Dear Sir,

The recent imprisonment of a clerk in the United States who refused to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples has sparked not just simple controversy, but a paradox.

The idea of same-sex marriage was supposedly on the basis of non-discrimination of beliefs. The idea of marriage, or sanctity of that terminology or nomenclature called marriage according to most religions, recognises only male-female unions. Therefore, for many it is an affront to their core belief.

The issue at hand now is not the virtue of same-sex marriage in this matter, but the right and interpretive victimisation of religious beliefs.

Under human rights law, persons are not supposed to be discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, place of origin and, now, sexual orientation.

Persons with specific beliefs working in occupations which in some cases conflict with their core belief are to be allowed reasonable accommodation, which in her case would mean finding a way around her to issue licences and not force her against her conviction.

Equally, it is not the efficacy of her position or virtue of her convictions in question, it is the right of her conviction that needs to be accommodated.

Many of the proponents of same-sex marriage who felt victimised by the law now feel vindicated by her imprisonment for denying a lawful right. However, it is now the case that the state has by this example decided to impose actions with the force of the criminal justice system, which includes police and prison, to try to alter the belief by practice of an individual.

The problem may not be avoidable wherever the state takes a religious stance on the subject of marriage.

It may be more practical for marriage to remain outside the doctrine of the state. Let the state recognise all relationships as civil unions with whatever contractual entitlements detailed in their specific unions. Allow persons and religions to determine by their own faith what constitutes marriage. We live in a pluralist world and, to be fair, we have to adopt a level of openness in our process that facilitates pluralism.

When this subject arose many years ago, and I am sure it will again, I proposed that Bermuda laws be changed to take marriage out of the hands of the state as the sole agency and allow marriage to be handled by the various faiths and non-faiths and the state simply gives legal recognition to the bona fide contracts between consenting adults.

KHALID WASI