Rabuka, Prasad Miss Golden Opportunity to Stamp Their Mark in Election Rally
Mr Rabuka and Mr Prasad left people wondering what their real position was because they failed to give a definite answer.
WCoalition partners, Sitiveni Rabuka and Biman Prasad, failed to take advantage of a golden opportunity to stamp their mark in Nadi on Thursday night.
They were non-committal when they were asked whether they supported same-sex marriage at Korovuto College.
They evaded answering the question obviously pandering to the voices of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQI) on one hand and those who fundamentally oppose same-sex marriage on cultural and religious grounds on the other.
A day earlier before the Korovuto meeting, the LGBTQI had appealed to political parties to include them in their manifestos.
The members said they deserved the same amount of respect as anyone else because of their contributions to the communities and the nation.
Mr Rabuka and Mr Prasad left people wondering what their real position was because they failed to give a definite answer.
They both said they respected the rights of every citizen.
Take cue from PM
Maybe they could take their cue from Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama who had said that while he respected the rights of members of the LGBTQI as citizens, he would not go as far as agreeing to samesex marriage.
Mr Bainimarama stands by the existing law that only recognises marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That’s reasonably clear.
Mr Rabuka and Mr Prasad are known to be staunch in their respective religions.
Mr Rabuka, a Methodist and lay preacher, knows that Methodists are on the same page as Mr Bainimarama on this issue based on biblical perspectives.
Why didn’t he take the same line? He was probably thinking of not upsetting LGBTQI members and their supporters because they could vote for him if he played his cards right.
It sounded like a desperate option.
A Sevanaia Naua had told them in the meeting that if they supported gay rights they would vote for them.
Mr Rabuka responded: “Marriage in Fiji is governed by the Marriage Act.The Act says a union between a male and a female, a man and a woman. Until that changes, it is up to the Government to change it.” Mr Bainimarama and his Government would not change it. Would Mr Rabuka and Mr Prasad change it if they form the next Government?
The big danger for Mr Rabuka is the impact on Christians and likeminded non-Christians who probably expected Mr Rabuka to express his faith and belief as Mr Bainimarama did.
As far as Mr Prasad is concerned he will ensure that his views are consistent with Mr Rabuka’s. They cannot afford to be seen to be on opposite sides because it would portray a negative picture.
This he did on Wednesday night. He said: “As far as we are concerned, the rights of every citizen must be respected.”
On the specific same-sex marriage issue, Mr Prasad said they had ‘not been allowed’ discussion on ‘sensitive issues’. He added Government had not allowed discussion
But he did not say whether his party had discussed it on its own initiative.
There has been a softening of hostile attitude against LGBTQI members over the years, especially the criminalisation of consenting same-sex relations.
The first real sign of further progress is whether their plea is included in the parties’ manifestos. If If it is then their crusade towards achieving their ultimate dream – same sex marriage - may be gaining some traction.
Misreading of Law?
The Dean of the JDP School of Law at the University of Fiji, Professor Shaista Shameem says that political parties should carefully look at the law on marriage in Fiji before saying that someone was prohibited from getting married if they felt like it.
Professor Shameem was responding to the front page and page 3 of the Fiji Sun where, in response to a question from the audience on whether two of the political parties would support gay marriage in Fiji, one of the leaders said that the ‘Marriage Act in Fiji says marriage is a union between a male and a female, a man and a woman’.
Professor Shameem said that statement was a misreading of the law as the relevant section quoted was incomplete.
She said that, most importantly, sexual orientation was protected by section 26 the 2013 Constitution, as it had been in the 1997 Constitution. This meant that the state could not unfairly discriminate against any person in Fiji on the ground of sexual orientation. Every person, irrespective of their sexual orientation, was equal before the law; equality was defined as the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the written laws of Fiji.
Professor Shameem said there was also a section 26 (8) (e) constitutional limitation on the right to equality and freedom from discrimination on the basis of laws of Fiji which included the law on marriage, among other laws such as adoption, devolution of property and pensions.
But the law of marriage, the Marriage Act, at section 13 prohibited only Plurality of Marriage as the heading of that section states, defining marriage in Fiji as ‘the voluntary union of one man to one woman to the exclusion of all others’.
Professor Shameem said people, perhaps conveniently, ignored the heading of the section, which prohibited plurality of marriage and in simple English meant marriage to more than one person at the same time.
She said that section 13 defined marriage as a voluntary union of one (ie single) man to one (ie single) woman to the exclusion of all others.
“Section 13 thus only covers prohibition on pluraity of marriage, for example polygamy, which was permitted by some cultures in the past in Fiji. Section 13 of the Marriage Act merely prohibits a person from having more than one legally recognised marriage partner simultaneously,” she said
Professor Shameem said that section 13 did not state that gay marriage was prohibited in Fiji. In fact, section 13 of the Marriage Act was silent on gay marriage and should not be misconstrued.
“Accordingly, in this situation, the Constitutional section 26 prevails in that unfair discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not allowed.
Therefore the state cannot unfairly discriminate against gay people in any shape or form,” Professor Shameem said.
“In the law they have the same rights as everyone else in Fiji. It would be difficult to change the law now to unfairly discriminate against gay people as that would be unconstitutional.”