Same sex bill more complex than expected

“How would you like history to judge you?”

This is one of the many questions that lawmakers would have to face when the time comes to decide on a legislative measure that aims to restrict marriage in the CNMI to heterosexual couples.

Other complex issues that the Legislature would have to ponder on are civil liberties, religion, discrimination, separation of church and state, revenue, and votes.

These varied issues came to the fore during the public hearing held yesterday on House Legislative Initiative 14-003, which seeks to limit the definition of marriage in the CNMI Constitution to that between a man and a woman.

Of the witnesses present, only four witnesses openly opposed the passage of the initiative, while the Attorney General’s Office limited its comment on the legality of the bill itself.

Religious congregations were most vocal in their support of the initiative, urging the Legislature to pass the measure.

An opponent of the bill, Anthony Camacho urged lawmakers to exercise caution and consider the separation of the church and the state in deciding the fate of the initiative.

Camacho noted that discrimination has been hurting same sex couples in the CNMI.

“There are a number of same sex couples in the CNMI involving a U.S. citizen and a non-U.S. citizen. Employees in same-sex relationships pay into pension plans, but their surviving partners are not paid any benefits as a surviving spouse. We pay taxes and contribute into pension plans just like everyone else, and yet we continue to face discrimination that are simply not justified,” said the witness.

He added that heterosexual couples are legally entitled to paid leaves from their jobs to attend to a sick partner while same-sex couples are not entitled to such.

“There is no legal justification for this law; it is simply discrimination against same-sex relationships,” he said.

Camacho asked the Legislature to carefully consider the time-tested wisdom of keeping religious doctrine out of the business of governing and elected offices empowered with the public trust.

“I am a devout Catholic. Please do not misunderstand my objection to this initiative. Just because I oppose it does not mean that I also oppose the Catholic Church. I am a God-fearing Catholic who is involved in a same-sex relationship. I keep my religious beliefs separate from my political beliefs. The Commonwealth government should do the same and keep religion out of politics. Separation of church and state is required by the U.S. and CNMI Constitutions,” he pointed out.

CNMI Bar Association president Sean Frink pointed out that the lawmakers’ vote on the initiative—whether for or against—could have an impact on the votes of the younger generation, who are largely in support of same-sex marriage.

“I believe that there is an existing empowered generation out there and they would look at this along the lines of civil rights. Your support for this measure may cost you some votes. How are you going to be judged by history? This may be small on your agenda right now but 10 years from now, this issue would come to the forefront,” he said.

He told the House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations that there is a large population of youths in the CNMI who are opposed to the measure, adding that yesterday’s hearing was not representative of the entire population.

Millie Carol of the Immanuel United Methodist Church also spoke out, believing that same sex marriage would in no way threaten heterosexual marriages in the CNMI. “We feel that the Bible should not be used to deny or approve same sex marriages,” she noted.

Other religious groups, however, said that same-sex marriage is an explosive situation, a volatile and a crucial issue that should not be allowed in the CNMI. According to New Covenant Life Church Pastor Cliff Shoemake, allowing same-sex marriage would further destabilize family life in the CNMI.

Religious leaders also stressed that same-sex relationships violate the teachings of the Bible and the Church.

The initiative, introduced by House Speaker Benigno R. Fitial, aims to restrict the conduct of marriage to between people of opposite sexes by amending Section 5 of Article II of the CNMI Constitution, adding a new subsection that would limit legislative authority in enacting laws relating to marriage.

It was not immediately learned if the committee still intends to hold another public hearing on the issue.

Committee chair Rep. Jesus Lizama said the panel would consider all the testimony presented when they deliberate on the bill.