On May 12, 2016, retired Archbishop Drexel Gomez issued a statement on the four constitution amendment bills and strongly recommended that voters cast a yes vote for each one. In addition, Gomez stated that the pastors who have raised same-sex marriage concerns about bill four are "obliged to present the Bahamian population with an unequivocal legal path that leads from amendment four to the passage of legislation authorizing same-sex marriages". As one of those pastors to whom Gomez anonymously referred, it is only fitting that I issue a reasoned response.
I have great respect for Gomez as a faithful minister of the gospel, so I take no pleasure in publicly challenging his position on the four bills in question. I do purely out of a sense of duty to contribute to the public discourse in this referendum of monumental importance.
To each his own
Regarding the three citizenship bills (bills one, two, and three), with due respect, Gomez seems not to appreciate that Bahamians are entitled to have another view on these matters, just as he has another view on these matters and had yet another view back in 2002. Why can't Gomez accept that in the same way that he in 2002 took what he considered to be a principled position to vote no on all of the bills and campaign for others to do likewise, others today can also have principled objections to one or more of the bills and similarly vote no and call others to do the same? Clearly others have the same right in 2016 that Gomez had back in 2002. So, as is commonly said, to each his own.
I find it hard to see how Gomez can be virtually compelling people to cast a blanket yes vote to these bills. Does he truly believe the process by which these particular bills were placed before voters and the bills themselves are perfect and there are no reasonable grounds for objection? I know he does not because there are reasonable grounds for objection to both the process and the bills. Therefore, I encourage Gomez and others who support his views to be charitable and give space to other Bahamians who have difficulties with one or more of the bills, or with the process that brought these bills about, or with both.
A complex issue
As it relates to the anti-sex discrimination bill (bill four), it is regrettable that Gomez is oversimplifying a complex issue. My first response to his call for me and the other pastors to "present the Bahamian population with an unequivocal legal path that leads from amendment four to the passage of legislation authorizing same-sex marriages" is to similarly call him and those with him to present to the Bahamian people an unequivocal assurance that if bill four succeeds it is guaranteed that it will not to lead to same-sex marriage.
However, more than calling us to do on one hand what he and others cannot do on the other hand, Gomez is not faithfully representing the true position of the pastors associated with the three official groups that oppose bill four. These three groups are Citizens for Justice, Save Our Bahamas and Think, Bahamas! I believe it is wrong and unhelpful for Gomez and others to reduce our concerns about bill four to a same-sex marriage concern that is manufactured out of fear and suspended in thin air. That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Gomez and others have repeatedly ignored the fact that the same-sex marriage concerns of Citizens for Justice, Save Our Bahamas and Think, Bahamas! are directly connected to the government's rejection of recommendation 25 by Constitutional Commission (found on page 37 of the commission's report). Recordings from radio stations and copies of newspaper articles, letters, and opinion pieces provide abundant evidence that our same-sex marriage concerns are connected to that blatant rejection. For the record, I will again restate the basis for our concerns.
Recommendation 25
Bill four has its genesis in recommendation 24 found on page 37 of the Report of the Constitutional Commission and reads as follows: "The commission recommends that 'sex' be included in the definition of 'discriminatory' in article 26(3) as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination." The commission then followed up by recommending an additional amendment to the constitution (recommendation 25, also on page 37), which reads as follows: "As a corollary to the recommendation at 24, the commission also proposes that an amendment be made to article 26(4) to provide that no law which makes provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage or which provides for such marriages to be unlawful or void shall be held to be inconsistent with the constitution."
A grave concern
The government rejected recommendation 25. What makes the government's rejection of recommendation 25 even more troubling and of grave concern to the pastors who oppose bill four is the explanation that the commission gave for the importance of recommendation 25. On page 125, under the heading "Restriction to guard against same-sex marriage" (the commission's own words, not mine) the commission explained the important effect the additional amendment to the constitution (recommendation 25) would have: "The effect of this would be to preclude any constitutional challenges to such a law based on alleged discrimination on the grounds of 'sex', and makes the position clear that same-sex marriages are not permitted under our constitution and current laws."
