The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Nation Under Law [I]

Jeff Cumberbatch - New Chairman of the FTC

Jeff Cumberbatch – New Chairman of the FTC

BU shares the Jeff Cumberbatch Barbados Advocate column – Senior Lecturer in law at the University of the West Indies since 1983, a Columnist with the Barbados Advocate […]
since 2000 and BU commenter – see full bio.

Musings: A nation under law [I]
By Jeff Cumberbatch
Two items of news this week, entirely unconnected and in different jurisdictions,

implicated the complex issue of the primacy of the rule of law as opposed to that of personal belief or political expediency in an avowedly democratic society. The first, by far perhaps the more notorious, concerned the matter of Mrs Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky in the US, who has refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples on the ground[s] that she should not be compelled to recognise same sex marriage since this does not comport with her religious beliefs. In fact, Mrs Davis, according to the New York Times, is but one of four or five state officials throughout the US who have taken this stance that natural marriage cannot be defined by Government, although she alone has become the poster child of the group.

While the right to personal religious freedom is guaranteed under the US Constitution, as it is under ours, it is difficult to understand the precise nature of Ms Davis objection. In the first place, it is accepted that this right, as are all the others, is not absolute, but rather qualified, in that it may be limited by law to the extent that it is reasonably justifiable to do so in a democratic society.

One such limitation is that these rights may be restricted by the existence of valid law that forbids the particular exercise of the religious practice. Hence, until it is adjudged to be unconstitutional, the members of the Rastafarian religion cannot successfully claim that the consumption of marijuana is a constitutionally guaranteed exercise of their freedom of conscience to manifest and propagate their religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

And while there may be no specific written law that Mrs Davis infringes by refusing to grant the marriage licences, she is clearly failing in her duty to assist her employers, the state and county, to comply with the requirement, because of the relatively recent Supreme Court decision, to issue the licences unless there is some specified justifiable reason not to do so -of which the identical sex of the parties is not one. She thus places them in breach of their constitutional undertaking. Such a flagrant dereliction of duty would, of course, merit immediate dismissal under most employment laws.

Even more puzzling in this context is the reluctance of Mrs Davis to voluntarily resign from her job on religious grounds as commanded by the very tenets of her religion that counsel every believer in 2 Corinthians 6:17 to “come out from among them and be ye separate¡­touch no unclean thing and I will receive you”.

There are some jobs that require a religious qualification and there is provision in some jurisdictions for an exception to be made to equal opportunity stipulations in this regard. The Trinidad & Tobago Equal Opportunity Act 2000, for example, permits an employer to discriminate on the ground of religion where being of a particular religion is a necessary qualification for employment. It is not immediately clear that a similar rule may apply to a public office such as that held by Mrs Davis.

The phenomenon of Mrs Davis being jailed for contempt for her actions last week would be abhorred by most Barbadians who, against all evidence, refuse to accept that we do not live in a theocracy but in a secular constitutional polity, no matter the prevailing loosely uttered view that we are a Christian society¡­ whatever that phrase might mean.

The reality is accepted that there may be more instances than a few of congruence between Biblical fiat and local law. However, this coincidence must not be mistaken for any prescribed legislative agenda to reproduce Christian teachings, as those laws that confound religious prescription and dogma such as the Status of Children Act, those aspects of the Family Law Act that accord legal validity to the union other than marriage and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, for examples, cogently demonstrate.

Indeed, Mrs Davis’ insistence here, although she appeals to admittedly higher authority, is not substantially different from that of those who claim to be able to ignore a legal proscription because of hunger, a sense of entitlement or simply basic disagreement with its provisions. The tax-evader who sincerely believes that the state authority is expropriating too much of his or her earnings to no ostensibly useful end or the pejoratively titled mule that transports contraband for remuneration in order more effectively to provide for her children also appeals to another ideal. It is at least doubtful, however, whether the ordinary man or woman on the Silver Sands ZR would be prepared to excuse such conduct on either stated ground.

It might be churlish to descend to the level of personality, but there are credible reports that Mrs Davis was thrice divorced before her conversion to Christianity about four years ago. Naturally, according to the teachings of her faith, these multiple contraventions of solemnly given vows should be ignored since she has since been washed clean in the blood of the Lamb and I, for one, have no difficulty with this thesis. She remains entitled to embrace her views and to suffer the consequences of her actions.

