Een dis a pretty sight:
http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/BahamasEng/blog/gaymarriage.jpg
I still maintain that gay marriage is a subversive plot to end gay sex.
Firstly, I am keenly aware that this subject may have caused a degree of uncomfortableness for some members of this honourable forum...

However, I believe that it is insensitive actions such as this that causes us, as a society, to perpetuate the unwarranted prejudices against our homosexual brothers and sisters, a small minority within our citizenry.

Moreover, those members who validate these juvenile antics by laughing along with the culprits, rather than admonishing them, are equally as gulity...

It is my fervent belief that only through "open" dialogue, mutual respect and an attempt to gain understanding of each other, that all of we, as citizens of this great democracy, could forge a greater Bahamian Society, where no man or woman is discriminated against because of sex, colour, creed, or sexual orientation... :angel:

Firstly, Addasboi has succinctly pointed out that there are NO provisions in CHAPTER 120 of the Statute laws of The Bahamas, known as the MARRIAGE ACT, which defines marriage to be strictly between a "man and a women". Included in this act are the provisions that governs the granting of a marriage license.
I invite all and sundry to read the MARRIAGE ACT in its entirety and show me where marriage is defined as exclusively between a "man and a women"... :hammer:
http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/statutes/statute_CHAPTER_120.html#Ch120s51
Secondly, in CHAPTER 125 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES, the provision that addresses "Void and Voidable Marriages" specifically states that:
20. A husband or wife MAY present a petition to the court praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void on any of the grounds mentioned in section 21 or 22.
21. (1) A marriage shall be void on any of the following grounds:
Void marriage.
(a)that it is not a valid marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act;
(b)that at the time of the marriage, either party was already lawfully married;
(c)that the parties are not respectively male and female; or
(d)that in the case of a polygamous marriage entered into outside The Bahamas, either party was domiciled in The Bahamas.
http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/statutes/statute_CHAPTER_125.html#Ch125s21
Any first year law student could see that this provision was not meant to discriminate against Homosexual Married Couples, whose union, by virtue of their sexual orientation, would, naturally, have comprised of individual's of the same sex. :dunce:
I believe that this provision was meant to protect a party already in a marriage union, who believed he or she was in a heterosexual union at the time of the marriage, but later discovered that the other party was, in fact, not "legally" male or female.... Thus, this provision provide these individuals relief from being defrauded, and the courts can declare the marriage "null and void"... :footmouth
How such a learned gentleman can site an obscure provision in a statue law, and interpret it as the basis for legal discrimination against homosexuals and their right to "marriage", as heterosexuals, in our Beloved Bahama Land is beyond me... :dgi:
Lastly, the Constitution of the Bahamas is the guideline under which all statute laws are drafted. As previously pointed out in this thread, there are, ingrained in the Constitution, basic human rights that are guaranteed to all Bahamians, including Homosexuals. Therefore, any provisions in the statute laws of the Bahamas that are found to be inherently discriminatory or in contravention of the basic tenants of our Constitution, they should be tested in the courts, and, if found ruled to be in violation of the Constitution, the courts should either allow Parliament a fixed period to amend the law or strike the provision down all altogether... :hammer:

Dang, i dont know what's wrong with my computer, the links never seem to open up man :( . but thank you for the information.

Firstly, I am keenly aware that this subject may have caused a degree of comfortableness for some members of this honourable forum...
However, I believe that it is insensitive actions such as this that causes us, as a society, to perpetuate the unwarranted prejudices against our homosexual brothers and sisters, a small minority within our citizenry.
Moreover, those members who validate these juvenile antics by laughing along with the culprits, rather than admonishing them, are equally as gulity...
It is my fervent belief that only through "open" dialogue, mutual respect and an attempt to gain understanding of each other, that all of we, as citizens of this great democracy, could forge a greater Bahamian Society, where no man or woman is discriminated against because of sex, colour, creed, or sexual orientation... :angel:

lol tru. found it quite funny actually. i didnt laugh because they were gay, therefore being discriminatory. no no, i laughed because they look utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.

to prove my point, this heterosexual couple looks utterly ridiculous too.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Laura.Pacholkiw/GhettoWedding/photo#5121222069712381138

http://picasaweb.google.com/Laura.Pacholkiw/GhettoWedding/photo#5121222069712381138
dont laugh at them now just because they're ghetto, that's discrimination. :hammer:

i aint hatin though, they're probably happy.
someone once said "the legal battle against segregation is won, but the community battle still rages on." remember that.

i know im still feeding it.........but i really couldnt resist asking another question:.

