We can’t run away from gay debate

The ongoing court battle involving Kim Davis of Kentucky (USA) makes interesting reading as it raises thought-provoking human rights issues.

A county clerk by occupation, she refused to grant a marriage licence to a gay couple based on her deeply-held Christian beliefs.

 She contends that gay marriage is a sin and that it would be sinful for her to issue a marriage licence to such a couple.

As a matter of fact, she stopped issuing all marriage licences in June, a day after the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

Two gay couples and two straight couples then sued her and she was ordered by the local judge to issue the licences, a ruling that was also upheld by the Supreme Court.

The refusal by Davis to issue licences as ordered has landed her in jail as she was deemed to be in contempt of court for violating a federal judge’s order.

Now, readers will recall that when same-sex marriages were legalised in the USA in June this year, the decision set off a chain of reactions, with some clerks and judges across the South halting the issuance of licences in the days following the Court’s decision; others resigned from their jobs rather than acknowledge a same-sex marriage while others relented under the threat of legal action and began handing licences out.

The presiding judge in Davis’ case said in his ruling that Davis had likely violated the US Constitution’s protection against the establishment of a religion by “openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others”.

He even went on to say , among other things that,  while Davis  is  free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do, her religious convictions could not excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. Needless to say, the ruling sparked off demonstrations from both sides of the divide.

The reasoning by the Judge raises a lot of questions, especially for Kenyans and Africans in general who are still grappling with the ‘gay question’. The issue of gay and lesbian unions is divisive and emotive even in countries considered as mature democracies.

Remember Kentucky is in the USA, with President Obama being one of the greatest proponents of gay rights of our times.

One of the issues for consideration in the Davis’s case is whether her obligation to duty should outweigh her right to religious freedom and by extension, her right to conscience.

According to Wikipedia, the right to /freedom of conscience, also known as freedom of thought, is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others’ viewpoints.

Article 32 of the Kenyan Constitution recognises every person’s freedom of conscience, religion, belief and opinion, which may be expressed either individually or in community with others and to manifest the same publicly and/or privately.

The provision goes further to say that none should be compelled to act or engage in any act that is contrary to her/his belief or religion.

I’m sure that some readers may be thinking that Kentucky is too far away for us to be bothered by what is happening there. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Kenyans will have to confront this issue in the near future if the current indicators are anything to go by.

Starting from whether or not to register organisations that advance the rights of LQBTIs, the road ahead is lined with weightier, more divisive and emotive issues. Kenya, like the US, will have one day to consider whether to legalize same-sex marriages and if such couples should be allowed to adopt children, among other rights already being demanded by the gay-lesbian community in other parts of the world.

Davis’ Case sets a precedent for other people all over the world who at one time or another will have to deal with same sex-marriages.

Even as I write this article, I am aware of recent reports about Kenya’s adoption of a policy on reproductive health rights, which address granting abortion rights and the right to access birth control by adolescents.

Opinion on this is very divided and emotive and will continue to be so, until the end of time.

No doubt new cases will continue to emerge worldwide that will expand the debate and raise questions about the tensions between individuals’ rights of conscience and the need to protect certain groups such as gays and lesbians, doctors and abortionists or pharmacists and birth control against discrimination.

The Kenyan public and the Judiciary had better start bracing themselves for such eventuality.