The November 6 constitutional referendum on gender equality is in jeopardy.
Less than three weeks after the bills were tabled, there are growing signs that on the current path the government would be unsuccessful in securing a majority yes vote.
It needs three quarters of the House of Assembly and three-quarters of the Senate to vote in favor of those bills for the referendum to advance.
Daily, there are cracks emerging in the united position that has been mounted by Prime Minister Perry Christie and Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis.
On Friday, Dr. Bernard Nottage, who is the leader of government business in the House and the minister responsible for elections, made a startling statement.
Nottage said the four questions proposed need to be simplified.
One assumes these questions were thoroughly considered by the Cabinet.
Nottage's admission that they are too complex is puzzling.
Was he seeing those questions for the first time when they were tabled, or was his input ignored around the Cabinet table?
The government has already had to bring amendments to the referendum bills.
While Minnis has pledged the opposition's support of those bills, a statement on Wednesday by Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Darron Cash was a clear sign that the opposition as a team might not be fully in support of the bills.
Cash has come out strong, saying that the announcement of the November 6 referendum has opened old wounds of the 2002 referendum.
That was a similar initiative.
After supporting it in the House of Assembly, Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) members, at the time in opposition, campaigned energetically for its defeat.
In the current discussions on the approaching referendum, the Christie administration has tried to suppress talk of their disingenuous and shameless actions a dozen years ago.
In previous explanations, Christie pointed to concerns expressed by the church as the primary reason why the PLP changed course on that crucial vote.
One blogger pointed out on Friday that opposition from the church ahead of the 2013 gambling referendum was not enough for the PLP to change course then.
While Christie has tried not to wake the monsters of the 2002 referendum, and Minnis has obliged, Cash pushed the PLP's past actions into national focus.
"Both the leader of the opposition and the prime minister will have a considerable amount of work to do to win the support of rank and file FNMs and FNM supporters," Cash said.
"The work to ensure bipartisanship will be a lot harder than has been imagined. The scars of the anti-referendum battles of 2002 led by then Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie and undercover agents of the PLP still run very deep.
"Regrettably, with the announcement of this current exercise the scab has been ripped off.
"Today, referendum 2002 blood is back in the water. Prime Minister Christie can turn things around. It is up to him to apply the healing balm of reconciliation. It will not be easy.
"The first thing the PM must do is give a full-throated apology to the country and to FNMs for leading the no vote campaign in 2002.
"He should apologize for his actions and seek forgiveness. His actions hurt supporters of the equality for women movement and it

hurt FNMs who worked so hard to try to secure that important win for women."
Cash's statement has resulted in a nasty exchange between him and the prime minister, with Christie rejecting the demand for an apology, saying he pays no attention to Cash because he is not an elected leader.
Christie also said the time for apologies has passed, but said he will provide an explanation on what happened in 2002.
While Minnis has pledged the opposition's support for the referendum, he gave a signal yesterday that his love fest with Christie on the referendum, which we have so far witnessed, might be coming to an end.
When we contacted him, Minnis said Cash spoke on behalf of the FNM when he called on Christie to apologize for campaigning against the 2002 constitutional referendum.
Although he did not want to comment on too many specifics of Cash's recent statement, Minnis said "the chairman represents and spoke for the party" on that issue.
This brewing political storm is not good for the stability of this crucial vote.
Supporters of the equality movement might have a very long time to wait for the change they seek.
The process is already confusing, the tone of the debate is caustic and there is no unanimity.
It appears unlikely that the education campaign recently mounted by the government would do enough to overcome these factors.
The signal from the minister responsible for elections is not a good one.
It does not give us comfort in the process that one of the most senior members of the Cabinet, who happens to be the leader of government business in the House, thinks the ballot questions are too complex.
This was an issue raised with the 2002 referendum.
It alone could sink the vote.
Nottage said on Friday the government would abandon the November 6 referendum if there is no unanimity.
"This is not an exercise in futility," he told reporters.
"If it becomes clear for us that there is not unanimity, then we will not proceed with the referendum.
"If there is unanimity and we are satisfied that it is genuine, then we will do so."
In this regard, Chairman of the Constitutional Commission Sean McWeeney stressed at a referendum town hall meeting last Tuesday night that if there are cracks in the opposition's support of the referendum the entire process would collapse.

Cracks
With debate on those bills set to continue on Wednesday, there appears to be multiple cracks developing, and not just in opposition support.
The government, it seems, could have done a better job at rolling out this important effort.
We are told for instance that backbenchers had no input in the development of the questions presented to Parliament.
Several PLP members have already gone public with their concerns about the questions, and Bahamas Christian Council President Rev. Ranford Patterson said he will vote no to question four.