Ask away... nothing to be ashamed about here... if we are all adults having an honest, open and intellectual dialogue I don't see the problem in adding your point of view to the debate....

If the grounds for the nullification (i.e. breach, termination) of a marriage (a valid contract between two respective parties) is the aforementioned, wouldn't it follow that it's not to be done?
One of the grounds is polygamy. well, wouldnt it follow that you're not supposed to be married to more than one person in the first place?.

It's a matter of interpretation....The idea that this is a CLEAR case is non-sensical...Clear arguments leave no room for doubt... As I mentioned marriages and marriage licenses are governed and overseen by an ACT...The act itself is ambiguous...and this ambiguity leaves room for GLBT claim that there is no provision that prohibits us from being married or applying and succesfully getting a marriage license...

and i don't think that his comment was a smoke and mirrors trick. It's been made clear that there are basically no laws n this, just guidelines within the law that one can follow. He just brought another side into the discussion.
NOOOO....sorry to disagree but did you read the article?....He didn't offer another angle to the discussion...his claim was that there is NO discussion to even take place...in order words...Big Bag Munroe has spoken and the argument has been won...On to the next conquest....

He is quoted in the Tribune as saying:

"I don't know why they say that - it's clear beyond doubt - there has never been any ambiguity about this. So this is not any grey area......."

He said this knowing full well that this was not a CLEAR case...hence the sensationistic quoting of certain sections of the Constitution...

ahhh ok. cool cool. Parliament could always amend (i.e. refine) the Act itself. then whomever can challenge its constitutional merits..

This is a portion of the Matrimonial Causes act 125;
Void and Voidable Marriages
20. A husband or wife may present a petition to the court praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void on any of the grounds mentioned in section 21 or 22.
Petition for nullity
21. (1) A marriage shall be void on any of the following grounds:
Void marriage.
(a)
that it is not a valid marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act;
(b)
that at the time of the marriage, either party was already lawfully married;
(c)
that the parties are not respectively male and female; or
(d)
that in the case of a polygamous marriage entered into outside The Bahamas, either party was domiciled in The Bahamas.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection (1), a marriage may be polygamous although at its inception neither party has any spouse additional to the other.
There you go. Vicky and company needs to rewind and come again.
how did they get a licence in the first place?

all this reding going on and no-one read what RAB said,
a judge must clarify the law
BIG "bag' wayne munroe cayn do it....
lol

Statutory law is higher than common law. and it can always be reversed.
so therefore, for example in Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate, the company demanded compensation for the British army's destruction of their oil plants. They got their compensation, but Parliament, as a result of this, passed the War Damages Act 1965, thereby reversing the common law.
The same can be done here.
Also, in case you didnt understand, this was passed in California. Unless (you know, without telling me) we've suddenly become a U.S. territory, this would be PERSUASIVE, but not binding.
Parliament can always amend the Act.
I think that some parts of what you say are very brilliant and I agree with most of what you say. I dont think that it's very careful to say that statutory law is higher than common law. To use the case that you cited, Burmah Oil Co even though they got their compensation for the British army's destruction of their oil plants and Parliament passed the Damages Act 1965, it does not end there. There is a common law presumption against interpreting statutes with retrospective effect. Thus, in the case you mentioned even though the Act was passed, that has no effect on the case of Burmah Co Ltd itself. Thus, if one considers that common law presumption does not the common law then prevail?


