lmost one year ago, Bermuda's gay community were celebrating. Last November, Minister of Community Affairs Dale Butler announced that the Government would be extending the Human Rights Act to make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. The pledge should have been included in the Throne Speech, he said, but "there was a line that was left out".

"The changes will take us out of the dark ages and create an awareness about living openly rather than hiding these things in the closet," said Mr. Butler at the time.

Alas, two days later, it became clear that perhaps that the line had not been left out accidentally after all. Clarifying his statement, Mr. Butler said that the initiative was simply something he would have liked to include. Premier Alex Scott went further, saying that protecting gay rights "was not a priority".

Could things be about to change again?

"It was left out (of last year's Throne Speech) because the human rights officer must present information based on research," said Mr. Butler in response to an e-mailed question. "This information then becomes a Cabinet paper and the Government then has to decide."

Last week he told me, again via e-mail, that this information is now being reviewed and that a formal statement will come when the Cabinet has considered it. "If it is accepted or rejected it will be made known November 4 in the Throne Speech," he said.

Last November, Government backbencher Renee Webb promised to bring a private member's bill to protect gays if the Cabinet did not back such legislation. I e-mailed her to ask if this was something she was still prepared to do, but did not receive a response. However, Mr. Butler was confident, saying that if the Cabinet decided not to act: "I know that Renee Webb will pick it up."

The PLP aren't the only ones reluctant to commit themselves, however. When I asked UBP leader Grant Gibbons to confirm that a UBP government would extend anti-discrimination legislation to homosexuals, he was evasive. "When Renee raised this issue several months ago, our caucus debated it without reaching a consensus. We have not revisited the issue since then. However, at some point, we will probably revisit it again."

"We will probably revisit it again"? This is not a new issue. Why doesn't the UBP have a position on it?

I understand that electoral concerns are at work here. Neither party wants to offend the fundamentalist churches, who continue to argue for the right to discriminate against homosexuals based on the contents of a 2,000-year-old book.

However, there are homosexuals of all religious persuasions. By arguing for the right to discriminate, the churches are arguing for the right to impose their religion on others who may not share their faith. This is odd when you consider that the Act guarantees freedom of religion, which to my mind implies freedom religion too.

If I subscribe to a religious sect that holds that God created people with black skin to signal their sinfulness, should I be permitted to discriminate against blacks? Clearly not. So why should permitting discrimination against homosexuals because of what it says in the Bible be any different?

Some might say, "Because you're born black but you choose to be homosexual". This is nonsense. Do heterosexuals make a conscious decision to be straight? If homosexuality is a choice, does it not follow that heterosexuality must be a choice too? Moreover, why would anyone choose to be gay when it leads to such widespread ostracism?

The other argument in favour of allowing gays to be discriminated against, as advanced by Reverend Goodwin Smith (ironically a former chairman of the Human Rights Commission) and others, is that to give them protection under the Human Rights Act would be to afford them "a special class of rights" that other citizens do not have. Apart from, of course, blacks, whites, men, women, foreigners, the disabled, Christians, Muslims, Jews, PLP supporters, UBP supporters and even NLP supporters, all of whom are currently protected against discrimination as a result of those identities by the Act.

I am not suggesting that the churches must agree with homosexuality. If they still wish to consider it sinful, it is their right to do so. They should simply not be permitted to discriminate on those grounds.

There may be a more practical reason for Bermuda to become more tolerant of homosexuals too. Following a recent Bermuda Sun article about Bermudians who choose to move overseas, several people have suggested that Bermuda's attitude towards homosexuals is driving many talented and well-educated gay Bermudians away. If Bermuda were a more understanding place, perhaps we wouldn't need to hire quite so many foreign workers?

While politicians have a responsibility to represent those who voted for them, they also have a responsibility to show leadership. They should not always pander to the base instincts of their constituents. Gay rights are one area where such leadership has been conspicuously absent.

"You cannot legislate morality," argued Reverend Smith. Indeed. However we can ? and should ? legislate freedom from the morality of others.

@EDITRULE:

Phillip Wells

www.limeyinbermuda.com