Dear Editor,
Kindly permit me space to respond to your interesting opinion column offered by Rev. Cedric Moss under the titled "A reasoned response to Archbishop Gomez" in your May 19 edition.
At the outset, I express my total agreement with Moss on the right of every human being to express his or her opinion on any given subject. I can categorically state that I have never sought to prevent other persons from expressing their views. Indeed, in the 2002 debate I consistently expressed my principled position but always insisted that persons should vote as their conscience dictated. This fact can be substantiated by reference to the media records of the period.
In addition, in the present debate I have publicly criticized the pastor who advised persons to be guided by conscience in responding to bills one, two and three but to totally disregard bill number four. In so doing I drew attention to the unchallenged traditional Christian teaching that all decisions by Christians should be conscience driven.
Moss falsely accuses me of: "Virtually compelling people to cast a blanket yes vote to these bills." Nothing in my published statement can reasonably be construed as an attempt to compel anyone to agree with my presentation. I simply presented my interpretation of the issues related to the four amendment bills along with my reasons for voting yes on each question.
Moss has every right to disagree with my presentation but he cannot deny me the right to express my opinion on the issues. Moss strongly rejects my contention that he and his colleagues should present the public with an unequivocal path that leads from amendment four to the passage of legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. In my opinion, the Bahamian populace is entitled to the presentation of the evidence to support the contention that a yes vote will open the back door to same-sex marriage.
We are dealing with legal issues, which require the presentation of legal evidence to support one's position. I continue to believe that my request is both reasonable and consistent with normal, rational discourse. In addition, Moss ignores the fact that in my support for amendment four I clearly set out the legal argument that would, in my opinion, prevent any attempt to use amendment four to support same-sex marriage.
It is abundantly clear that Moss' entire case is based upon the failure of government to adopt recommendation 25 of the Constitutional Commission. The commission, at pages 111-115 of its report, clearly states that the commission favored the expansion of article 26 to include "sex" as a ground for discrimination. It further states that this inclusion gave rise to expressions of concerns "for constitutional protection to be given to the institution of marriage" (page 114). The report continued: "Indeed, similar concerns have been agitated in neighboring countries, which led them to take a radically different approach" (See pages 114 and 115).
At page 125 the commission submitted recommendation 25 with the following comment "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". This proposal was offered to protect the institution of marriage by placing the prohibition of same-sex marriage within our constitution.
Moss makes repeated references to this recommendation but he fails to make any reference to the concluding sentence of 15.63 on page 125. The sentence reads as follows, " it should be noted, however, that the commission was not unanimous in making the foregoing recommendation, as it was felt by several commissioners that existing provisions in the constitution (namely article 26(4)(c)) already give constitutional protection to laws prohibiting same-sex unions (e.g. Matrimonial Causes Act, s. 21 (8)(c))." (English syntax refers "the foregoing recommendation" to recommendation number 25, the subject of paragraph 15.63).
The report clearly states that there were two opinions within the commission. The majority favored inserting into the constitution a measure that would provide additional protection of the institution of marriage and prohibit same-sex marriages. The minority view, as quoted above, argued that the existing provisions of article 26 (4)(c) and the present provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act provide sufficient protection.
The issue, in my opinion, is a contrast between providing additional protection to what actually obtains on the one hand, and, on the other hand, retaining the present provisions which were deemed to offer sufficient legal protection of marriage and prohibit same-sex marriages. In my opinion, we are dealing with a difference of "degree" as opposed to a disagreement over "kind". In both cases marriage as an institution is protected and same-sex marriage is prohibited.
In my opinion, Moss and his colleagues must indicate the legal reasons that support the inability of the present provisions in the constitution and the Matrimonial Causes Act to withstand a challenge in support of same-sex marriage pursuant to the inclusion of "sex" in article 26. If these present provisions are able to withstand such a challenge, as several local legal luminaries have indicated, then the yes vote on bill number four would be eminently reasonable, despite the failure of government to adopt recommendation 25.
I readily appreciate the desire of Moss and his colleagues to support added protection by way of a constitutional amendment as proposed in recommendation 25. However, let us remember that such a measure will not provide a permanent guarantee against the legalization of same-sex marriage in The Bahamas because these provisions in the constitution can be changed by a majority vote of the populace in a referendum.
Moss and his colleagues argue that the government's action is suspicious and highly questionable simply because it did not enact the majority decision of the commission.
Moss and his colleagues are forced to explain why the suspicious motive is applicable to the government but not to the minority members of the commission whose integrity is not challenged and who clearly supported the view that the present provisions offer sufficient protection. Furthermore, Moss and his colleagues must demonstrate that this suspicion constitutes an unequivocal path leading from amendment bill number four to the enactment of same-sex marriages in The Bahamas.
In addition, I remind all Christian pastors that we should avoid imputation of ulterior motive unless there is abundant evidence to support the contention. In my published statement and in my public utterances, I did not impute ulterior motive on the dissenting pastors. Instead, I clearly and honestly stated that they were "well intentioned" in their opposition.
Meanwhile, I remain convinced that the provisions of the article 26(4)(c) and the Matrimonial Cause Act protect marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage. In the light of these existing legal provisions I conclude that the passage of amendment four offers no comfort to those who seek to promote same-sex marriage in The Bahamas.
I also fail to perceive how the government's failure to enact recommendation 25 poses ample ground to support the suspicion that the government has ulterior motives in promoting amendment four given the acknowledged force of the existing legal provisions in article 26 and the present marriage act.
I also remain convinced that bills one, two and three, in the interest of equality, seek to replace unfair provisions in the constitution based on being male or female and that amendment four seeks to ensure that in the future, Parliament will be prohibited from enacting legislation supportive of discrimination on the basis of sex, on being male or female, determined at birth.
Finally, I concur with the gracious sentiments contained in the final paragraphs of Moss' article and I hasten to ensure him and his colleagues that I am willing to work with them in the defense of marriage and the prohibition of same-sex marriage on biblical and theological grounds. We need to prepare for that unavoidable battle against the universal forces presently promoting same-sex marriage as a global human right.
In this inevitable struggle we all must work together utilizing the weapons provided by the Gospel in support of the biblical teaching on marriage as a divinely instituted union between a male and a female. I do not consider, however, that the passage of bill four will prove to be an impediment in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the institution of marriage and to prohibit same-sex marriage in our beloved Bahamaland.
- Archbishop Drexel W. Gomez
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