There have been some risibly spurious legal arguments offered to rebut the validity of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court. One presidential hopeful last week even asserted in all seriousness that the judgment of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution in the recent case was not binding in the absence of enabling legislation by the states. I do not care to deal with these opinions here, given their irrelevance to the local circumstance. Indeed, the entire local same-sex marriage debate is wholly immaterial except in the minds of those who, for one reason or another, seek to categorise even the thought of its local likelihood as the abomination of desolation.

This column was not about that, in youth-speak. It simply sought to reiterate that in a society such as ours, one reputedly governed by the rule of law; there is a price to be paid for its disobedience, however justifiable this might appear to be.

Next week, I propose to deal with the second item; the apparently official perception in the Ministry of Labour that the provisions of the existing Protocol, which govern the terms of the Social Partnership, may at times supersede those of enacted legislation.

Tags: ,

132 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Nation Under Law [I]”

  1. TheObserver September 7, 2015 at 9:35 AM #

    It might not matter, but in the great scheme of things I support same sex marriage.

    Here is my blurb on FB (June 27, 2015).

    “The chameleon can change his color and blend into his surroundings. Sadly, we as blacks cannot do the same. As a group we must forge and maintain alliances, so that we are not standing alone when they come for us. Preaching and railing against same sex marriages exposes our ignorance and our prejudices. God made the heterosexual and the homosexual. And it would be a wicked God who would deny the homosexual his/her happiness, and companionship. We must be careful that the God we serve is not one who we created, but rather it is the God who created us”.


  2. Zoe September 7, 2015 at 9:37 AM #

    Will Durant, author of the 11 volume series “The Story of Civilization,” observed that homosexual behavior becomes more prevalent as societies go into decline. Unwin noted that “the historical evidence [suggest] that homosexuality is a habit that appears in a society… that has been absolutely monogamous, and is relaxing.” And Zimmerman wrote that “Homosexuality is always present in society, but in trustee and domestic family types it is strongly repressed. In late atomistic family systems it becomes much the fashion.


  3. Caswell Franklyn September 7, 2015 at 9:50 AM #


    You and Jeff are getting me a bit confused. I always thought that in the case of male same sex partners that since both have the same equipment whoever is ready first would adopt the dominant position, and when that is over, they would simply change roles. The problem would come if both are at the ready the same time.



  4. ac September 7, 2015 at 9:54 AM #


  5. TheObserver September 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM #

    Zoe remind me of my days at high school.
    He reminds me of when I took history classes with Captain Hutt.
    No matter what he writes; two sentences and I start to doze.
    The fault is not with him, but with him.
    It may be a bias on my part,
    Have a great day Zoe.


  6. Bush Tea September 7, 2015 at 10:19 AM #

    You are right Caswell…
    We ARE speaking from completely different perspectives.
    Like the fellow who asked a top bushman what was required in order to enter the kingdom of God …and was told that he must be born again…..
    The poor fellow was looking unbelievingly at his old mother…. 🙂 ..but of course the answer related to a required elevation from the temporal plane …to the spiritual plane in which BBE operates.

    Jeff is many time brighter than Bushie was at his age, but if he limits himself to questions related to the temporal, he will simply become the intellectual equivalent of the materialistic fellows who “gain the whole world” … and lose their own soul (opportunity to experience life in its REAL and permanent reality)….

    It continues to be amazing to Bushie, that we can even contemplate that the lunacy that constitutes the ‘Laws’ of this world could be of anything but educational import in the overall scheme of things …. (somewhat like the ‘Youth Parliament’ is allegedly there to groom potential future leaders ….)

    In any event, we ALL will shortly come to see the incomparable majesty of BBE’s laws when juxtaposed against the illogical idiocy of our legal eagles….


  7. Gabriel September 7, 2015 at 10:48 AM #

    ….’Zimmerman wrote that “homosexuality is always present in society……it becomes much the fashion”.Pardon my ignorance but is this not the guy who shot and killed Travayon Martin in Florida and called it self defence?Zoe,you got a nerve man.In Chyna,Zimmerman would have faced the squad at dawn..
    Homo sapiens has morphed into homo ignoramus.Professor Morris wrote of buller dogs but only when placed in a closed kennel.The only animal to bull and wick is human.