Regardless, I think it better to say that statute law has greater primacy than common law but I would not say "statutory law is higher than common law". I believe in the doctrine of judicial supremacy. Parliament might pass an Act yes but the courts have to pass judgment on the legitimacy and operation of that Act (see the Privy Council case of Independent Jamaica Council v Marshall Barnett [2005] UKPC 3, in this Privy Council appeal the opposition in the Jamaican Parliament brought a claim for judicial review of a legislative package which sought to abolish the jurisdiction of the Privy Council and establish the Caribbean Court of Justice as Jamaica's final court of appeal. The Privy Council struck down the entire three Act legislative package reasoning that the Privy Council's jurisdiction could be abolished in the manner attempted, but since the Caribbean Court of Justice would not have more constitutional protection than the Privy Council does then the laws were unconstitutional and unsalvageable.) so I dont think it wise to say that statutory law is higher than common law, rather I would say that statutory law has greater primacy or force than common law.


I think what you said about the Californian case being persuasive is brilliant because I had not even considered that possibility. So I like that.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Here's an idea, why doesn't someone go back in time to when the law was written, and ask the lawmakers, whether or not they intended for homosexuals to have the right to marry?
Perhaps it was so far out of their mind, they did not think it would even be considered as acceptable, or come into question.
But yeah, go back in time, and end the debate.
I think that your response is brilliant, that's what constitutional scholars call an intentionalist stance which is not one which common law courts have adopted to great extent other than the American courts. But the argument can still be raised and it's a very sensible one. A good lawyer could throw a wrench in the works and say that isnt it the traditional learning from the Privy Council that the constitution is a living and organic document therefore the meaning should not stay the same throughout time but should be continuously interpreted in accordance with the society in which it lives.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

I think that some parts of what you say are very brilliant and I agree with most of what you say. I dont think that it's very careful to say that statutory law is higher than common law. To use the case that you cited, Burmah Oil Co even though they got their compensation for the British army's destruction of their oil plants and Parliament passed the Damages Act 1965, it does not end there. There is a common law presumption against interpreting statutes with retrospective effect. Thus, in the case you mentioned even though the Act was passed, that has no effect on the case of Burmah Co Ltd itself. Thus, if one considers that common law presumption does not the common law then prevail?
Regardless, I think it better to say that statute law has greater primacy than common law but I would not say "statutory law is higher than common law". I believe in the doctrine of judicial supremacy. Parliament might pass an Act yes but the courts have to pass judgment on the legitimacy and operation of that Act (see the Privy Council case of Independent Jamaica Council v Marshall Barnett [2005] UKPC 3) so I dont think it wise to say that statutory law is higher than common law, rather I would say that statutory law has greater primacy or force than common law.
I think what you said about the Californian case being persuasive is brilliant because I had not even considered that possibility. So I like that.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

I also think that your points are brilliant as well, and I did not even consider that fact. But we both know that Parliament (well, in the United Kingdom) can legislate retrospectively, as Parliament is supreme. But Willes J did state that retrospective laws are "contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought...to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law....Accordingly, the court will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by exprss words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature." (Phillips v. Eyre [1870] LR 6 QB 1, 23.)

Of course, retrospective legislation does go against the rules of Natural Justice. but Parliament can do it. Yes, your point is valid, statutes are primary, and it was my impression that they overrode common law (i.e. case law.), hence my expression "higher."

Of course, my education is in a country where there is no constitution and constitutional legislation/laws are a new concept. Parliament is supreme and an Act cannot be declared invalid by a court.

I will definitely keep that Jamaica case in mind. :) Thank you.

This is the exact reason why that minister who headed those "save the Family" rallies including the one in Rawson Square was agitating that the constitution and laws state it clearly.

As the anticipated challenge stands....will a judge have the fortitude to rule bluntly what the laws say today?

