The Gay and Lesbian Debate: A Credit to Ghana’s Democracy

The discussions surrounding the gay and lesbian situation in Ghana has received a lot of attention lately. The former President, His Excellency J.A. Kufuor as well as the current one H.E. Professor John Evans Atta Mills have joined the on-going debate by frankly and candidly expressing their views on a controversial matter that seems to be affecting the country and possibly the continent more than most people would want to admit.

The multifaceted nature of the issues has drawn comments and contributions from all and sundry including the clergy and the legal fraternity. The religious perspective has called for outright condemnation due to the Biblical position on sodomy and same sex partnership. The legal angle however appears to be admonishing caution as well as the constitutionality of illegalizing or criminalizing the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Even though existing codes in the country’s criminal legal system identifies unnatural sexual practices as acts of misdemeanor the constitution which is the supreme law of the land remains silent on the matter. Needless to say that, the constitutional debate will continue until a clearly defined legal position is adopted to guide the society’s treatment of gays and lesbians.

It must however be said that, a legal analysis of issues may not exhaust the gargantuan scope of this debate which quite frankly must be evaluated from a myriad of angles. For the ratified legal status of homosexuals in Ghana will have sociological, cultural and some might even say spiritual repercussions.

The Western experience with gay and lesbian matters though appears to be less convoluted. The relatively higher level of tolerance for that kind of lifestyle in the Western world indicates a general societal acceptance of same sex relations. The cultural disparities between the West and Africa mostly account for the attitudinal differences in both places. In fact the homosexual debate in Africa appears to be more amplified compared to Europe or the US because there are certain social variables in that part of the world which expedited the generic societal acceptance of gays and lesbians. Prominent amongst them is the individualized nature of human rights in Western societies. A careful analysis of people’s rights in the West will show extra emphasis been placed on the rights of the individual at the expense of even the general group. The communal nature of the African society however, makes it harder for the same lifestyle to be accepted so readily with the repercussions to the society at large remaining foremost on the minds of legislators. Furthermore, the African culture for all intents and purposes does not recognize or even conceive of conjugality between two men or women.

It could be argued that, social evolution is simply inevitable so the growing number of gays and lesbians in the African midst is part and parcel of African modernism and should even be incorporated into the idea of a continental Renaissance. Why stop a society from changing when said change is brought on by a newness that has gained general acceptance in the West? Is it prudent though to imbibe Western values wholesale without any regard for mores and values that are indigenous to Africans? The uniqueness of African traditions I believe ought to be preserved. As much as the continent is striving to attain the same level of infrastructural development as its counterparts in the West; Africa and its people shouldn’t be pre-disposed to a total or complete acceptance of Western values and social practices.

The foreign experience with gays and lesbians is absolutely different from the African one. The role of the media and the prominent position of homosexuals in the entertainment industry for instance contributed massively to the promulgation of the same sex lifestyle in certain Western countries such as the US. Howard Hughes, Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Burt Lancaster, and their modern counterparts Ellen DeGeneres, Jodie Foster, David Geffen, Pete Townshend, Drew Barrymore Elton John, George Michael and so on are either openly gay or have experimented with same sex relations at some point of their lives. The existing link between Hollywood and Washington places the film or rather entertainment industry in a good position to lobby congress for favorable legislation concerning gay rights. Furthermore, advocacy for the same sex lifestyle has been disseminated through films and television shows such as Will and Grace or the Oscar nominated film Brokeback Mountain. Meaning that film studios who also happen to control the means of communication in America (Time Warner owns CNN, 20^th Century Fox is also the parent company of the Fox Network) were able to use the medium to spread the endorsement of same sex relations whilst portraying detractors as evil villains. In fact the overall liberal approach to the matter is predicated on the vilification of conservatives who are calling for a dispassionate, honest and objective debate. The habit of name calling and the dismissal of viewpoints that are critical of gays and lesbians as bigoted and backward have however made it difficult. Even important judicial judgment especially when it comes to gay marriages and the ability of same sex parents to adopt were made under some form of societal duress fearing public outcry if the ruling does not favor same sex couples.

The imposition of values by certain sections of the society has therefore resulted in some level of social hypocrisy whereby what is professed in public differs from what is said in private. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding the film community’s concerted attempt to garner general acceptance for homosexuality in America, high profile movies starring big name actors have failed to glitter at the box office. With the exception of Brokeback Mountain, major releases such as The Kids Are All Right with Julianne Moore and Annette Bening or Milk which secured a Best Actor Oscar nod for Sean Penn and the Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor comedy I Love You Philip Morris underperformed in theaters. If the American tolerance for the gay lifestyle were to be so widespread some of these films would not have struggled to find an audience. Fictional icons such as James Bond, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Superman and so on and so forth continue to be bona fide heterosexuals largely due to the uncertainty surrounding the film going public’s response to an experimentation or modernization of these characters by making them gay.  So it’s apparent that even the Western world’s accommodation of homosexuality is being exercised under some form of reluctance and protest.

Ghana’s approach to the gay debate however deserves to be commended. Notwithstanding, the qualitative aspects of the culture which do not condone same sex marriages, there is no rush to condemn or ostracize the practice. The rights of gays and lesbians are being considered and caution has been taken to ensure that legislation on the matter does not result in the national suppression or repression of an alternative lifestyle. The important role of religion and the routine of belonging to churches and to be spiritual have been infused into the cultural setting of Ghana and yet there is still a call from some institutions for restraint, tolerance and understanding. In fact, the erudite position appears to be a criticism of the gay concept not so much a condemnation of its practitioners. The on-going debate merely serves as a reinforcement of the country’s democratic credentials. Furthermore, if the gay controversy continues to be handled in a way and manner that takes the gamut of social interests into  consideration its resolution is likely to be based on a decision making process that will be fair, objective and well informed. An approach that I feel was sorely missing in the West’s handling of the matter.