The Tribune

A foreign man married to a Bahamian woman wanting to have a family gives his view of the gender equality issues facing the country.

Already, the outcry over different aspects of the gender equality bills has begun. Social media is filled with arguments on either side.

Allow me, then, a moment to offer an outside perspective. You see, I am a foreign man married to a Bahamian woman.

My wife is the daughter of two fine Bahamians, both deeply involved in their community, both long involved in making things better in this land.

Both her parents have Bahamian parents. And so, generation after generation beyond that, the Bahamian roots run deep.

Yet, as it stands under the law now, if we are blessed enough to have a child, that child of long Bahamian ancestry will not be able to lay claim to Bahamian citizenship right away - because I am a foreigner.

If positions were reversed, a Bahamian man and a foreign woman, there would be no such problem. Right away, that child would be Bahamian.

As my wife and I talk about our plans for a family, we discuss what this means for the future child we hope for. We want to stay here, in The Bahamas, part of the family that she has grown up in and which has welcomed me so warmly. But where is the place for our child?

The law as it stands is a simple, clear piece of discrimination against women. And no matter how Leslie Miller MP might say foreign men should take women back to “their own country”, people should make those choices based on what is best for their family, decided upon by both partners equally.

One of the bills examines the possibility of a foreign man applying for citizenship after marrying a Bahamian woman, balancing up the situation with the foreign wife of a Bahamian man as at present. I’m not going to address that at all here as I don’t think I should play any part in that discussion.

As we discuss the possible future of our family, we also wonder what if the child we have is a girl? We would want her to grow up with every right equal to that of a boy. Why should she face discrimination in a land she would be born in? Why should she be treated any less than a man in her own country?

Equally, one of the bills addresses an irregularity for men with regard to being an unmarried parent and being able to convey citizenship to a child. This, too, should be amended to bring parity. That’s all that is on the table, making things equal. No special favours. Just the right to be regarded exactly the same as the opposite sex.

There will be people in this debate who try to muddy the water, who claim it is about sexuality and not sex. I dearly wish we were in the days when the debate about equality had reached sexuality - I know too many people who are affected in that regard - but this is not that debate. To allow same-sex marriage would simply require an amendment to the Marriage Act, which could be done without a referendum.

If everyone votes no, the government could still introduce same-sex marriage with a simple amendment to that Act. If everyone votes yes, gay marriage still would not be allowed because that Act expressly forbids it.

The fourth bill, which seeks to end discrimination on the basis of sex, male or female, does not do anything to end discrimination on the basis of sexuality - gay, straight or bisexual.

The closest there comes to an influence here is the introduction of a growing level of tolerance in society by ending intolerance and discrimination that has affected people for so long. But one does not maintain discrimination against one group just so you can be comfortable that you can continue to practice it against another. By doing so, you punish the women of today’s Bahamas for an imagined fight that exists only in theories and talk radio discussions.

There will also be people who claim that for the sake of politics, people should vote no in retribution for the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) opposition in the earlier equality referendum. The problem there is that we end up in a cycle in which each side will vote against one another endlessly, pointing fingers and saying ‘well, they said no’.

For those saying they will hand a political victory to the PLP and so they will vote no to prevent that - if your party, whichever it may be, says no and loses the vote, then you hand victory to the PLP. If you stand side-by-side with them and say you are voting for the sake of all women, then no single party can claim credit.

Instead, the time has come to put politics aside and do what is right for women. For all women. For your mother, your sister, your daughter. For all the women who have gone before, for all the women who have yet to stand on the shores of this nation and call it their own.

I hope one day that the child of my wife and I will be among their ranks. And I hope to be able to tell her that when her rights were regarded as less than those of a man, the nation of her mother, her parents and their parents before them stood up and said it was time to change.

• Comments and responses to insight@tribunemedia.net