WILLEMSTAD - The Association of Christian Pastors (APK) expresses full agreement with the proposal put forth by Member of Parliament Mr. Rennox Calmes to anchor heterosexual Civil Marriage in our Constitutional Order. While APK firmly believes that our Constitutional Order is comprehensive, it does not view our Civil Code as discriminatory, contrary to the Court's ruling. According to our Constitutional Order, similar cases must receive equal treatment.
The inherent differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, in terms of natural biology, justify the exclusion of non-heterosexual relationships from the rights associated with Civil Marriage. Discrimination is not a factor in our Constitutional Order's requirement for differentiated treatment in different cases. Moreover, our Civil Code aligns with the verdict of the European Supreme Court, which has consistently held that there is no universal human right to same-sex marriage. Consequently, it is inappropriate for any government to recognize a homosexual relationship where no rights exist, and discrimination should be avoided. Therefore, if the Court intends to enact legislation in Curaçao in accordance with the European ruling, it should focus on amending our Constitutional Order rather than our Civil Code, as proposed by Mr. Calmes.
However, the second part of the European Supreme Court's verdict cited by this Court appears contradictory. On one hand, it unanimously dictates that no government is obligated to recognize same-sex relationships, but simultaneously mandates their recognition. This part of the verdict, seemingly based on favor rather than principles of human rights, law, biology, religion, or history, claims acceptance within the European community. The challenge with Civil Unions lies in the requirement to acknowledge the same-sex relationship, including the homosexual act, in order to grant one or two rights to same-sex couples. Technically, a Civil Union is equivalent to a Civil Marriage, differing only in the number of accompanying rights. However, the legal implications of recognition remain the same. The creation of legal recognition and rights where none existed raises questions about whose rights take precedence. How will this impact education in schools? How should an employee who does not wish to attend a company-supported "Pride" event be treated? What will be the implications for women's sports?
In response to FOKO's communication, APK wishes to clarify that the inclusion of heterosexual Civil Marriage in our Constitutional Order does not revoke any rights from homosexuals. Every homosexual individual retains the same civil rights as any other citizen. Civil Marriage is subject to biological requirements, such as prohibiting minors from marrying, preventing individuals with blood relations from marrying each other, disallowing individuals who are already married from marrying again, and prohibiting marriage to animals. Consequently, recognition from the government for a homosexual relationship should not be expected. The European Supreme Court has already ruled that same-sex marriage rights do not exist.