The bill that relates to this question would make it unconstitutional for any law or any person acting in the performance of any public office to discriminate based on sex.
This would not permit same-sex marriage, the prime minister explained.
But there are growing worries that it could indeed leave the door open for court challenges in this regard.
Dr. Andre Rollins, the outspoken and sometimes controversial MP for Fort Charlotte, said in a statement on the weekend, "The question that will be in the minds of many Bahamians who consider question four is are they being asked simply to protect against discrimination of women, as has been postulated by those framing the discussion, or is this question asking them to give future legislators and judges the latitude and discretion to redefine marriage?"
Rollins added, "If so, how wedded will they be - future legislators and judges - to the belief that marriage is the union between one man and one woman and are Bahamians today prepared to leave that up to their interpretation and discretion?"
Thus far, question four has drawn the strongest reaction and greatest opposition from commentators and members of the public in general.
Bamboo Town MP Renward Wells told us he too is concerned about that question and will not support it.
Other questions are also triggering worries.
Montagu MP Richard Lightbourn has issues with the third bill, which seeks to reverse the law that prohibits an unwed Bahamian man from passing his citizenship to his child if he or she is born to a foreign woman.
But Lightbourn suggested this might be a bad idea.
"You can go on a trip to wherever in the world and you have a casual relationship with some woman in whatever country and you come back to The Bahamas and you find out nine months later that you had a little baby," he said.
"That child is entitled to be a citizen. So if that child is going to be a citizen of The Bahamas then surely the child is entitled to be here. Are you going to have that child come here without its mother? I would think not."
Another observer told National Review, "We aren't being male pigs who don't feel women are equal. But the reality is right there."
Also drawing opposition is some quarters is the second bill which seeks to enable a Bahamian woman who marries a foreign man to pass on her Bahamian citizenship to him.
However, the bill will still outlaw marriages of convenience. As it stands now, a Bahamian man is able to pass on his citizenship to his foreign wife.
But Rollins sees a problem here.
"If we, therefore, accept the premise that we have an illegal migration problem and that economic considerations are paramount in the minds of those seeking refuge here, we should not compound our immigration challenges via constitutional provisions that give an automatic entitlement to citizenship upon marriage," he said.
Rollins said obtaining citizenship should be earned via a gradual process, not an automatic entitlement.
Similar concerns were expressed by Tall Pines MP Leslie Miller and Marco City MP Gregory Moss.
"It is a false paradigm to suggest that in order to remove discrimination against women, in respect of whether their spouses will become Bahamians or not, we must give them the same right that a man has - that his spouse would become a Bahamian," Moss opined.
"There is one other alternative, which is to remove that right from everyone. I personally do not believe you should be able to buy citizenship by getting married."
Moss also said he has a problem with bill number one, which seeks to give a child born outside The Bahamas to a Bahamian-born mother and non- Bahamian father the same automatic right to Bahamian citizenship that the constitution already gives to a child born outside The Bahamas to a Bahamian-born father and a non-Bahamian mother who is his wife.
Sex
Moss also said he has a problem with bill number four, which seeks to outlaw discrimination based on sex.
Worsening the chances of that fourth question succeeding was activist Erin Greene, who said last week she believes it will offer some form of protection to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
"When we expand the rights for men and women, when we ensure that men and women both have equality and equity under the law, we are also ensuring that men who choose to be in relationships with men, and women who choose to be in relationships with women are also equal and receive equity under the law," Greene said.
"This is not a gay marriage bill. This bill will not automatically enact or sanction gay marriage.
"But what it does state unequivocally is that we will not allow any discrimination against a person because they are a man or a person because they are a woman.
"That means that we will not discriminate against you because you are a woman who loves a woman and will not discriminate against you because you are a man who loves a man."
While Greene was well within her rights to comment on that bill, it is likely that her words did more harm than good as there is a growing push to have it defeated.
We, however, do not suggest that she was making an intentional effort to harm the chances of that bill's success.
McWeeney, the Constitutional Commission chairman, told National Review, however, that it is important that question number four remain on the ballot.
Asked about possibly abandoning that question, McWeeney said, "You can't because the other three bills are simply particularized expressions of the fundamental principle, which is to rid the constitution of discrimination based on sex.
"If you abandon that, you're basically abandoning the core principle upon which the other three bills are based -- in other words, bill four is the broad principle about the equality of men and women and the other three bills are just particular expressions of that in relation to citizenship."
It appears then that that question alone could end up leading to the referendum failing.
It is unfortunate that another important attempt at constitutional reform is in danger because of multiple issues.
It seems likely that the government will have to pull back on the November 6 referendum or face what appears to be inevitable -- defeat.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian