Law – Marriage & Family

27 September, 201809 October, 2018

Signposting as a principle in lawmaking

Supporters of Section 377A point to developments in other countries that follow upon the repeal of similar laws. Some of these developments were in fact facilitated by what the repeal of such laws entailed. Repeal involves rejection of the principle on which Section 377A is based and the adoption of a contrary principle.

Those who oppose Section 377A may do so for various reasons, but they cannot logically claim to be moral sceptics - who believe there is no such thing as moral truth or justice - as that would defeat their claim that it is unjust to treat homosexual acts in this manner. If there were no moral truth, it would not be unjust to criminalise homosexual acts.

27 September, 201803 October, 2018

REASONS TO RETAIN S377A

The Government maintains a position that all religious communities are free to give voice to their conscience in matters that have moral impact. People of religious faith have equal right to be included in rather than dismissed from the public forum of debate. Some homosexual advocates argue that religious citizens should refrain from advocating that the State laws should criminalise conduct that they consider immoral. This line of argument actually contradicts the definition of secularism. For what they are really saying is “You shouldn’t make laws based on your morality, but on mine instead.”

27 September, 201807 October, 2018

At level of international law, there is no established human right to ‘sexual orientation’

First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.

Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.