I also think that your points are brilliant as well, and I did not even consider that fact. But we both know that Parliament (well, in the United Kingdom) can legislate retrospectively, as Parliament is supreme. But Willes J did state that retrospective laws are "contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought...to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law....Accordingly, the court will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by exprss words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature." (Phillips v. Eyre [1870] LR 6 QB 1, 23.)
Of course, retrospective legislation does go against the rules of Natural Justice. but Parliament can do it. Yes, your point is valid, statutes are primary, and it was my impression that they overrode common law (i.e. case law.), hence my expression "higher."
Of course, my education is in a country where there is no constitution and constitutional legislation/laws are a new concept. Parliament is supreme and an Act cannot be declared invalid by a court.
I will definitely keep that Jamaica case in mind. :) Thank you.
What you say is conventionally correct and is the well accepted and time honoured adherence to the English doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty in the Diceyan sense but even under English law doesnt what you say that Parliament is supreme and an Act cannot be declared invalid by a court fly in the face of R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p. Factortame Ltd (No.2) [1990] EUECJ C-213/89 (19 June 1990) where the European Court of Justice held that "any provision of a national legal system and any legislative, administrative or judicial practice which might impair the effectiveness of Community law by withholding from the national court having jurisdiction to apply such law the power to do everything necessary at the moment of its application to set aside national legislative provisions which might prevent, even temporarily, Community rules from having full force and effect are incompatible with those requirements, which are the very essence of Community law". So, sounds to me that an Act can be invalidated for non-compliance with EC law.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/20/samesex050720.html


Same-sex legislation now law in Canada

Last Updated: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 | 9:50 PM ET
CBC News

Legislation giving same-sex couples the legal right to marry received royal assent on Wednesday and is now the law of the land.
In a late-night vote on Tuesday, the Senate approved the Liberal government's controversial Bill C-38 by a 46-22 vote. Three senators abstained.

The historic vote comes after gay and lesbian couples launched lawsuits in different provinces demanding the right to marry.

Courts in seven provinces agreed that the traditional definition of marriage violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Liberal government responded to the first of those rulings – in Ontario in 2003 – by introducing legislation which was adopted last month in the House of Commons.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said he will bring back the same-sex debate if he's elected prime minister.

Canada now joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain as the only countries legalizing gay marriage.

Tory motion rejected

Senators rejected a Conservative motion stating the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but that civil marriage is between two people.

"It would have brought a great deal of comfort to same-sex couples that they would not be perceived as having somehow gained their legitimate rights at the expense of those for whom the traditional marriage of a man and a woman was so terribly important," said Conservative Senator Noel Kinsella, who supported the amendment.

B.C. Senator Gerry St. Germain, an outspoken critic of the bill, fears judges are determining policies that should be decided by conscience.

"If we don't stop this ... I know what the next steps are. Euthanasia. Decriminalization of marijuana," said St. Germain.

But Senator Nancy Ruth, who voted for the bill, danced in the red chamber moments before the vote.

"There are some reasons to dance tonight and the whole country should be dancing," she said.

Let me pose a hypothetical question here.

A gay Bahamian couple goes to, say Canada (or any other country where gay marriages are legal) and gets "married". They then return to the Bahamas where they reside. Would that marriage be recognised under Bahamian law in the same way that a heterosexual couples marriage conducted outside the country is?

Let me pose a hypothetical question here.
A gay Bahamian couple goes to, say Canada (or any other country where gay marriages are legal) and gets "married". They then return to the Bahamas where they reside. Would that marriage be recognised under Bahamian law in the same way that a heterosexual couples marriage conducted outside the country is?
You're asking for a simple answer to the difficult questions we've been debating this whole time. The answer I would give would be no because at common law and according to custom marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This is what Vicky calls the law's 'unwritten policy' prohibiting homosexual unions. A lawyer friend of mine argues that he can go to Sweden and marry his boyfriend and come back to the Bahamas and get the marriage recognised by the Reciprical Enforcement of Judgments Act but a cursory reading of that Act will demonstrate that save and except the matter is legal in The Bahamas it cannot be reciprocally enforced in The Bahamas. So the easy answer to your question is no.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~