  8. ac September 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM #

    another interesting video which unravels this law and its absurdity resulting with victimization on both sides. The people depends on the democratic rule of law to be fair and balance but not to implement laws that take away a law from one side to appease another/
    Mike Huckabee in this video makes strong and potent points about the same sex law that makes one shudder

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Zoe September 7, 2015 at 11:02 AM #

    Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, from God’s divinely inspired Word, the Bible bring vitality to a society?

    Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margret Mead called the “central problem of every society” – that is, to “define appropriate roles for men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, bread-winning and fatherhood, Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men ten to be healthier, happier and more productive than bachelors.

    Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for wife and children.”

    And in “Family and Civilization,” Harvard historian, Carl Zimmerman concludes that ” the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type.


  10. Alvin Cummins September 7, 2015 at 12:42 PM #

    Jeff, I was not speaking specifically of Barbados, but in terms of the Davis situation. Has this situation been clarified, challenged or accepted/ Exactly what do you mean by the “dominant” and “submissive,” are you speaking of mannerism? Would you say the same thing of lesbians? What about the sex organs? What role does this play, in law, in determining who is male and wh is female? To all intents and purposes Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn, is a female?

    How might this be argued in court?


  11. islandgal September 7, 2015 at 1:18 PM #

    In the beginning man invented God, man invented a virgin giving birth and man invented marriage.


  12. Alvin Cummins September 7, 2015 at 1:28 PM #

    Second last paragraph should read “… since to all intents and purposes Bruce Jenner, now …”


  13. Gabriel September 7, 2015 at 1:30 PM #

    There is now in the USA a ‘right to have a third restroom facility’ for those called or call themselves transgender.So that the customary Male/Female restroom is no longer final.There will be a dictate of the group of 9…henceforth the law demands a third restroom for those who are confused about their sexuality.Istall a tird restroom or….face the judges.America,where minorities have no rights and are killed outright by gun toting cops yet social deviants and aberrants have all the rights of a moving constitution.
    The US Supreme Court says money can influence election outcomes.Its perfectly legal.The people are embracing a presidential candidate whom they see as beyond being bought.That is the fascination with the Donald.Not his gaffes,not his ignorance of issues but his refreshing(for them)candour and the hope he brings of sticking it to the Supreme Court in so far as the American political class use money to buy influence and sell products by manipulating laws, lobbying special interests protection.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. ac September 7, 2015 at 1:38 PM #

    and the outrage continues a country of freedom of expression and religious freedom has been thrown under the bus and people are rightfully outrage


  15. pieceuhderockyeahright September 7, 2015 at 3:27 PM #

    @ AC The Smart One

    This article particularly the matter discussed at 7:41 of this audio item is a interesting and excellent find for two reasons

    1) The Issue of Justice Anthony’s dissent with the Federal Law Ruling of Mandatory Sentencing set in the context of said Justice’s agreement with those parties who go against the ruling and

    2) The incredulous fact that you found it.

    Please I BEG YOU change the password to the cuntputer so that AC CANNOT GET TO POST HERE AS YOU or do the “right thing” and come on BU tomorrow and disassociate yourself from them and say that you will nevermore post as AC.

    It ain’t fair man/woman sorry don’t know what to call you, that when a man had finally assigned you to the dungeons of idiocy you come up with something that merits read or listening to.

    Have some pride in youself man, leh Irene post as she ingrunt self and you come clean and leh eveybody gi you de respect dat you deserve

    Leh she go down pun de boat by sheself nuh???


  16. Walter Blackman September 7, 2015 at 3:56 PM #

    Alvin Cummins September 7, 2015 at 12:42 PM #
    “What about the sex organs?”

    “To all intents and purposes Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn, is a female?”

    It has been reported that Bruce refused to give up his penis. In finance, this is referred to as “hedging”. Presumably, this piece of “retained equipment’ will help him to bond with his newly found female friends and supporters rather quickly and easily. You are allowed by law to refer to him as he, she, or it.



