With all of this commotion over the “gay cruise” that is scheduled to visit the island this summer, as well as the religious protests that this cruise has evoked, I thought that it would be fitting to take a closer look at the views of the contending parties and the meaning(s) of this entire matter. Mr. Gregg Kaminsky, who is Rosie O’Donnell’s travel executive for the proposed gay cruise to Bermuda, made the following threat to our island’s tourism sector:-

“Kaminsky, warned that just ‘one incident’ would cause the company to cancel the cruise - and tell everyone in America why.” — Royal Gazette, March 28, 2007.

Given that there has been disagreement between homosexuals and Christians for many years, I wonder why Kaminsky adopts this threatening stance? This essay examines gay cruises, gay rights and the right to dissent.

The laws which allow individuals to practice their preference in politics, religions and sexual practices, also permit individuals to disagree with their choices. As long as those who disagree do not transgress the rights of their opponents, there should be no problem! The right to dissent is a cornerstone of a free society. Under Bermuda’s constitution, the AME church group (& other religious opponents of the cruise) can freely express their convictions. Those who differ are permitted to express opposing views. However, Mr. Kaminsky’s disregard for his opponents’ religious views, as well as his threats are completely deplorable.

Kaminsky’s reaction seems tailor-made for the US. American political lobbying groups have gained several legal privileges/protection for homosexuals. Some policies even shelter homosexuals from religious-opposition. Though I am not one, there are many Bermudians who support the notion of ‘gay rights’, such as, politicians Renee Webb & Dale Butler. In Bermuda however, homosexuals are not protected from religious critique. Thus, Kaminsky and his company need to recognise this fact and accept that Bermudians are permitted to express disagreement with homosexuality. Therefore, Kaminsky and his travel company, have about four options regarding their proposed cruise:

1. Change the laws of Bermuda.

2. Host a forum in order to convince their religious opponents’ to change.

3. Cruise to Bermuda and enjoy our beautiful island.

If they select the third option, they might encounter opposition from the AME group or even protestors. It is important to note that protest against gay cruises is not unique to Bermuda. Wherever they go, gay cruises have encountered some form of opposition. In 1998, 2004 and 2006, gay cruises to the Caymans & Bahamas were met with non-violent protests, in which visitors were not physically harmed. I wonder, did Kaminsky threaten the tourism of these islands also?

Although the law allows Bermudians to peacefully protest, Kaminsky opposes the right of Bermudians to dissent. In order to manifest his desire (that there be “no incidents”), our government would have to deny the rights of Bermudians. If non-citizens could undermine our rights, what does this say about Bermuda’s political system? It would mean that Kaminsky and his organization possessed MORE authority than our elected MPs, Premier and Governor! Clearly, Mr. Kaminsky’s desire is undemocratic and totally disregards Bermudian liberties.

A fourth option available to Mr. Kaminsky is:

4. That he decides not to come to Bermuda, selecting another destination that he considers more ‘welcoming’.

This would be unfortunate, but no reason to castigate Bermuda because travel always entails conformity. When visiting other countries one must acknowledge their laws and customs, even if these practices are offensive! If one is offended, one can express their discontent using the legal system. However, it is arrogant and borderline imperialist, for Kaminsky to expect Bermuda to censor or suppress the opinions of their own citizens for his cruise.

Christian opposition to homosexuality is not bigotry or homophobia. Being a Christian requires obedience to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the New Testament. Thus, Christians and gays fall out over the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:24-27, 1Corinthians 6:9, etc. Christians who uphold Biblical truth cannot support homosexuality NOR other behaviours condemned as sin, such as adultery, dishonesty, premarital sex, drunkenness, etc. Injunctions against homosexuality do not command Christians to hate, harm or kill homosexual people. Christians, who have physically harmed homosexuals, did so according to their own will and not because of any New Testament commandment. Thus, to characterise religious disagreement with homosexuality as, ‘bigotry’ or ‘homophobia’ is incorrect. It is conviction. Memorable leaders from Gandhi, to our own E.F. Gordon possessed conviction. Conviction enabled them to be resolute despite opposition. Likewise, upholding Biblical beliefs in the face of opposition demonstrates Christian conviction.

The common critique is that ‘the church’ is uneven in its criticism. Ministers quickly condemn homosexuality, but rarely breathe ‘fire and brimstone’ on other sins, such as, premarital sex, adultery, political corruption, etc. The question arises: since all sin is equal in the eyes of God, (there are theological complexities to this statement that would take too much time to cover here) and all sin forgivable by obedience to the Gospel of Christ, why should preachers only condemn homosexuals while letting other sinners off the hook? Simply stated - hypocrisy! Hypocritical teachers condemn homosexuality while ignoring Joe & Mary Churchmember who engage in other immoralities, such as, adultery or stealing from their workplaces.

Unfortunately, this criticism is true in many cases. Nonetheless, its validity does not undermine the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality. That some Christians refuse to obey Biblical laws does not invalidate those Biblical laws!

Observe Bermuda’s speed limit as an example. Some say, “no-one drives at the speed limit (35kmph)!” Nevertheless, Bermudian Police are authorised to ticket drivers who exceed 35 kph. Though this law is hardly-obeyed or loosely-enforced, it is still binding! Similarly, the New Testament is GOD’s unchangeable law. Until GOD changes the passages prohibiting homosexuality, Christians are required to adhere to Biblical teachings, even if many disagree.

It is unlikely that gays will ever convince Bible-believing Christians that homosexuality is right. Homosexual individuals may have to accept that they will always face Christian opposition. As long as this opposition is not violent or illegal, gays are no more eligible for special legal protections than the members of a political party. The laws which permit individuals to choose their own lifestyles also permit others to disagree with them. Christians who disagree with homosexuality are not bigots or homophobes — just Biblically-convicted!

Whether or not one supports or rejects homosexuality, as members of this society, everyone needs to recognise and respect the “right to dissent”.