March 27, 2013Dear Sir,Interestingly the US presidency, the new Pope and the future of politics seem to hang around sex. However in real terms it’s just that the world has become increasingly diversified with most developed nations and cities increasingly multicultural; multinational and multi-religious and in order for there to be equality in the citizenry, governments have to become neutral and get out of the business of being an authority on religious practices. I read the article on page four of The Royal Gazette on Tuesday March 26, posted as a Bloomberg article written by Michael Tackett. The article focused on which area of government will address the constitutional arguments for and against the issue of same sex marriage. The salient point in his argument rests, in my opinion, on the position of John Lewis’s, (a house representative of Georgia) comment where he quotes: “If two men fall in love and get married, it’s their business and no government — state — or federal should be able to deny people their love”.I once heard the statement many years ago “you may control your limbs, but you have no control over your heart”. I presume that means for two hearts or even more. I ask the rhetorical question, is there a dichotomy between the soul and social structures and governance? Because certainly mankind lives between these realities and these new ethical challenges, questions whether the soul and temporal existence are separate as in a partition, or actually subdivisions of a whole with one aspect holding sovereignty? Without labouring on that debate let me express the position that our true human make-up is indefinable and unlimited and while society is defined and a natural outgrowth, society is only at best a necessary aberration, which needs to give liberty to the true higher self or soul. In this evolving world, in order for governments to remain relevant to the soul that is guiding its diverse nature, it cannot represent as an obstacle to the innate propensity of mankind, but rather must be guided by it. We as a human family have evolved socially, we have religions and societies expressing various beliefs. The state in this new pluralistic society must support freedom of belief, and should not dictate to the religious groups what they should believe or observe as practices, which includes marriage.If a religion professes, as most do, that marriage is between a man and a woman, the state should have no role to change the religious position, because that would be the state dictating to religion. Similarly if two same sex persons decide to live together and enjoy a contractual relationship, because that’s what they believe, they are not obligated to follow the religious position, nor should the state deny their decision to be cohabitants. The state should be blind to the sanctity of whatever unions are formed, if they are polyandrous it’s not the state’s business if it is polygamous it’s not the state’s business. A pluralistic state need only be involved in the legality of the contractual relationship between parties, whatever they are. What I or anyone choose as a belief has no bearing on the state. We as citizens have an equal right to our beliefs even if they are conflicting, we support the state role to let each live how they choose. To me is my way, to you is yours, I don’t want what you want and you don’t want what I want so to you be your way and to me be mine.KHALID WASI