The interview was fairly wide-ranging, but there was the now not unusual 'gotcha ambush' in it.
This time, it was on Mr Golding's 2006 promise that there would be no homosexuals in his cabinet. The trigger for this was a recent incident of mob violence against four suspected homosexuals in a house in Manchester, which -- as the Gleaner transcript reports -- Mr Sackur claimed was "not unusual."
[NB: Blatantly false -- such a case IS unusual in Jamaica. Vigilante-style mob violence against criminals caught in the act, sadly -- and as I noted on in a previous remark on this general topic (in response to the Star's report on a coordinated homosexualist push to attack "homophobia" in Jamaica) -- is what is and has long been unfortunately all too common.]
There were associated comments on Jamaica having the worst case of "homophobia" as observed by an advocate of Human Rights Watch [a homosexualist lobby group] and an article in the [pro-homosexualist] New York Times. (It is worth noting that BBC itself is strongly influenced by the same agendas, and that the edited clips aired on BBC news radio -- unsurprisingly -- made Mr Golding come across much worse than he does in the linked video clip.)
The following part of the exchange (from the Gleaner transcript) is especially revealing:
SS: . . . you have just told me that Jamaica is on track to give equality before the law to homosexuals - but you yourself have said that "homosexuals will find no solace in a cabinet formed by me?" That has nothing to do with equality before the law? [NB: A code word for so-called same sex marriage and associated agendas.] Do you not have a duty to consider people on their merits - for cabinet positions indeed in any part of government?
BG: No. I consider people in terms of their ability and the extent to which they are going to be able to exercise their function, their independence.
SS: You also clearly and patently consider them in terms of their sexuality.
BG: No. That's a decision that I make. That's a decision that every prime minister makes. A prime minister must decide what he feels would represent to the Jamaican people a cabinet of ministers who will be able to discharge their function without fear, without favour, without intimidation. I make that choice.
SS: What kind of signal does that send about Jamaica to the outside world? Indeed, to potential investors, to countries that look at Jamaica.
BG: One signal that it sends is that Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside. We are going to have to determine that ourselves and we are going to have to determine to what extent those values will ad[a]pt over time - to change in perception and to change in understanding as to how people live. But it can't be on the basis that lobby groups far and away from Jamaica will define for Jamaica how it must establish its own standards and its own morals . . . .
[Emphases and parenthetical notes added.]
In short, the heart of the exchange hinges on the plainly intended imposition of the homosexualist insistence on legal, national policy-level approval of open homosexuality, versus Mr Golding's point that it is reasonable for Jamaica to move to a situation where people's private sexual behaviour is tolerated and respected as private; but not for Jamaican law and public policy -- including Cabinet appointments -- to be pushed into accepting what is (and is likely to remain) repugnant to the community consensus as a democratic, predominantly Judaeo-Christian country.
(Of course, even in the same breath, we must note that Jamaica's horrendous crime situation and out-of wedlock birth rates are standing rebukes to the nation, and a reason to call for national repentance and reformation.)
That distinction Mr Golding made is critical, in light of the foundational nature of family and associated morality for civilisation.
As a Byzantine Catholic Church site, building on a 2003 statement by Pope John Paul II, aptly notes:
The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all of the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit that certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human life.Here, we see a balanced, creation-anchored framework for humanity, for the complementarity of maleness and femaleness, thence, for family, sexuality and the raising of generations to come under God. Also, for sound but compassionate response to those enmeshed in what is disordered and even sinful. Immediately, we see that we of the Caribbean must repent and seek reformation for our own blatant disregard for God's Creation-anchored sacred order for the family, and of sexuality in family. Then, we may compassionately reach out to help those among us caught up in the entangling mesh of disordered expressions of sexuality that violate the complementarity of man and woman. For, surely, there is no excuse for mob violence!
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen. 1,27) Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in His work of creation. Thus, He blessed the man and the woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1,28) Moreover, the union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to marriage and family. Matrimony is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law because they close the sexual act to the gift or life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as serious depravity. (See footnote 1 below) This same moral judgment is found in many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and is unanimously accepted by Holy Tradition. Nevertheless, we must accept homosexuals with respect and compassion. We must forgive the sinner but can never condone the sin.  [Emphases added.]
At the same time, there is no sound foundation for moving from acceptance of person to policy-level approval of personally and socially destructive sin.
So, instead of yielding to the pressure groups who want to put open approval of homosexuality in our laws, cabinets and schools, let us instead heed the wise counsel of that recently deceased pope:
1) Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer to unions of persons of the same sex the legal guarantees analogous to those granted to marriage.
2) Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are unable to contribute to the procreation and survival of the human race.
3) Allowing children to be adopted by persons of the same sex places such children in an unnatural and depraved environment deprived of the experience of real motherhood and fatherhood.
4) Society owes its continued survival to the family founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors of heterosexuality such as procreation and raising of children. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that such unions are inimical to the development of society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
5) Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Let us reflect, let us repent, let us seek reformation under God.
Then, let us set out to love and help the enmeshed sinner, even while we refuse to condone the sin. END
UPDATE, June 4: Minor cleanup.