Monday, May 8

Αΐντε γαμήσου, ρε μαλάκες

I would like to take a moment to express my utter disgust with the 80% of Greek Cypriots who believe that homosexual relationships are morally wrong. The findings were part of a state-commissioned survey conducted by the Cyprus College Research Centre. More than half of the respondents claimed that they are uncomfortable in the presence of GLBT people, while 76% expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

The survey demonstrates that public opinion often lags behind the Law. Although consensual homosexual activity in Cyprus was decriminalized in 1998, it appears that the vast majority of Greek Cypriots have yet to make the leap to acceptance of the GLBT people living in their midst. As far as this Greek is concerned, the survey shows them to be small-minded bigots who are ignorant of their own history.

However, the real lesson here is that the Law does not necessarily need to reflect popular sentiment. In fact, there are instances in which it must not. If it were up to the people of Cyprus, gay sex would still be a crime. In certain parts of the United States, it would still be a (lynchable) crime for an African American man to marry a white woman. While our laws often reflect the less noble side of human nature, it is a victory for justice and humanity whenever the Law can rise above our petty prejudices. In Cyprus, the Law currently reflects the European Union’s commitment to equality for all, including sexual minorities. That’s the way it should be.

This is indeed the case in Massachusetts, where the Law is more in tune with the principles of justice and equality than is the citizenry as a whole. The state’s highest court has ruled that, in spite of the fact that there are many in Massachusetts who oppose homosexual relationships, for the state to continue denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the basic foundational principles underlying our Constitution.

The people cannot always be trusted to defend those principles. On the contrary, as the debate over same-sex marriage in Massachusetts so clearly demonstrates, the people are often far more eager to defend their own beliefs and prejudices, even when they conflict with the broader values on which our government rests. When that happens, it is the right and responsibility of the courts to defend those foundational principles from popular assault.

As Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, asked assistant attorney general Peter Sacks during a hearing to determine the legality of a recent initiative petition seeking to undo same-sex marriage, “If this court rules that slavery is inconsistent with the Constitution (can) the people of Massachusetts through an initiative petition say that it is permissible to have slavery in Massachusetts?”

It is up to the courts to ensure that the Law is immune from the insidious influence of bigotry and popular prejudice. This is precisely what happened back in 1998 when the European Court of Human Rights forced Cyprus to decriminalize homosexual activity and in November 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state must extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Only a vile distortion of democratic and populist principles would seek to strip the courts of their right—and their duty—to test the Law for its faithfulness to the Constitution and the principles it upholds.

4 Comments:

Blogger tornwordo said...

Sadly, most people don't get this.

I loved the slavery quote. It is perfect.

8:24 AM  
Blogger Sandouri Dean Bey said...

you're probably right. but i am uncharacteristically (for me) optimistic that the massachusetts sjc (supreme judicial court) will do what they need to in order to safeguard their legitimate role as interpreter of the constitution. marshall's quote is quite telling. i think it reflects the court's belief (i hope) that the initiative petition in question, if allowed to proceed, would render the court obsolete. the court deems a law unconstitutional? just rewrite the constitution, effectively reversing the court's decision. it would set up the people as the chief interpreter of the constitution, rather than the courts, and compromise the integrity of the constitution in the process.

does that sound elitist? you bet your ass it does. like i'm going to look to a bunch of small-minded bigots to safeguard my rights.

2:10 PM  
Blogger Gay Erasmus said...

I have a mate who's about to move back to Cyprus after many years. He's openly gay. I do worry that, after spending so much time abroad in countries that are at least nominally affirming of gay rights, he will find it difficult to re-adjust to his homeland. But having said that, things can change, right?

12:42 PM  
Blogger Sandouri Dean Bey said...

slowly, but yes they do. maybe your mate can be part of that change, no?

12:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

AMAN YALA CLAIMS NO CREDIT FOR ANY IMAGES FEATURED ON THIS SITE, UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED. ALL VISUAL CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT TO ITS RESPECTFUL OWNERS. IF YOU OWN RIGHTS TO ANY OF THE IMAGES AND DO NOT WISH THEM TO APPEAR ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME VIA E-MAIL, AND THEY WILL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED.