Dear Sir,

Tony Brannon has reopened the question of same-sex unions. I do not say marriage because marriage comes into our language as a custom originating from God. That does mean it has to be a ceremony.

Ancient tribes developed rituals for the start of a new family that would be recognised by local custom. A war against another tribe could start because of a shortage of women. Women were captured and forced into the victorious tribe. We are not sure there was a ceremony. They probably simply were moved into their new family.

Ceremonies were developed everywhere to regulate society and to confirm socially the rights of the husband which that society accepted. The caricature of the caveman looking for wife carrying a club has some foundation.

Some historians have postulated that the seemingly inexplicable defeat of the formidable Roman army by less disciplined hordes was owing to the spread within its ranks of homosexuality and accompanying disease. While this might not be true, it confirms that this practice has an old history. Man, the superior animal, decided that the pursuit of sexual pleasure with the same sex was a way to bypass the complications with vestal virgins and with other women who were not their own.

Ancient man counted his wife among his possessions. We have come a long way from that today. Same-sex unions have spread to both sexes. I do not say marriage because that is a misuse of the word, which originally meant only the male-female union.

Its meaning changed when it was incorporated in tax laws granting special considerations to the conventional married couples. When these were extended to same-sex unions, the word “marriage” was wrongly retained, probably to ensure that the same considerations applied. This is the legal misstep, now spread worldwide, which leads to the present controversy.

The discussion has been complicated by the varied reaction of theology experts. In the Bible, Romans, chapter one condemns homosexuality union in no uncertain terms.

Church pastors should give up the legal right to marry, and stop being agents of the state. Hesitation may be caused by possible loss of income. This should not stop the church from using a marriage ceremony with its own fees for those who want it.

Further confusion has been caused by using the word “homosexuality” by some to lump those who practise same-sex union with effeminate persons. These latter came into world that way.

They have always been accepted and not discriminated against by the majority of Bermudians. The use of law that lumps both groups together endangers the freedom that effeminate men and masculine females have heretofore enjoyed.

We should let marriage retain its original connotation and use for the new convention the term “same-sex union”, which is an adequate description. Let same-sex union be a description of the new convention and not the word “homosexual”, which lumps dissimilar groups together in its present conventional usage.

Let us not continue the legal misstep. Bermuda once again has the opportunity to lead the world. We should think for ourselves and not be dumb animals following everyone else.

BERTRAM GUISHARD

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.