Dear Editor,

I regularly read letters to the editor written by The Graduate. Even though I sometimes disagree with The Graduate's views, I enjoy reading his letters because they are always well-written, and I almost always learn something.
Recently, The Graduate took issue with views that I espoused on civil unions and homosexual marriage in a letter to the editor. I'm surprised that The Graduate did not faithfully interact with and respond to what I actually wrote. Therefore, I would appreciate space to respond and call The Graduate to answer me in a more careful and thoughtful manner, if he so chooses.
The Graduate conveniently did not respond to my comments in which I pointed out that it is illogical and inconsistent to support the right of some adults to enter legal homosexual unions while at the same time denying the same right to other adults who wish to enter other kinds of legal unions, like polygamy. So I ask The Graduate: Since you support redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals, how can you deny other consenting adults from entering into whatever marriage contract they wish: polygamous, incestuous, polyamorous or otherwise? By denying them, are you not infringing on the rights of another set of minorities? Please tell me.
The Graduate wrote: "The Pastor tries the cheap shot about incestuous gay marriage, but we need remind him that we already have laws about incest and exploitation of minors."
I never referred to minors. All of my comments and examples referred to consenting adults. Therefore, I now pose the same questions to The Graduate: If unrelated adult homosexuals should be allowed to marry, why shouldn't an adult father be able to marry his adult son, or an adult mother be able to marry her adult daughter, so long as they all consent? And what about all of them marrying each other in a foursome incestuous, polygamous marriage? Why would you oppose them? Please answer.
I understand The Graduate's frustration over my question about adult incestuous homosexual marriage. He calls it a cheap shot because, if he is consistent, he is forced to support adult incestuous homosexual marriage in the same manner that he supports adult non-incestuous homosexual marriage. But The Graduate is not consistent. He conveniently waives morality to support adult non-incestuous homosexual marriage, then he surprisingly invokes morality to oppose adult incestuous homosexual marriage. So I ask The Graduate: On what logical basis can one do that?
In advancing his support for homosexual marriage, The Graduate referred to what he calls "the constitutionally guaranteed right of every citizen to associate with whomever they please". Clearly, he is referencing Article 24(1) of the Constitution. But does Article 24(1) give a right to marriage? Here is what Article 24(1) says: "Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, or to form or belong to trade unions or other association for the protection of his interests."
The plain language of Article 24(1) guarantees every citizen the right to assemble freely and associate with whomever they please, but it gives no citizen a right to marry. Only activist lawyers and judges would conclude otherwise and read into Article 24(1) a right to marry, all in their quest to create a special right for homosexuals to marry.
Last year, Dame Anita Allen, president of the Court of Appeal, spoke at the eighth annual Eugene Dupuch Distinguished Lecture. She chose to speak on the topic "Law in a changing society: reconstructing marriage." I would not be surprised if The Graduate was present. To my mind, Dame Anita's judicial activism for homosexual marriage was on full display in her comments about a possible constitutional right to homosexual marriage. She stated: "While it is acknowledged that the existence of the right to marry in the Bahamian Constitution is not expressly stated, it is arguable that the right is subsumed in a few of the fundamental rights enumerated in it, consistent with the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent case of Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell et al v. Hodges, Director Ohio Department of Health et al."
Dame Anita acknowledged that in the Bahamian Constitution "our fundamental rights provisions do not contain a specific right to family life or to the pursuit of happiness." However, she quickly added that, "our Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, contains other fundamental rights, such as equal protection of the law; protection of privacy; protection of freedom of religion; and protection of the freedom to associate, which the U.S. Supreme Court also considered, and determined there was a constitutional right to marry in the U.S." She then uttered this most telling statement: "It is therefore not outside the realm of possibility that some courageous and astute Bahamian advocate might succeed in convincing a court that the right to marry is located in one or more of the aforementioned fundamental rights."
Dame Anita's statement left me wondering why she felt the need to describe the kind of lawyer who could possibly be successful in convincing a Bahamian court that our Constitution does indeed contain a right to marry. I wondered: Why does that lawyer have to be courageous and astute if a constitutional right to marry does, in fact, exist in our Constitution? Why couldn't any trained lawyer do so if in fact our Constitution does contain a right to marry?
I've concluded that what Dame Anita was essentially saying is that the lawyer trying to convince a court that our Constitution contains a right to marry will have to be courageous and astute, because such a right does not exist in our Constitution. It has to be legally fabricated, courageously and astutely. Therefore, that lawyer must courageously maintain a straight face as he or she astutely uses foreign judgements from liberal judges and engages in legal gymnastics to try to convince a court to believe that a right to marry exists in our Constitution, even though no such right, in fact, exists.
I could go on responding to The Graduate's letter, but I must conclude. The Graduate concluded his letter with a question from Dr. Phil. I conclude mine with a statement from Scripture: "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." [Romans 1:24-27, NIV].

- Pastor Cedric Moss

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian