The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

The impending constitutional referendum has caused quite a stir since Prime Minister Christie released the four proposed questions into the public domain.

There has been widespread discussion already and there have been convincing arguments from people who are for and against the proposed constitutional changes.

Some proponents of the constitutional referendum have been spewing their arguments on all mediums and have used this as an opportunity to show the public just how important these bills are to women. Additionally, women’s groups who claim that the referendum is all about them are seen daily on television and on social media sites ready to strike at anyone who they think seek to deny them their chance of equality under the constitution. They have erred in their beliefs and now the referendum in some respects seems to be taking on its true form as concocted by the governing party.

The initial referendum questions have been revised and even though they are appear easier to understand, the heated discussions have heated up. Question number 4 by far seems to be the most controversial question of them all. Many persons, including yours truly, believed that this question would directly lead to same sex marriage. This caused much contention between members of the governing party and even Free National Movement (FNM) leader Dr Hubert Minnis who after much bashing of the original questions succeeded in getting them rephrased.

The thought that question 4 could lead to same sex marriage gained momentum in some part because shortly after it was announced, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transvestite (GLBT) activist Erin Greene seemed exuberant in an interview predicting all of the good things that were soon to come.
But the women’s groups, individual women and a handful of men are keeping up the deception whether knowingly or unknowingly that this referendum is a woman’s issue.

I was even prompted on Twitter as to why I could not see the benefits of supporting the referendum because the equality of women was at stake.
Not believing that this referendum was about women at all, I decided to do some research on my own. And I found some interesting points. Let me explain.

The government knows that the largest voting bloc in the country is comprised of women. That is why they started this misconception in the House of Assembly that this referendum is all about women’s rights. Even the main educators in the educational campaign are two women; former Supreme Court judge Ruby Nottage and former parliamentarian Theresa Moxey-Ingraham, women of high esteem in the country.

These women have articulated most of the public’s concerns so far as it relates to question 4 validating same sex marriage. They say that if question 4 succeeds that this will not legalise same sex marriage. And for the most part they are somewhat on point.

This referendum will not validate same sex marriage because the recent amendments to the marriage acts of 2011 have cemented the fact that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But they have not explained further.

Furthermore, I have come to understand that if questions 1, 2 and 3 are successful these will equalise men and women’s rights in the constitution and so my argument is if this scenario is true, then why do we need question 4?

Is there some other underlying issue that the government seeks to covertly address?

In 1991, the Bahamas made sex between same sex individuals legal. That’s right, 1991. Additionally, the defence, police and prison agencies do not discriminate against the sexual orientation of individuals. But persons in the Bahamas who fall in the GLBT category have no protection in the law against hate crimes, jobs not mentioned above, adoption and a host of other civilities afforded to so called “straight individuals”.

Now let’s look more closely at question 4. Do you approve of the Bahamas constitution amendment (no 4) Bill 2014? Under this proposed change to the constitution, it would be unlawful to discriminate based on sex and “sex” would be defined as meaning male and female.

Amendments one, two and three levels the playing field between men and women in a society that just comprises of heterosexuals. Amendment 4 in my view will level the playing field for all others. And this is the reason for this constitutional referendum.

12 years ago, the same Perry Christie urged his party to vote no against a similar compendium of bills that the FNM had brought to the table and he urged the public to vote no in that referendum. And vote no is what the Bahamian people did.
Is Mr Christie now a champion of woman’s rights in the eyes of some? Is he a champion of men’s rights? Or is Mr Christie, his government and the opposition trying to put wool over the Bahamian people’s eyes and initiating more GLBT rights?

All and sundry who believe that the driving force behind this referendum is to make women more equal need to stand down and reassess their thought processes.

I submit that if questions one, two and three are successful that women and men will be on par as far as equality in the constitution is concerned.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that no matter which laws are successful in this referendum, Bahamians need to keep in mind that the application of law in certain situations to society’s elite is nonexistent. Citizens as a whole will never be held to the same standards and if you don’t believe me, all you have to do is live long enough.

I conclude that the real reason for the constitutional referendum on November 6th is to pave the way for the advancement of the GLBT agenda. Ask any registered lawyer with the Bahamas Bar Association and they will tell you that a yes vote to question 4 would certainly make the case for civil liberties of the GLBT community to be exponentially increased. I just wish the government and the opposition had the balls to say it to the Bahamian people so that we could be having the proper discussion.

DEHAVILLAND MOSS

Nassau,

August 21, 2014.