History is full of social standards that have changed over the years. There was a time when women couldn't vote, interracial marriage was unlawful, and divorce was unthinkable. The times have changed in all but the most repressive outliers of modern society.

The current generation looks back at distant issues of the past and puzzles over the lack of rights for so many that are now taken for granted. The next generation will do the same regarding the lack of human and social equality of rights afforded to LGBTQ people by some governments and religious institutions.

Although legal and socially accepted in most countries of the world, same-sex marriage is still a hot-button, usually religion-based, topic for some people. Bigotry based on religious beliefs is used by many and for many purposes.

But the ceremony of marriage between two people is not a religious act. Some couples do opt to be married in a church by clergy while others may wed at a courthouse, on the beach, and even underwater with SCUBA equipment by secular officiants. Marriage is far more a legal commitment than a religious rite.

It’s been stated by a far-right religious group and a Member of Parliament in Curaçao that biology is yet another reason for same-sex marriage discrimination. Ignorance from such people is to be expected, but in reality, there is nothing biological about two people of the same sex getting married other than they are biologically human.

These same people also claim to speak for all Curaçaoans in their opinions, but they don’t. Cosmopolitan Curaçao and its people are more open-minded to social equality issues than they have been given credit for by some with extremist views. Moreover, surveys conducted recently on the island clearly indicate that most island residents don’t have an anti-homosexual bias.

Marriage is fundamentally a pact between two people committing to a relationship, hopefully for life. Who or what they are is completely irrelevant. Without a doubt, history will show marriage discrimination in the same light as many other unjustified treatments of people that were based on intolerance, religious or otherwise.

The sun rose, the birds sang, people went to work, and children went to school. Fishermen took to the sea and shopkeepers opened their doors for business. A day like any other day except that, for the first time, two people of the same sex were legally married.

The next day, the sun rose, the birds sang, people went to work, and children went to school. Fishermen took to the sea and shopkeepers opened their doors for business ...

G. Buther

Curaçao

Dear Editor,

When you put people who are not properly trained in the matter to do a job, you can be guaranteed that mistakes and sometimes blunders will be made.

Those of us whose motor vehicles are insured by NAGICO have to pay for an extra service from C.A.R.S. Over the years I have been asking what does C.A.R.S. do and up to today no one can give me a clear explanation about C.A.R.S.

On several occasions the traffic was diverted by the police who were at the scene of the accident, because they had to wait for C.A.R.S. to come to take pictures of the scene of the accident before the vehicles involved in the accident could be moved. Something that we did with chalk, and if no one was injured, the vehicles involved in the collision were moved in order for the traffic to be able to continue flowing.

My question is what is this based on? Is C.A.R.S. the authority to determine who is responsible by law for the traffic accident?

Has the traffic ordinance been altered? What happens if a motor vehicle owner who is insured with NAGICO and is involved in a traffic accident insists on the police handling the accident?

RBC’s ATM machines were hacked. What do they do? They make sure that all of their ATM card holders are duly notified and RBC replaces their ATM cards. NAGICO’s insurance policies were falsified, the police and the Minister are invited for a meeting. What’s the difference? Could not NAGICO do the same?

If I am employed with a company and there are certain documents issued by that company to its clients, I believe when I have to scrutinize those documents, I should be able to detect if those documents are authentic. Hence the reason for me opening my letter the way I did. But these questions remain by me: Why only now? Who is fooling who? Who is feeling the pinch?

My perception is that the C.A.R.S. employees are doing the job of the police and the police are doing the job of C.A.R.S. I still do not understand what the police have to do with the design of NAGICO’s insurance policies. I believe that entities should engage legal advisers and technicians to do that. But as the world turns, I am gradually understanding why the Minister is becoming a more hands-on person.

Someone once told me that technology is going to make the people pay more for less. As the years have gone by I am understanding what he was talking about. One computer is going to replace five employees and that computer is going to be programmed to automatically charge for the service. Eventually the client is not going to consider it a big deal because of the quick service. But nevertheless he/she is paying for the service. Especially in the banks you are paying much more.

The majority of the salaries are deposited in banks, whether the employee agrees with it or not. At the same time the banks are using your money to make money so that your interest is next to nothing.

Since this letter is about cars and false documents, why are there still so many cars openly driving over the public roads without the correct number plates? Are we going to continue the trend of only a certain number of people being obliged to pay taxes and the rest go scot-free?

I have to remind my fellow men that those who desire to live honestly, and who want their lives to display faithfulness and authenticity, make choices based on what is true and right rather than what is expedient. The integrity of the upright leads them.

By the way, I am going to save John Richardson's letter to you from June 7, 2023, because I believe that beside civil servants, both job owners and employees should be aware of what is brought forward in that letter to you.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee on Kingdom Relations of the TK and EK,

Just a moment for a periodic update on my part. And just a few observations. Although you can get bogged down in a question of definition (what is poverty? what is a low income threshold? what is the benchmark for a social minimum? what are the real necessary costs of living?) I see about 5 to 6 percent of the population in the European Netherlands below a defined income threshold (according to CBS). In the Caribbean Netherlands it is almost 30 percent and thus five or six times as much.

And then I am assuming the so-despised benchmark instead of the estimated 30 percent higher necessary cost of living. The Minister for Poverty Policy states that the Cabinet applies the “comply or explain” principle but at the same time does not consider the residents of the Caribbean Netherlands to be full-fledged Dutch citizens. This strikes me as a discriminatory course of action.

Why must a social minimum be invented for the Caribbean Netherlands when there is no regionally oriented framework for this in the European Netherlands either? It is true that money flows to the Caribbean Netherlands (more to Bonaire because people there protest more vehemently?) but it is a lot simpler and fairer when the national system applies everywhere (this applies, by the way, in all policy areas except when there are substantial differences with the situation in the European Netherlands, according to the Constitution).

The socioeconomic differences we observe are not of a substantial nature; indeed, they are not the cause but the result of government policies mentioned above in a discriminatory way. Moreover: adjusting the budget (as recently triumphantly reported again by the Cabinet in the context of the Spring Memorandum) is nice, but can just as easily be undone or omitted. No, the real, structural solution lies in recognizing Caribbean Dutch citizens as full-fledged Dutch citizens in one legal framework.

It should be noted that this letter focuses on the social context (including the unemployment benefit, which does not exist in the Caribbean Netherlands) but that in many policy areas unnecessary differences and exceptions have been captured in BES legislation: all that needs to be corrected.

And by the way, BES is too broad a context: the constitutionally argued substantive differences from the European Netherlands naturally apply per island (Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius).

I am not entirely alone in this criticism: the Court of Audit – in its annual assessment on Accountability Day – also rates the government’s policy on this component as “worrisome” (a 2 on a scale of 5).

I hope that your committee will address the government about this and call it to order. Discrimination has no place in the Netherlands!

Kind regards,

J.H.T. (Jan) Meijer

Dear Editor,

A little more than a month ago, a lady who is well known to us, and who I am sure would not mind if I mentioned her name in connection with what I am about to write to you, wanted to know my opinion on what I later called a billboard jungle.