Thank you, you're not so bad yourself.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Got to run out to get Tacos, but if your still up in 15 mins, I promise a worthy response.
Thanks
Now I don't quite know where to begin in all of my objections to your well-edited script of half-truths. But let's take it from the bottom up. Would you please be so kind as to cite any Scriptural arguments that support Gay marriage as quoted in your post?

Secondly, my reference to Barack Obama is simply to cite his emergence as the personification of God's response to the outmoded practice of racial segration in the Marriage Act of many states in the US. My mention of him (Obama) is simply a testimony to the power of God to take that which was formerly the least in a nation and make it the chief cornerstone, if He so chooses.

As I included the link of the Loving v. Virgnia case, I saw no need to pretend at being a Lawyer. You mention Article (26) of The Bahamas Constitution, seemingly to justify your arguments regarding Descrimination in our Laws which demand that marriage be performed between a man and a woman, and this is, in my opinion, simply your attempt a clever semantics. ....."Race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed cited as just causes for judicial review may not successfully be stretched to mean, men who believe themselves to be women or women who imagine themselves to be men.

If and when you convince any of our Bahamian Judges to forget their oaths and to ignore the Preamble of The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas which reads: ....And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognise that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law; in favour of your arguments, rest assured that the Bahamian people will target the fear of God at such Judicial arrogance.

It is indeed a pleasure to exchange views with you. May I suggest that you use you knowledge to edify our people, as you are extraordinarily gifted. What The Bahamas needs most is persons of goodwilll who aspire to be Statesmen rather than merely- popular- politicians. P.S. Wisdom and Understanding are far more desirable virtues that all the world's Knowledge. Proverbs 4:7.

God Bless!

Got to run out to get Tacos, but if your still up in 15 mins, I promise a worthy response.
Thanks
Now I don't quite know where to begin in all of my objections to your well-edited script of half-truths. But let's take it from the bottom up. Would you please be so kind as to cite any Scriptural arguments that support Gay marriage as quoted in your post?

Secondly, my reference to Barack Obama is simply to cite his emergence as the personification of God's response to the outmoded practice of racial segration in the Marriage Act of many states in the US. My mention of him (Obama) is simply a testimony to the power of God to take that which was formerly the least in a nation and make it the chief cornerstone, if He so chooses.

As I included the link of the Loving v. Virgnia case, I saw no need to pretend at being a Lawyer. You mention Article (26) of The Bahamas Constitution, seemingly to justify your arguments regarding Descrimination in our Laws which demand that marriage be performed between a man and a woman, and this is, in my opinion, simply your attempt a clever semantics. ....."Race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed cited as just causes for judicial review may not successfully be stretched to mean, men who believe themselves to be women or women who imagine themselves to be men.

If and when you convince any of our Bahamian Judges to forget their oaths and to ignore the Preamble of The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas which reads: ....And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognise that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law; in favour of your arguments, rest assured that the Bahamian people will target the fear of God at such Judicial arrogance.

It is indeed a pleasure to exchange views with you. May I suggest that you use you knowledge to edify our people, as you are extraordinarily gifted. What The Bahamas needs most is persons of goodwilll who aspire to be Statesmen rather than merely- popular- politicians. P.S. Wisdom and Understanding are far more desirable virtues that all the world's Knowledge. Proverbs 4:7.

God Bless!

Thank you, you're not so bad yourself.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
I must take some time to learn the proper application of this technology. I kept tring to pate your comments, but Alas! Alack! I don't quite know how. WOW! Sorry Sir.

Now I don't quite know where to begin in all of my objections to your well-edited script of half-truths. But let's take it from the bottom up. Would you please be so kind as to cite any Scriptural arguments that support Gay marriage as quoted in your post?
Secondly, my reference to Barack Obama is simply to cite his emergence as the personification of God's response to the outmoded practice of racial segration in the Marriage Act of many states in the US. My mention of him (Obama) is simply a testimony to the power of God to take that which was formerly the least in a nation and make it the chief cornerstone, if He so chooses.
As I included the link of the Loving v. Virgnia case, I saw no need to pretend at being a Lawyer. You mention Article (26) of The Bahamas Constitution, seemingly to justify your arguments regarding Descrimination in our Laws which demand that marriage be performed between a man and a woman, and this is, in my opinion, simply your attempt a clever semantics. ....."Race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed cited as just causes for judicial review may not successfully be stretched to mean, men who believe themselves to be women or women who imagine themselves to be men.
If and when you convince any of our Bahamian Judges to forget their oaths and to ignore the Preamble of The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas which reads: ....And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognise that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law; in favour of your arguments, rest assured that the Bahamian people will target the fear of God at such Judicial arrogance.
It is indeed a pleasure to exchange views with you. May I suggest that you use you knowledge to edify our people, as you are extraordinarily gifted. What The Bahamas needs most is persons of goodwilll who aspire to be Statesmen rather than merely- popular- politicians. P.S. Wisdom and Understanding are far more desirable virtues that all the world's Knowledge. Proverbs 4:7.
God Bless!
I like how you stand by your convictions. I respect that.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

