God’s Word and Jamaica’s Constitutional Reform

Psalm 119:105 reads:  “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”

“Thy Word” refers to the Word of God:  He has revealed in the Holy Scriptures what is right and what is wrong;  what is true and what is false.  “Lamp” provides “light” so that we may be able to see where we are walking.  The Word of God provides enlightenment or understanding of the way of life that He commands us to live.

Let us see the light that the Word of God sheds on “Constitutional Reform”.

Firstly, the idea of “Constitutional Reform”.  According to the Jamaica Information Service (JIS) website, in the article, entitled:  “Constitutional Reform Committee Established”, it reads:  “Members will, additionally, advise on what fresh perspectives should be considered in light of previous and current national, regional, or international developments and propose any necessary modifications to update the recommendations for implementation.”  The key words are “fresh perspectives”.  “Fresh” means new and different from that which was written before.  “Perspectives” means the way a person or a group of persons see or interpret anything. 

Now, I will illustrate this from the present efforts to change the Jamaican Constitution.  The previous perspectives of the Jamaican Constitution were efforts to support what the Word of God teaches in the Holy Scriptures.  “Fresh perspectives” would be views and interpretations that are new and different from what the Word of God teaches in the Holy Scriptures, and which are based on trends in court cases or parliamentary decisions, which have been taking place from 2001 until the present time, in the U.K, European Union, Canada, U.S.A., Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Pacific Region.  An example of “fresh perspectives” which might be used by the Constitutional Reform Committee to change the existing Jamaican Constitution, is The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of 2011, Sections 13 (12) and 18, which require that the ”existing laws”, that were made prior to Jamaica’s Independence in 1962, should be kept, especially laws against sexual offences, such as “buggery”, and that no court has the authority to abolish these laws.  This is referred to as “savings law clauses” in the Commonwealth Caribbean.  It is possible that “fresh perspectives”, based on Courts in Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados, meant abolishing the law that forbids buggery. It might mean that a proposal could be made by the Constitutional Reform Committee that the “savings law clauses” be removed from The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of 2011, to enable courts in Jamaica to abolish the buggery law. 

Buggery means “anal penetration”, that is, sexual intercourse in the anus or buttocks.  This is the customary way that homosexuals have sexual intercourse with each other.  However, God forbids people of the same gender from having sexual intercourse with each other, whether it be woman and woman, or man and man.  (See Rom.1:26-27)  If the buggery law were to be abolished, and lesbians and homosexuals were to be given the legal right to have sexual intercourse with each other, this would be a great offence against God, for He rules over all governments and all nations, and therefore no government and no nation has the right to change God’s Law and to replace it with a human law that allow people to do what God has forbidden.  (See Ps.103:19;  47:7-8;  Rom.13:4)  Another example of “fresh perspectives”, other than God’s Perspectives, in the Word of God, being used by the Constitutional Reform Committee, might be in relation to The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of 2011, “Status of Marriage”, Section 18, Subsection (2):  “No form of marriage other than the voluntary union of one man and one woman may be contracted or legally recognized in Jamaica.”  “Fresh perspectives”, based on the legalization of same-sex marriage in the European Union, U.K., Canada, U.S.A., some Central and South American countries, some African countries, and some Pacific countries, from 2001 until the present, might mean that an attempt might be made to propose the removal of the definition of marriage as “the voluntary union of one man and one woman”, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of 2011, and to be replaced as “the voluntary union of two persons”, without specifying the genders of the “two persons”.  This change would make it legally possible for lawyers to argue that since the genders of the “two persons” are not specified, that it is possible to interpret the “two persons” as “one man and one woman”, or as “one man and one man”, or as “one woman and one woman”, and in this way legalize same sex marriage. 

However, God is the Creator of marriage from the beginning of creation, and He defines marriage as God joining together a “male” and a “female” to become “one flesh”.  (See Matt.19:4-6)  Therefore no human authority has the right to change the definition of marriage to include the union of either two men or two women.  There are two basic purposes of marriage:  (1)  Reproduce “seed” or “offspring”;  and (2)  Train this “seed” or “offspring” to become “godly”, that is, to respect God and to obey Him.  (See Mal.2:15)  Therefore God did not create marriage for lesbians and homosexuals, but strictly for persons of the opposite sex:  “male” and “female”.  So then, no government has the right to legislate marriage for persons of the same gender.