  17. ac September 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM #

    it is all about the constitution and how men of intellect can impose their personnel/political /will to suffice. I believe that the bottom line to this woman defiance would be one of fair and balance which is missing in the Davis case and hopefully restore the trust that is (now seem to be missing) a the directive and a guiding tool in the bill of Rights
    America has now been caught looking like a dare staring in the headlights for the simple reason it is a country which decries any country that denies freedom of expression to religious groups and label such countries as godless and tyrannical
    Some how i must in good conscience agree that there has been a nullification process taken place one which remove religious rights to appease another group and that is sad,


  18. Bush Tea September 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM #

    @ Piece
    …the idiot is back….. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  19. lawson September 7, 2015 at 7:13 PM #

    Barbados is not accepting Syrian refugees on religious grounds, not that they might get a Christian, not that they might get a muslim but just in case they may get a homosexual


  20. Gabriel September 7, 2015 at 8:33 PM #

    Israel is not accepting Syrian refugees because they fear more muslims and jihadists getting up to mischief in a few years.Look how Idi Amin send indian muslims and hindus to Britain 40 years ago. ‘Great’ Britain,fast becoming a second world country, now exporting jihadists in significant numbers.


  21. Alvin Cummins September 7, 2015 at 9:41 PM #

    @Walter and Jeff,
    I did not know that the sex change was not a complete change. I thought that an orifice had been fashioned and an organ removed. That confuses the issue even more.


  22. Bush Tea September 7, 2015 at 9:57 PM #

    @ Gabriel
    Have you been watching Europe transition into chaos before our very eyes?
    That refugee situation is called KARMA…
    Anyone who doubts that ISIS and Qaeda operatives are among those ‘migrants/refugees’ probably look to AC for inspiration.

    After riding roughshod over Africa and the Middle East, Europe now finds itself with a backlash of biblical proportions.

    Just picture the chaos that will erupt when some of these ‘refuges’ turn out to be ISIS plants….
    Wonder what the warmongers would give now to have a Gaddafi in Libya and a Saddam in Iraq???

    @ Exclaimer
    Boss man, it looks like our troubles here will be tame in comparison to yours in the big E…

    Liked by 1 person

  23. ac September 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM #

    ole man go to sleep if uh got nuttin to say say nuttin at all oh u can always belch out yuh favorite word BRASS BOWL


  24. Gabriel September 7, 2015 at 10:50 PM #

    Bush Tea
    You are spot on as usual.Europe is once again becoming Islamized before our very eyes.The last time it occurred,Europe was overrun by the Moors.There are still pockets of their descendants in China and still giving trouble.I foresee plenty problems for Europe with this influx of Islamists.Saddam and Gadaffi are like the proverbial story of the water and the empty well.


  25. David September 8, 2015 at 12:04 AM #

    It is why Israel has refused to accept refugees.


  26. de Ingrunt Word September 8, 2015 at 8:23 AM #

    David, that is an interesting remark but surely your statement is tongue in cheek!

    How could a Jewish state still in the throes of their internecine and interminable Palestinian battles who daily have to manage the ‘terror’ issues of a shared Jerusalem accept Muslim refugees. How would Muslims or even Syrian Christians embrace life in a Jewish country?

    Europe has overcome chaos before and although this level of humane largess is unprecedented and is fraught with long term issues of terrorism it also will provide opportunities for the intelligence services across Europe to plug in informants and agents.

    So yes, problems abound but the CIA, Germany’s BND, the DGSE in France and others will be proactive and use this to their country’s advantage. They have to.


  27. David September 8, 2015 at 10:13 AM #

    They can be as proactive as is practical given the runaway numbers.


  28. islandgal September 8, 2015 at 10:49 AM #

    When religious beliefs prevents someone from performing their job they should resign and find a company with similar beliefs to work for.

    Marks and Spencers hired Muslim women as cashiers after they had settled into the job they stated it is prohibited by their religion to touch pork products and refused to serve customers who had pork products in their shopping carts. They didn’t state that when they applied for the job only after they got the job it became an issue. I would suggest they go and work for Muslim employer to avoid these differences.


  29. islandgal September 8, 2015 at 10:53 AM #

    Instead of being grateful they are complaining that it is expensive to live in Uruguay. I suggest they get sent back to Syria to live.


  30. David September 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM #

    Interesting the following story:


  31. pieceuhderockyeahright September 8, 2015 at 12:19 PM #

    @ David [BU]

    That article that you posted per the actions of the “Lesbian Judge” is really interesting as such relates to “reprisal” actions that are in support and are EOE-like reactions

    Imagine how silly this is going to get if/when a clerk who, while accepting a same sex marriage, is anti “interracial unions” or anti asians, or anti christian or muslim you get my drift….