I like how you stand by your convictions. I respect that.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
I'm including some of the Loving v. Virginia data from Google FYI:

The Loving Decision - (June 12, 1967)
Presented here is the actual text of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the case which overturned the laws against interracial marriage still in effect as late as 1967 in 16 states. Many other states had enacted such laws in previous years, but had repealed them by the time of the Loving Decision.

The case is not only about intermarriage, but also, about how this country defined people in terms of "race", for not only did the Virginia statute in question prohibit the intermarriage of "whites" with "coloreds" and American Indians, it also assigned multiracial people to one or the other of these groups (but never to more than one or to a separate mixed category), depending upon the degree and type of mixture.

A white person was someone with no trace of any but "Caucasian blood", with the exception of a person who had 1/16 or less of American Indian ancestry (and no other non-white ancestry), an allowance notably covering some wealthy and well-respected descendants of Pocahontas and John Rolfe. A black person was anyone with any "ascertainable" negro blood, the classic expression of the infamous "one-drop-rule". An American Indian was anyone with at least 1/4 Indian ancestry, or anyone with at least 1/4 Indian blood and no more than 1/16 "Negro" blood and who was also a member of an Indian tribe.

The 25th Anniversary of the Loving Decision was commemorated by AMEA in 1992 at the Loving Conference. A movie for television was made in 1996 dramatizing the story of the Lovings, starring Timothy Hutton, Lela Rochon and Ruby Dee. For more information about this film, here is the link to the Internet Movie Data Base: Mr.& Mrs.Loving

NOTE: The text reproduced here has been abridged to make for easier reading. To read the full text, go to any law library and find the case using the case citations below.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants,
v.
VIRGINIA
388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d 1010, 87 S Ct 1817
Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, 1967.
********************************************

You sound like a good Lawyer who will be able to remind our children that at one time in the very recent past of America, Black people were not considered fully human by the US Constitution.

As I write this, The Trinity Broadcasting Network is playing a special Documentary tracing the history of the great contributions of Black Americans to the existing prosperity America now enjoys. HBO movies are focusing on the historical record of Racism in America. God is doing a new thing here by making the issue so pervasive that whatever He decides to do regarding national leadership, these people will never be the same as they were.

Any attemps by the GLBT groups to hitch their wagons to this important move of God is a great travesty, in my opinion. For it threatens to demean and alter the gravity of the words and contributions of men like Martin Luther King, Jr who in 1967 under the caption: RACISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL said:

"Being a Negro in America is not a comfortable existence.
It means being part of the company
of the bruised, he battered, the scarred, and the defeated.
Being a Negro in America
means trying to smile when you want to cry.
It means trying to hold on to physical life
amid psychological death.
It means the pain of watching your children grow up
with clouds of inferiority in their mental skies.
It means having you legs cut off,
and then being condemned for being a cripple.
It means seeing your mother and father
spiritually murdered
by the slings and arrows of daily exploitation,
and then being hated for being an orphan.
Being a Negro in America
. . . means being harried by day and haunted by night
by a nagging sense of nobodiness
and constantly fighting to be saved from the poison of bitterness.
It means the ache and anguish of living in so many situations
where hopes unborn have died.

I don't mean to sound like a showoff but for me, having been born in 1957, growing up on Grand Bahama Island where the original development plans excluded the participation of the indiginous Bahamians, litening to the rhetoric King, Kennedy, Pindling, Mandela
and others of that era and to now be standing within a clos-up view of the manifestation of the shared hopes and dreams of so many people who look just like me is too awesome for words.

And no I will not stand idly by and allow a lesser struggle(the GBLT agenda)to eclipse the enormity of the victory of God's purpose for eradicating the chains of oppression previously experienced by persons of colour with their 'bait and switch' arguments, equating sexual preference with ethnicity. No way!

I'm back and tickled pink by postmortems prognosis. I'll just need a few minutes to marshall my 26 soldiers of the alphabet in order to respond. Thank you for your patience.
Oh, you are witty.

