EDITORIAL: Towards an equal Namibia
In a culture like ours, the indignation over yesterday's Supreme Court decision recognising same-sex marriages for couples wed abroad is to be anticipated.
There will be fierce opposition, particularly among conservative Christians who constitute the vast majority of our society. Non-believers who reject everything biblical and embrace African cultural values would find the verdict even more repugnant.
The Namibia Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF) already called for a nationwide referendum on the issue before the sun set into the Atlantic yesterday. However, liberals would argue - perhaps rightly so - that majority rule cannot dictate minority rights.
But, despite all this, it's worth delving into the legal instruments the court used to reach this landmark verdict.
As laypeople, we think of courts as bodies that administer justice by contrasting people's conduct with the laws that exist. In the most basic terms, the courts evaluate whether existing laws have been broken or upheld.
With no statute in Namibia authorising same-sex weddings, it would be instructive to understand what the judges relied on to deliver what appears to be the most equitable ruling in every other way.
This would assist to put to rest, if it could, misconceptions that the courts relied on other jurisdictions to decide a case involving a country with its own laws. This, some contend, breaches our country's sovereignty. Let the arguments continue.
There will be fierce opposition, particularly among conservative Christians who constitute the vast majority of our society. Non-believers who reject everything biblical and embrace African cultural values would find the verdict even more repugnant.
The Namibia Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF) already called for a nationwide referendum on the issue before the sun set into the Atlantic yesterday. However, liberals would argue - perhaps rightly so - that majority rule cannot dictate minority rights.
But, despite all this, it's worth delving into the legal instruments the court used to reach this landmark verdict.
As laypeople, we think of courts as bodies that administer justice by contrasting people's conduct with the laws that exist. In the most basic terms, the courts evaluate whether existing laws have been broken or upheld.
With no statute in Namibia authorising same-sex weddings, it would be instructive to understand what the judges relied on to deliver what appears to be the most equitable ruling in every other way.
This would assist to put to rest, if it could, misconceptions that the courts relied on other jurisdictions to decide a case involving a country with its own laws. This, some contend, breaches our country's sovereignty. Let the arguments continue.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article