  32. ac September 8, 2015 at 12:43 PM #

    Ole man you need to do a research of the USA Constitution before posting such idiocy.


  33. de Ingrunt Word September 8, 2015 at 12:52 PM #

    But isn’t that type of action from the ‘lesbian judge’ seen every day. We all have a right to make a personal stand on issues. The bottom line is when/where that is done and our willingness to accept the consequences.

    The judge say she does not ‘marry hetro-couples’. So that means those couples seek out another judge. I didn’t understand the article to suggest that she completely stopped an entire process in her county or her office.

    Didn’t a fast food worker refuse to serve a police-officer because of her profession just recently in Florida. Nonsensical and ridiculous, but he did. He is looking for a new job now, I suspect.

    Didn’t we have a security guard right here who refused to allow a Bajan citizen entry to a go’t office based on her supposed inappropriate dress. Clearly that surrounded his specific bias because another guard allowed entry when he went on break.

    This Davis matter highlights a major, topical matter but the issues of bias and discrimination is perpetuated on citizens in gov’t and private offices daily. It is never acceptable regardless of the strength and popularity of the particular conviction.


  34. David September 8, 2015 at 12:52 PM #


    What a wonderful world it is yes?

    Tit for tat.

    Individual right to protest in a democracy WITHIN the law?

    The USA split down the centre on the issue of homosexuality reflected even in the supreme court ‘s decision.

    What a wonderful world we live in yes?


  35. pieceuhderockyeahright September 8, 2015 at 1:09 PM #

    Irene Cabinet ent got you busy with the Cahill Scam today?


    Fact 1. Davis refused to issue a license to marry to persons of the same sex license and was incarcerated
    Fact 2. Lesbian Judge in article from the Blogmaster refuses to issue licenses to straight persons
    Extrapolation 1. Straight judge refuses to issue license to same sex couple, not because of the same sex issue but because said judge does not hold for interracial “marriages”
    Extrapolation ad Infinitum: Any combination of personal issues/discriminations based on the issuer’s preferences

    Let the sensible AC speak to these topics where grey brain matter is required and you remain in the other areas where only the brown (nosing) matter is required.

    That is why the word “silly” is included in the previous submission as in “The silly season”

    A season that you are well familiar with


  36. ac September 8, 2015 at 3:09 PM #

    Only nitwits would take the judges action or threats not to marry heterosexual couples seriously and furthermore her actions would be perceived as bias or prejudice and having to do with Constitutional rights


  37. Hants September 8, 2015 at 4:21 PM #

    WTF (rance) going on in Babadus ? Wunna getting almost as many shootings as Toronto.

    From NationNews

    ” an 18-year-old was shot in his right calf and a 19-year-old in his left foot when unknown assailants opened fire on a group of men who were liming in Denton Road, Grazettes, St Michael”


  38. Exclaimer September 8, 2015 at 4:30 PM #

    @ Bush Tea September 7, 2015 at 9:57 PM,

    “ Boss man, it looks like our troubles here will be tame in comparison to yours in the big E…”

    Not so fast. Over a number of years there have been a number of Caribbean countries who have being selling citizenship to middle easterners for relatively small sums of money. These individuals and their families now have the right to reside in the Caribbean should they so desire.

    With regard to the mass influx of refugees and economic refugees it is a tragedy. Should we in Europe be surprised with events on the ground? Absolutely not! You are right to call these events as karma. Have you noticed how Obama and your friend Money Brain have nothing to say on this subject?

    Mighty England under the leadership of her Prime-Minister has now conceded that it will accept up to 20,000 refugees. Expect this figure to rise at least five-fold.

    These refuges are interested only in self- preservation. It is logical that they are heading to those countries that have brought so much destruction to their region.

    Let’s hope that the Caribbean plays no role in trying to assist them. We owe them nothing; nor should we allow ourselves to be bullied by our old colonial masters in assisting them.
    The White man (excluding the decent ones) and the Arab man have terrorised the Negro race for an awfully long time. These two predators should be left alone to slug it out. With a bit of luck they will wipe each other out. Should this occur the world would be a better place.


