.

The non-partisan League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination". It sounds like a reasonable - even ethical - position, until you look at it closely. Just because a group supporting a particular type of behaviour exists, does not mean that the behaviour they advocate should be allowed. Using argumentum ad absurdum, would the League of Women Voters of California support the league of rapists, paedophiles and perverts? Would the supporters of same-sex marriages also support defining marriage to include unions between humans and donkeys or dogs because we need to be inclusive? Support for any position, like gay marriage, must be based on the correctness of the position, not just because people have a right to hold a position, which they indisputably do.

And, morality is not a matter of populism; when something is wrong, it remains wrong even if millions of people - even influential people and movie stars - powerful private-sector corporations and dozens of newspapers support it.

I do not believe that homosexuality should be a crime as long as fornication and adultery are not crimes; also I do not believe that homosexuality should be elevated to the status of an 'alternative life style' equal to heterosexuality; and I do not believe that same-sex unions should be given the same status as 'marriage' which has always meant the union between a man and a woman. In our rush to support the human rights of minorities (which we must do) - even of those who do bad things - we must be careful not to condone their bad behaviour in the name of equal rights. In that scenario, everything goes!

Gender neutral

Jamaica's Marriage Act of 1897 does not define marriage at all; consistently it uses gender-neutral language and refers to "persons" or "parties", or "both persons" or "both of such persons" or "one of the parties" or "one of the persons intending marriage". Although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that Jamaica's Marriage Act is open to the interpretation that two men or two women may legally marry each other. I suggest that, before any gay couples put this to the test in Jamaica, the law should be amended to define marriage as between only one man and one woman.

The Rev Peter Espeut is a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.