Editor's Note: Following the play-out of events in the Scottish parliament over Ghana's perceived violation and 'decriminalization' of homosexuality, YEN.com's Charles Ayitey explores the need ( if there should be) for Ghana to layout her clear stance on gay civil unions.
When President John Dramani Mahama made known his intentions of visiting the Scottish Parliament, one would have thought that he would have the 'confidence' to openly speak over Ghana's so called 'non-acceptance' of same-sex marriages. Ghana's vibrant press did all it could to point out to government how prepared the liberal Scottish parliament was to as it were, probe the president on issues related to gay right violations but as expected, these signals were less heeded to.
Well, as the nation watched how the president and his entourage got 'embarrassed' in the boycott of his speech by a large section of liberal Scottish legislators who felt the 'homophobic' president's speech was not much anything to listen to, we get to ask ourselves this hard and direct question...what is Ghana's official stance on homosexuality?
Since the attainment of constitutional rule in 1992, Ghanaian politicians have always hidden behind the vagueness of Ghana's criminal code; Sub Section 2 of the same section 104 of the Criminal Offences Act which stipulates which criminalizes unnatural canal knowledge. In analysis, this very code which summarizes the said unnatural canal knowledge as unacceptable penetration by the penis fall short of the variety of sexual engagements involving homosexuality!
Not to mince words, homosexuality is never a specific term meant for sex between a man and his fellow man; in fact, homosexuality covers the intricacies of attraction felt for the same-sex be it man or woman. So that should we have two women arrested and arraigned before the courts for allegedly indulging in ''unnatural canal knowledge,'' do we as a nation mean to say these females have the male organ (penis)? Should we have a man who decides to change his sexual identity to be that of a woman - making him transgender - arrested for having ''carnal knowledge'' with his 'fellow' man can we, with confidence stand before the judge and argue that the said man is really a man or that of a woman?
As twisting as this entire debate on homosexuality remains, the sheer embarrassment that Ghana suffered at the hands of Scotland is not just an indictment on our foreign policy but also a call for government to firm its debate and stance on the controversial issue.
It is veritably true that as a nation, our rich traditional culture does not give way to this 'Westernized' argument and culture called gay unions, it remains a fact that as a nation, our love and pride in the growth of families excludes anything as gay culture, indeed it remains a lifelong code that Ghana, just like many an African nations, dwell on the pride of paternity and power of being a man - which to arguable terms means the need for a young boy to grow up, take his future into his own hands, raise a family with a woman and multiply - that is the typicality of being African.
But if our government (just like President Mahama has exhibited in Scotland) does not provide the actual Constitutional backing to Ghana's stance on homosexuality, our nation will forever be bound to the ridicule of the West!