There is a fundamental principle of democracy and the rule of law which many religious fundamentalists cherish for themselves but wish to deny others, namely equality.
Equality is at the very heart of democracy, a sine qua non of a vibrant and developed democracy. All citizens, black, white and brown; rich, middle class or poor; straight or LGBTQ, are equal before the law.
Equality under the law allows for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It allows fundamentalists like Pastor Cedric Moss to express his antiquated and antediluvian views on same-sex marriage and a host of other issues.
Is this a right and freedom which others should be denied in a democratic state? Of course not. Why then would Moss deny marriage equality, another freedom and right?
Freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom to marry and other freedoms are inextricably bound in a democratic society, all of which should be protected based on the rule of law not adjudicated on scriptural grounds.
In a democratic state no religion or denomination is granted priority over another. The state should not favor nor discriminate against a denomination or religion, as is the case in authoritarian or theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
The Bahamas is historically and sociologically a Christian country. But we are constitutionally not a Christian state. The rule of law is not based on the Christian Scriptures. The judiciary employs the constitution and the law in its rulings, not the Bible.
That fundamentalists like Moss, a champion of inequality, believes that his scriptural tradition should trump the rule of law is undemocratic and disturbing.
In his benighted mindset perhaps the judiciary should utilize or prioritize the Bible in deciding divorce cases, cases of misfeasance, traffic cases, property disputes, child custody and other matters of law.
One wonders the number of pastors or fundamentalists in The Bahamas who theologically disagree with divorce but have used the law of the land to obtain a divorce?
Discriminate
In democratic India, where the majority of citizens are Hindu, there is constitutionally freedom of religion. Still, there are many in the Hindu majority who wish to discriminate against and deny equality to Muslim, Christian and other religious minorities, though these Hindus enjoy the very religious freedom they would deny others.
This is not simply hypocrisy. It is religious triumphalism, which is an anathema to a healthy democracy.
In Hinduism the cow is considered sacred. This is not the case for Muslims. There are vigilantes in India who have assaulted or killed Muslims who have eaten beef, insisting that they have been compelled to attack a minority because of the former's religious belief.
How far are some fundamentalists prepared to go to protect their sacred cows?
In India this past Tuesday, the nation's highest court "struck down a legal provision that allowed Muslim men to instantly divorce their wives".
The New York Times reported: "In India, Muslim men have been able to end their marriages by saying the word 'talaq' - Arabic for divorce - three times. They could do this in person, by letter or even over the phone. By contrast, a Muslim woman in India seeking a divorce must generally gain the permission of her husband, a cleric or other Islamic authorities.
"The method of divorce was available only to men, who in many cases ousted their wives from their homes without alimony or other financial support... A Supreme Court panel declared the provision that had allowed for Muslims' instant divorce unlawful."
The Times story continued: "The Muslim women plaintiffs had argued that the provision violated their fundamental right to equality under the constitution. Ishrat Jahan, a plaintiff in the Indian case, said she had been crushed when her husband divorced her over the phone from Dubai..."
Jahan went on to say: "Then he remarried in the village and snatched my children from me."
Does Moss believe that the Indian high court acted properly, deciding the case on the basis of equality under India's constitution and the rule of law? Or should the case have been decided based on a certain religious tradition?
Reconstructing
During her 2016 address entitled, "Law in a Changing Society: Reconstructing Marriage", delivered as the 8th Annual Eugene Dupuch Distinguished Lecture for the Eugene Dupuch Law School, Dame Anita Allen noted: "The juristic nature of marriage in The Bahamas may not simply turn on whether there is a definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, or whether the English Common Law definition of marriage was received as a part of our law, but that it may ultimately turn on whether marriage is a constitutional right guaranteed to all."
The president of the Court of Appeal added: "Logically, any debate on the issue should sensibly and pragmatically center on one principle and one only: equality of treatment under the law."
She stated: "This issue of the recognition of non-traditional marriage I know, may be blasphemous to some and uncomfortable for others, but given our changed society as noted, our belief in the freedom of the individual and equal protection under the law, can we in good conscience continue the ambivalent stance of accepting these principles as pertaining to some on the one hand, and on the other, opposing their application to others?"
Moss would prefer to replace the courts and our laws with his fundamentalist reading of the Bible. What extraordinary triumphalism and arrogance.
Writing in National Review in this journal, Brent Dean noted: "Gay unions should be recognized in civil law. Consenting gay adults should have the same rights as consenting heterosexual adults to live together in legal union. We are a secular state with a secular constitution.
"There is no reasonable justification to treat homosexuals differently... There is no need to discriminate against homosexuals in law."
Gays and lesbians are fellow-citizens, who deserve no less protection or less equality in our democracy.
Last year, after photos went viral of a Bahamian who entered into a same-sex union with his partner in the United States, where such marriages are legal, there was vitriol from some of the usual chorus of suspects.
Belligerence
That a purposeful and intentional union grounded in love and mutual respect, which seeks to formalize the virtues of marriage, was the object of vitriol vomited by some, was another round of hate-filled belligerence by many with crashed marriages in a highly polygamous Bahamas.
Why do some who proclaim their love of God spend so much time attacking their gay brothers and sisters? They'll know we are Christians by our judgmentalism, our hatred, our prejudice. There must be a smug and warm self-satisfaction by this brand of Christian.
Some years ago a prominent Bahamian religious leader declared that he would blow up Parliament, Guy Fawkes-style, if same-sex marriage was approved.
Tellingly, his incitement to violence was not publicly rebuked by most religious leaders, including those hell-bent on casting gays and lesbians as profoundly other and not embracing them as fellow citizens.
Attacking gays and lesbians with vitriol is okay, while proposed violence by a senior religionist gets a pass from fellow-clerics.
Thankfully, increasing numbers of those in the LGBT community and their families are no longer cowed by the bile of intolerance of certain pastors. They are expressing and voicing their love in committed relationships.
It is extraordinary the degree to which many pastors only or mostly fixate on the sexual aspect of the love between gays and lesbians. Indeed it is amazing the degree to which certain pastors become so excitable about same-sex relationships.
Like heterosexuals, gays and lesbians in loving relationships have many dimensions to their human love. That they now seek the right to marry and to invest their love in such a committed relationship is good for them and for society.
In the end such love and equality under the law will prevail and we shall see marriage equality in The Bahamas. After the battle for equality is won, The Bahamas will be just fine and equality will have prevailed.
It is curious that some pastors comment more ferociously and excitedly on matters dealing with gays and lesbians than they do on issues such as poverty, the environment, social justice, education and other matters of human and social development.
Why are so many more exercised by whom they loath and sometimes hate rather than animated and enlivened by the Gospels and example of Jesus, overflowing with love and care for one's neighbor and the least among us?
The frenzied denial of a basic right to gays and lesbians by the champions of inequality is undemocratic and unloving. This denial will be defeated and supplanted by the rule of law, the evolution of human rights and a greater ethic of equality and love.
o frontporchguardian@gmail.com, www.bahamapundit.com.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