Regards,
It's midnight here, so it's 3 AM at home and I comemend you to rest, as it sounds like you perform an important service to th continuity of our Bahamas.

Just wanted to thank you again for the repartee. It was grand.

Looking forward to future encounters. God Bless!

I dont even know where to begin. Lady Russell, I dont know what you were talking about. You cite a case called Loving v Virginia. Let me tell you from jump, I never heard of the case, you didnt give a citation, a precis, I never read the case, and never avowed myself to the reasoning or the decision itself. And how dare you call my arguments duplicitous without delving into the actual reasoning itself. Or did you suppose to cite scripture and then obfuscate the truth by way of callin Barack Obama all up through the argument?
The bases for my position do not stem from American case law, but from English common law. I cited the Bahamas Constitution, I referred particularly to the right against discrimination. Unsurprisingly, your arguments not only did not address this Article (Art 26) but also did not confine themselves to the four corners of the Bahamian Constitution. Added to that, there is not juris scintilla (a spark of law) to support your argument. Also, when you use the Bible to argue against Gay Marriage, cite also the provisions that support the position. I like to say judge each case on its particular facts. Have you ever, ever given any thought to the fact that gays might have a valid position? That maybe our laws do blow hot and cold. Maybe our laws do speak about equality, or conversely a right against discrimination on the one hand, but yet preclude a creed of persons in The Bahamas from the rights which we all enjoy, and unjustly at that?
I dont want to change your mind, or change your value system, but I ask that you keep an openmind and consider. The lowest segments of our law viz the common law is the last bastion for the position that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Our highest law however has enshrined with it the principles of equality and evenhandedness in the application of the law. Something's gotta give. And I define the issue thus, either the common law prescription of marriage is saved law under the Constitution, or the Constitution is read generously and purposively so as to give Gays equal protection under the law. Now, to respond to what you said about judges implementing law rather than merely interpreting them. Whoever told you that the only province of the judiciary was to interpret the law? The courts administer justice judicially, even if that means taking the Constitution and rewriting the law so that it accords with that solemn and supervening document.
There's no need for me to quote scripture, except to say in all thy getting, get knowledge.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
Sir, this is well written... are you a member of the Bahamas Human Rights Project? If not, they sure can use someone with a brilliant legal mind such as yours... :shhh:

As I said in an earlier post, it seems that there has been reluctance on the part of our society, for reason I do not know, to test the provisions of Chapter III – Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of The Individual of THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS in the Courts... In the case of a GLBT individual's right to enter into a “same-sex marriage", I believe that this is the arena where this fight will eventually be decided... :taped2

Moreover, I am convinced that the framers of our constitution had tremendous foresight when they ensured that provisions for the "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of The Individual" were codified in this document... It appears as if they knew instinctively that in order for our young democracy to emerge from its colonial past into a modern and progressive nation, one that would be a shining example in our region and the greater world community, then these important provisions had to be guaranteed... :cheers:

When this fight is done, and the Judiciary has decided to uphold an individual's freedom to marry a "same-sex" partner, I believe that The Commonwealth of the Bahamas will emerge as a world leader in Democratic Rights and Freedom, and will be viewed as far more advance than most "mature" democracies in this hemisphere. This can only be a "win-win" situation for a nation with a touristic economy, as the world would be satisfied that we are not a "banana republic", but a "fair and just" society with an abiding respect for human dignity and "the rule of law"... I believe the opposite would be disastrous... :hammer:

Dear Hurtful Truth:
I rise to the occasion of responding to your early morning post on this controversial issue. Your obvious acceptance of the unwanted Judicial Activism displayed by the recent verdict in the California Supreme Court ruling regarding same- sex marriage as fait accompli, has obviously propelled you into accepting the false premise (lie) that the courts have the last word in such matters.
The California Constitution states, "All political power is inherent in the people," So how does a judiciary, which is only empowered to interpret law, substitute a new "law" holding the exact opposite premise? Simple, in the American system of government, Judges are the least accountable public servants in state government and they revel in their 'percieved' immunity. But keep watching your TV for I promise you that the Backlash will come in the the directed anger by the majority of Americans who will no longer tolerate the will of the people being overruled by a judiciary substituting its own enlightend judgement.
In our Bahamas where the Constitution provides for the removal of Supreme Court Justices in Article 96 (5) and (6), it is unlikely that you will see any member of the Bahamian Judiciary risk their security of tenure to join you in your same-sex marriage meddling plot. Members of our Judicature have already observed how landmark rulings like the removal of Prayer from the American school system has not borne good fruit.
However, in the Democratic and Christian Bahamas you are free to express your thoughts on the matter but don't expect quiet acquiesence from "Believers" who know that the end result of your noble-sounding ideas about Human Rights is the total destruction of what remains of the tattered moral fabric of Bahamian life.
No Sir, we will not sit quietly by, being content at the end of the failed experiment to ask:"what have you done? We will continue to direct you to the dictates of Scripture which unashamedly declares God's descrimination between Good and Evil. If you wish clarity , please read Genesis 19, as well as 1Corinthians 1: 18 - 25 to consider the contrasts between God's wisdom and human wisdom.