  39. ac September 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM #

    Kim Davis went to jail for standing up for her constitutional Rights after the dumb ass. judge fail to do justice in applying Davis Constitutional Right to religiuos Freedom of Expression
    Now it is up to the State legislators to move fast with emergency tabling provisions that would exempt those whose religious views on same sex marriage are in variance to the law of the land.


  40. Dompey September 10, 2015 at 8:15 AM #


    We can all agree on the fact that Kim Davis has the right to practice whatever kind of religion she so desire according to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States constitution, but she is wrong in my judgment and in the judgement of the many to employ the power her office to impose her religious convictions on others. Her position affronts the the American ideals, undermines all that the constitution originally intended in my judgment.

    Nevertheless, this woman has sadly forgotten about the concept regarding the high wall of separation between church and state, and the Free Exercise Clause which affords her the constitutional right to worship or not to do on the compulsion of the state.

    Moreover, we live in democracy and not a theocracy as this woman seems to think, and she therefore, needs perform the duties vested in her office, or remove herself if she believes that this federally mandated law conflicts with her religious convictions.

    And lastly, Christian morality was taken out of the schools of America and for good reason because forcing the atheist, Muslim, Jew and Hindi student for example, to observe Christian practices in a multi-religious country violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States constitution, and affronted the above religious groups who were once forced to observed Christian practices in a school environment which ought to have taught otherwise.


  41. ac September 10, 2015 at 8:55 AM #

    Look the issue is not as simple as some would want to believe. Firstly there are / were several negatives driving this issue those to deal with personnel beliefs inherited to do with right orwrong
    SSecondly the law /Constitution gives her a reglious right to dissent which she has rightfully expressed
    However the conflict occurs in the dispensation of her duty whereby her name is placed as the executor bof such action to which her religious views are on disagreement
    Now what has happened is a total disregard for the Constitution with all its inalienable


  42. ac September 10, 2015 at 9:03 AM #


    inalienable rights and use avenue which provoke and insufficiently suffice rather than go by legislative duty to activate provision of exclusionary measures to control


  43. ac September 10, 2015 at 9:11 AM #

    Sorry the last comment should read
    Now what has happened is a total disregard by local govt of the Constitution and have used avenues to provoke which have insufficiently suffice rather than take legislative actions necessary to exempt those whose religious views are conflucated with state actions


  44. balance September 24, 2015 at 6:43 AM #

    Exposing the deception of same sex marriage- saw this philosophical article in a Vincentian newspaper and thought I would share it with viewers especially Bushie with his opinions on brassbowlery