Here, it important to note that the same-sex marriage concerns connected to bill four did not originate with us; they originated from the commission's public hearings and consultations. The commission wisely and appropriately responded to those concerns by proposing the additional protective amendment to the constitution which it specified in recommendation 25 in order to guard against same-sex marriage. The government's rejection of the commission's recommendation caused the public's same-sex marriage fears to increase enormously.
Protective benefits
It is important to underscore and not overlook the two protective benefits that the commission said the additional amendment to the constitution contained in recommendation 25 would give. First, the additional amendment would "preclude any constitutional challenges to a law prohibiting same-sex marriage where that constitutional challenge was based on alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex". Second, the additional amendment would make "the position clear that same-sex marriages are not permitted under our constitution and current laws". Therefore, it logically follows that, based on the government's rejection of recommendation 25, should bill four succeed in the referendum, constitutional challenges will not be precluded and the position will not be clear that same-sex marriages are not permitted under our constitution and current laws. I'm at a loss as to why this reasoning is hard for Gomez and others to follow or accept.
Not our words
We have used the constitutional commission's own words to support our same-sex marriage concerns, and we do not accept Gomez's conclusion that it is insufficient; nor do we accept the new found position of some members of the constitutional commission who are now saying that recommendation 25 is unnecessary. There is no getting away from the fact that the constitutional commission's report in which recommendation 25 is contained was signed by 12 competent Bahamians, seven of whom are accomplished lawyers. Of the seven lawyers, three are Queen's Councils, Sean McWeeney, Carl Bethel, and Lester Mortimer Jr.; one is a lawyer and a retired justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Rubie Nottage (Ret'd); another is the chief counsel in the chambers of the Attorney General, Loren Klein; and yet another is a distinguished law professor, Michael Stevenson; and the remaining two are eminent lawyers in their own right, Tara Cooper-Burnside and Brandace Duncanson. Why should we not accept the legal advice of this esteemed group of lawyers as contained in recommendation 25? In this regard, we distinguish ourselves from the government.
To be fair, it is important that I note that Mortimer dissented from the report, identifying himself as "one of those who do not believe there is anything wrong with our constitution". His letter of dissent is on page 213 of the report.
An old argument
Our argument concerning the government's rejection of recommendation 25 is old. I have personally been making it from August 2014 (and over and repeatedly in the press, verbally and in writing). Therefore, Gomez's statement that "these church leaders allege, without offering any factual corroboration that the use of the word 'sex' in amendment four can provide a legal 'back door' for the authorization of same-sex marriage in The Bahamas" is simply incorrect. Gomez may not be satisfied with our factual corroboration in pointing to the government's rejection of recommendation 25, and that is his right. However, Gomez must be careful not to come across as having set himself up as the judge who determines whether our position is factually corroborated or not.
Reasonable suspicion
What harm would be done in adopting recommendation 25? It seems to me that if recommendation 25 was adopted by the government, bill four would perhaps have moved from the most opposed bill to being the most supported bill. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to be suspicious of the government's motive for rejecting recommendation 25 and of its stubborn refusal to adopt it in light of the sustained public opposition to bill four.
Dress rehearsal
Time and space do not permit me to raise in any detail my other concerns with bill four. I have repeatedly raised these other concerns in the public domain and on www.thinkbahamas.org (concerns like the precipitous removal of distinctions between males and females and the loss of rights for landlords who lease premises and people who run businesses if bill four succeeds). I'm surprised that a thoughtful clergyman like Gomez is silent about those issues that are very live and on full display in countries like Great Britain and United States, and states like North Carolina. In my view, what the USA is facing with issues like having same-sex marriage imposed on them by five unelected and unaccountable judges, revolutionary bathroom laws, and business owners being forced to violate their religious convictions is a kind of dress rehearsal for us if bill four succeeds.
To be continued
I will follow up this general response with a detailed response to Gomez's analysis of each bill. Meanwhile, I hope and pray that Gomez and others who share his views will be more understanding and tolerant of those of us whose views differ from theirs as we engage in this referendum and future referenda where we will not all see eye to eye on all of the issues. May the Lord grant common grace to all of us toward that end.
o Cedric Moss serves as senior pastor of Kingdom Life Church. He also serves as the leader of the referendum education group Think, Bahamas! Comments may be sent to him at cmoss@kingdom-life.org.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