Have a great day!

Food for thought, although some of you may develop indigestion as you view the absurdity in some of the arguments against same-sex marriage...

"Just to underscore how exaggerated is the significance of gay marriage as a political weapon, here is a 2006 fear-mongering ad run in Arizona -- featuring John McCain -- urging Arizonans to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage (h/t Hot Air's Allahpundit, whose analysis of today's ruling is (one must acknowledge) actually quite good, because he bothered to read the decision before opining)":

j7DHscURg3E

"Despite scare-mongering ads of that sort, conservative/libertarian Arizona voters became the first to reject a state-wide ban on same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that exploitation of this issue is far less politically potent than it once was. And, of course, the 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling weeks before the midterm elections did nothing to help the GOP stave off crushing defeat."


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/

Human Rights Cartoon (22): Gay Marriage

Posted on April 3, 2008 by Filip Spagnoli

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/979b.jpg


...As pictured in the cartoon: gay marriage is not necessarily a threat to the institution of marriage. A gay couple can be as serious about marriage and about raising children as a heterosexual couple. Those of us who care about the importance of marriage have much graver threats to deal with.


http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/human-rights-cartoon-22/

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/979b.jpg

lol people have lived through all of those "pies" and still produced world class families. i still dont see your point.

Sir, this is well written... are you a member of the Bahamas Human Rights Project? If not, they sure can use someone with a brilliant legal mind such as yours... :shhh:
As I said in an earlier post, it seems that there has been reluctance on the part of our society, for reason I do not know, to test the provisions of Chapter III – Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of The Individual of THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS in the Courts... In the case of a GLBT individual's right to enter into a “same-sex marriage", I believe that this is the arena where this fight will eventually be decided... :taped2
Moreover, I am convinced that the framers of our constitution had tremendous foresight when they ensured that provisions for the "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of The Individual" were codified in this document... It appears as if they knew instinctively that in order for our young democracy to emerge from its colonial past into a modern and progressive nation, one that would be a shining example in our region and the greater world community, then these important provisions had to be guaranteed... :cheers:
When this fight is done, and the Judiciary has decided to uphold an individual's freedom to marry a "same-sex" partner, I believe that The Commonwealth of the Bahamas will emerge as a world leader in Democratic Rights and Freedom, and will be viewed as far more advance than most "mature" democracies in this hemisphere. This can only be a "win-win" situation for a nation with a touristic economy, as the world would be satisfied that we are not a "banana republic", but a "fair and just" society with an abiding respect for human dignity and "the rule of law"... I believe the opposite would be disastrous... :hammer:
How can I join this Human Rights project? I think it's a legal fraternity wide diffidence and our judges are the leaders of the scardy cat pack. I think if we take an intentionalist approach to the Constitution that we will actually take a step backward in our human rights adjudication. The Privy Council has been very strong in this area charging ahead with the motto of purposive and generous human rights interpretation to extend rights all across the board. You see, the problem with intentionalist interpretation is that it gives rise to a stagnant approach to human rights and only views fundamental rights and freedoms within the context of the attitudes and predilections of the framers of the Constitution. The Privy Council though have taken the view that the Constitution is a living and organic document that must be construed as broadly as possible to give the widest amount of rights the widest possible ambit.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Ah but that tradition is based on religion and we have freedom of religion thus freedome from religion. Shall the door be open for religious discrimination? Which version of religion will be the standard??


Marriage is a religous ceremony set out in the BIBLE wich Gay`s don`t agree with and want no part of (At least the correct teaching of the Bible and not the watered downed version), so why would they want to get married in the first place? wouldn`t a simple contract be enough?

Marriage is a religous ceremony set out in the BIBLE wich Gay`s don`t agree with and want no part of (At least the correct teaching of the Bible and not the watered downed version), so why would they want to get married in the first place? wouldn`t a simple contract be enough?
It didnt start in the Bible, the institution of marriage is older than that