    The Thusian Institute for religious liberty recognizes the need to share important facts on rights in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage. A lot of propaganda has been spread by some with the aim of justifying this abominable sexual choice of some and arguments about rights, equality and discrimination have been wrongly used in the process. We share some terms, including coined terms and definitions in order to explain the matter properly.
    Let us define rights, freedoms and something we call provinities and show you the clear difference among them.
    Rights are divinely required, life-sustaining behavioural codes of equality under law. Rights are God- given and are naturally part of the make-up of all human beings. Everyone has the same equal rights already. Your rights are not what you choose to do with your Rights.
    Freedoms are inborn, human, mental, dynamic functional abilities that sustain Rights and Freedoms. Like Rights, freedoms are not what you choose to do with your freedoms. For example, you have the natural freedom of movement that is the ability to move naturally. However, if you choose to use your freedom of movement to trespass on to unto private property and steal, this wrong and you cannot argue that you have freedom of movement here. Freedoms identify the abilities.
    Then there are provinities. Coined from the words “provided” and “opportunities”, Provinities are provided opportunities by legislation. These are not Rights and Freedoms but relate to them in some functional way. For example- Properly speaking Health Care is not a Right but it relates to the Right to life. Education is not a Right but it relates to Freedoms of Thought, Opinion and such freedoms. Often people mistake provinities for rights and freedoms. And when they are denied certain provinities for one reason or the other, they falsely claim that their rights or freedoms are being denied them. For example, some claim that sodomites (gays) are being denied the “right” to get married by the state laws that say Marriage is only between one man and one woman. They are misguided. Marriage is not a right but a provinity (provided opportunity by legislation). It is provided in law for one man and one woman in our state. It is denied same sex couples, but not only them. It is also denied to babies and minors. It is also denied to adults with animals (bestiality- by the way some, in other countries are marrying animals) and paedophiles (adults with children). Marriage is also denied to those wishing to marry two or more wives or husbands (polygamy). Marriage is also denied to persons of the same family (for example, brother and sister, mother and son- incestuous relationships).
    Similarly, Sex is not a Right. There is no such thing as a right to practice same sex or any kind of sex for that matter. If sex was a right then it could be demanded of anyone at any time and the person who refuse the wishes of the one making the demand would be seen as denying him or her their “right’ to sixths would just perpetuate the serious offence of rape. Besides, if one argues that sex and marriage are rights then they should be available for anyone and everyone, including the youngest human being- a baby, since rights are human rights and they are equal for all under the law. This of course would be wrong.
    Now, there are two categories of Provinities: Pro-Rights & Freedoms Provinities and Anti-Rights & Freedoms Provinities. The first category- pro-rights & freedoms provinities are provided opportunities by law, which uphold and sustain already existing Rights and Freedoms which precede them. For example- HealthCare provinities sustain the right to life. On the other hand, anti-rights &freedoms provinities are legislated opportunities that go against the rights and freedoms of man generally and or favours special interest groups, whose issues are based on their own use of choice and are avoidable by them. For example, same sex marriage. Some countries may provide opportunity by law for this to happen but they always go against the freedom of conscience and expression of Christians and other conscientious persons, while favouring special interest groups of Lesbians, gays, bisexuals transvestites and intersex(LGBTI), whose interests are based on their choice and therefore can be avoided.
    To end this piece we introduce you to two terms: Sexual Preference and Moral Preference. Sexual preference means choice of sex. It is based on a person’s exercising of his choice in matters of sex. And his sexual orientation is his sexual preference as a habit. It is a habit based on choice. Regardless of the propaganda about being “born this way “, it is evident that when two persons of the same gender decide to have sex it is a choice they make. Sex is always a choice unless it is forced (as in rape). Now, by the use of freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of choice and the use of discretion and the forming and adopting of a moral view and position that is in accordance with freedom of conscience, one has Moral Preference. The question is: Why should a person’s sexual preference be allowed to trump another’s moral preference? Christians and other conscientious persons’ freedom of conscience and expression must not be denied for the sake of accommodating sodomite sex through anti-rights and freedoms provinities. Education continues as for religious liberty the struggle goes on.


  45. Bush Tea September 24, 2015 at 7:48 AM #

    Not bad balance….
    Too complex to be helpful to AC or Dompey but largely what any sensible person would argue.
    One minor point Bushie notes is where the article says that ..
    ‘Marriage is not a right but a provinity (provided opportunity by legislation).’

    Actually, marriage is even more succinct than this…
    It is a sacred symbol that has been provided to us as a living illustration of the ACTUAL INTENT of the BBE who conceptualised and created life on Earth.

    ‘Marriage is therefore not a right …but a provinity (provided opportunity by legislation IN ENLIGHTENED SOCIETIES).’ ….and conversely, it is DANGEROUS brass bowlery when clueless idiots OF THE ILK OF PETER W. seek to contaminated marriage, and DARE to skin their backsides at such a fundamental and sacred symbol that has been established by the ultimate powers that exists anywhere…..

    …but you know who will rush in where Bushmen would NEVER go… 🙂


  46. Donna September 24, 2015 at 10:30 AM #

    Hi Bushie and Piece,

    Sorry I didn’t jump in to give a “sensible” woman’s perspective on the “Principal’s Raw Thread” but the comments block is not appearing. Suffice it to say that the acs and the Simple Simons of this world could never speak for me. Pure unadulterated nonsense! It is not every day that I am in a mood to engage such piffle.

    We women have to learn to take our licks just as we want men to take theirs. No special privileges. Two wrongs could never make a right.

    If the comments block should reappear I will be more explicit.


  47. balance September 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM #

    “Actually, marriage is even more succinct than this…
    It is a sacred symbol that has been provided to us as a living illustration of the ACTUAL INTENT of the BBE who conceptualised and created life on Earth.”

    Not even Socrates can trump that Bushie. You in as foolish as you mek out yuhself to be. you gotta be careful though less others accuse you of ‘homophobic’ desperation.


