The Parliament of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, by a super-majority vote, approved a bill to make four amendments to the constitution of The Bahamas, the supreme legal authority of The country. The Bahamian electorate is required by the constitution to approve or reject these amendments, proposed initially by a constitutional commission and eventually approved by Parliament. Bahamians are assured by the constitution that the decision of the electorate is final and cannot be overturned.
Amendments one, two and three seek to alter existing provisions in the constitution which relate to citizenship in The Bahamas and authorize discrimination against Bahamian females and males on the basis of being a male or female. The existence of these questionable provisions is not in dispute.
Amendment one addresses the reality that the constitution bestows citizenship automatically to the children of a Bahamian male married to a foreign female, but denies this same constitutional right to the children of a Bahamian female married to a foreign male. Hence, equality for female Bahamians under identical circumstances is denied simply on the basis of being female. This is patently unfair.
Amendment two addresses the reality that the constitution provides the foreign wives of Bahamian males with an automatic path to citizenship while, under similar circumstances, the constitution denies this right to the foreign husbands of Bahamian females. We are therefore confronted with the fact that in identical circumstances benefits are bestowed upon the Bahamian male but denied to the Bahamian female. Under normal human reasoning this provision is patently unfair and unjust.
In amendment three the situation is reversed. The constitution authorizes the unwed Bahamian mother to bestow citizenship automatically on her children born to a foreign male but denies the same right to the children of a Bahamian male born out of wedlock by a foreign female. The circumstances are similar but the Bahamian female parent receives constitutional rights which are denied to the Bahamian father.
A yes vote on amendments one, two and three would replace and correct the existing unfair provisions with new provisions which guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Bahamians. A yes vote is a vote or equality, fairness and justice for all Bahamians. A no vote, on the other hand, is not only a vote against equality, fairness and justice, but also an approval of the continuation of discrimination on the basis of being male or female.
The fourth amendment carries forward the principle set out in the first three amendments proposing that, in the future, Parliament be prevented from enacting any laws which authorize discrimination on the basis of being male or female. It should be obvious that the mention of the word "sex" in amendment four does not introduce a new subject into the narrative because amendments one, two and three all implicitly refer to "sex". Each of these three amendments deal with benefits and rights granted or denied to Bahamians of the male sex and the female sex. Amendment four simply and clearly seeks to prevent the passage of such unfair legislation in the future.
Unfortunately, some well-intentioned pastors have utilized the appearance of the word "sex" in the text of article four to make an unwarranted and misleading insertion into the publicly released narrative thereby creating much confusion in the public domain. 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, despite the fact that marriage does not, on any logical reading, form part of the rationale spelt out so clearly in the four amendments.
In addition, a yes vote on amendment four cannot provide a legal authorization of same-sex marriages in The Bahamas because our present constitution at article 26(4)(8), authorizes Parliament to enact legislation that discriminates in the spheres of marriage and family life and the present marriage act passed by Parliament restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman whose status as "male" or "female" is determined at birth. Consequently, well-thinking Bahamians must conclude that the obvious fear of same-sex marriage in The Bahamas, as expressed by these church leaders, is both unfounded in Bahamian law and in logical factual reading.
Indeed, these church leaders are, in my opinion, obliged to present the Bahamian populus with an unequivocal legal path that leads from amendment four to the passage of legislation authorizing same-sex marriages. Suspicions and fears are no substitute for legal evidence to support their claim.
My support for the four amendments with special emphasis on number four is encouraged by my reflection on the incident in the Gospel According to John (8:1-11) involving Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in the act of adultery. I detect three significant elements in that biblical narrative which may bear some resemblance to the rationale of the four amendments.
Item one: The woman's guilt is beyond dispute. Similarly, the existence of the offending provisions of the constitution in amendments one, two and three is not in dispute.
Item two: Jesus offers the woman forgiveness and a path to a new future. In so doing, Jesus removed the legal consequences of her adulterous conduct. Similarly, in amendments one, two and three the offending clauses are identified and replaced with new provisions. Jesus removes the sentence of death - and the amendments, the existing offending provisions in the constitution.
Item three: Jesus admonishes the forgiven adulterer with the command, "Go and sin no more." I readily associate Jesus' command with amendment four in which a yes vote will say to Parliament, "Do not, in future, pass offending legislation based on being male or female."
I therefore encourage all eligible Bahamians to vote yes to the four amendments in support of the universally and laudable principle that all citizens should be afforded equality before the law. All right-thinking Bahamians should therefore oppose legislation that authorizes discrimination on the basis of being male or female.
Some Bahamians have in the public discussion of the amendment bills expressed support for the principle of equality before the law or all Bahamians, both male and female, but they feel compelled to vote no because of the benefits that will be afforded to persons who are not Bahamians at birth by a yes vote. In fact, these persons are being motivated by a "fear of foreigners" which clouds their reasoning.
In the first place, since 1973 the foreign wives of Bahamian males have received citizenship and have been eligible to hold political office. This eligibility has not created any social dislocation. No reasons, other than the "fear of foreigners", have been offered for withholding this same eligibility to males.
Secondly, membership in the House of Assembly is not by appointment but by a democratic electoral process. Similarly, the office of prime minister is bestowed upon the democratically elected member of a political party. If we believe in democracy we should respect the democratic election process.
Thirdly, there is an obvious unfortunate need for the general public to be reminded about the sterling contributions made by so many non-Bahamian born persons to the development of The Bahamas, especially in the areas of education, the judiciary, law enforcement, sports, religion and commerce. The "fear of foreigners" should not prevent Bahamians from doing the right thing in support of equality for all Bahamians under the law.
To all Bahamian males I suggest that you study the facts and be guided by your conscience and not be influenced by any extraneous factors. Please note that if you vote no you will be telling the world that you are happy and content to be the recipient of certain constitutional rights while your Bahamian sister is denied these same rights under identical circumstances. Surely, your conscience should lead you to recognize that such a position is unfair and unjust.
To all Bahamian females, I invite you to realize that a no vote is a vote against your own self-interest. In so doing, you will be depriving yourself of the legal right to equality before the law. If you are not sufficiently concerned about your own status before the law, I urge you to give serious consideration to the status of your children with special reference to your female children who will, by your no vote, continue to be discriminated against and denied equality under the law simply because they are female. Does your conscience lead you to willingly contribute to such a future for your children?
After over 60 years of active, ongoing engagement with the revelation of God contained in Holy Scripture, I can categorically state that I am unaware of any element within that sacred teaching that can be construed to support inequality, unfairness and injustice in any shape, form or fashion. Furthermore, I remain convinced that a yes vote is totally consistent with the ethical teaching of Jesus as contained in Holy Scripture. I therefore strongly recommend a yes vote of each of the four amendments.
o Drexel Gomez is the retired Anglican archbishop of the Province of the West Indies.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