  48. Hants September 24, 2015 at 11:02 AM #

    @ Donna your “sensible” woman’s perspective” can be put in this blog referencing the “Principal’s Raw Thread” blog.


  49. Donna September 24, 2015 at 11:45 AM #


    I would rather not . I can’t remember everything I wish to reply to and going back and forth just isn’t on.


  50. Dompey September 24, 2015 at 12:34 PM #


    Your argument falls flat on it face from the premise that America is a secular society, and if there is supposed to be a High-Wall between Church and State, then why are we employing religious morality to condemn same-sex -marriage made possible by a secular society like the United States?

    Now here is my argument with respect to same-sex-marriage: the entire Christian faith is predicated upon free-will better known as self-determination, and it is the same free-will/ self -determination that Adam and Eve exercised in the Garden of Edan, when their contravened God’s commandments.

    But at least their were given the choice to sin no matter the consequences to be had, and this is no more different than the gay community who is asking its secular government to recognized this marriage for the right to die, the settlement of estate rights, and life and death decisions etc.

    Now, here is the central point of my argument: what authority does citizenry, the ecclesiastical authories and governmental antities have when it comes to deciding what two consenting individuals of compos mentis do with their bodies?


  51. ac September 24, 2015 at 1:00 PM #

    There is The Bible a book formed on religious principles customs and beliefs with doctrines structured to conformity based on acceptance and one’s choice
    There is the Constitution formed on Human Rights to all;having no religious beliefs agreement for acceptance with out a disturbance of one practices be Jew!Christian! Muslims! or Athesist
    The Constitution is inclusive but separate exclusively between State and church


  52. Dompey September 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM #


    And your argument of incest between brother and sister is an appeal to ignorance because prior the Leviticus laws and the Ten Commandments, there were no divine laws governing the sexual relationship between sister and brother because Abraham married his haft sister Sahar.


  53. Simple Simon September 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM #

    @Dompey September 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM “And your argument of incest between brother and sister is an appeal to ignorance because prior the Leviticus laws and the Ten Commandments, there were no divine laws governing the sexual relationship between sister and brother because Abraham married his haft sister Sahar.”

    Dear Dompey:

    Please do your research on cousin marriage in the Middle East, where first cousins are the preferred marriage partners (in both the Jewish and Muslim communities) and the very high rate of serious genetic diseases in the that area.

    You may want to start here:

    And here:

    And you will understand why incest/in-marriage/consanguinity is both bad and wrong. Abraham did not have this information this otherwise he would never have married his half sister.

    Then do your research on people of West African descent, who mostly practice exogamy (that is who would not knowingly marry even a fourth cousin) and look at the lack of serious genetic diseases in those communities.


  54. Dompey September 24, 2015 at 2:50 PM #

    Simple Simon

    Genesis 20:11

    Simple, here is Abraham speaking: ” And Abraham said, because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on the account of my wife. (20:12) “But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daught of my mother; and she became my wife.

    Now, Simple writes: Abraham did not have the information otherwise he would never have married his haft-sister.”

    The above text clearly shows that Abraham had had foreknowledge that even though his marriage between his haft-sister was customary it was also viewed with some measure of discontent.

    And as a matter of fact: it was until Deuteronomy 27:22 that a divine law was instituted again the practice of wedding one sister or half-sister. And it reads: “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother…!”


  55. Simple Simon September 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM #

    Wrong classroom Dompey.

    You in the Scripture class.

    I in the Biology class.



  56. Dompey September 24, 2015 at 3:44 PM #

    Simple Simon

    Your argument falls flat on its face because Abraham had since died by the time law regarding incest in Deuteronomy 27:22 was given, so then could this law apply to him?

    Now, the first four book of the of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch or the law, were given by Moses except Deuteronomy.

    Because it is recorded in this book that he had died at this time of it origin, so how then could law of incest apply to Abraham when he had long departed the earth.

    Now in conclusion: have you heard the saying Simple that where the Law is silent liberty will reigns? How could you hold a man answerable and accountable for a law which ceases to exist?

    So how then could Deuteronomy 27: 22 apply Abraham when he had died long before the l


  57. ac September 24, 2015 at 5:19 PM #

    Another religious ritual all borne of of cultism

    Stampede kills more than 700 at Hajj pilgrimage near Mecca


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: