Truly Vicky, I fail to see why the idea of Beastiality so upsets you. To the practitioners, it is simply the kind of sex they prefer and would also wish to claim their constitutional right to have.

Are you into Beastiality or something, like you is do it with billy goats and ting??
Man thats just sick, thats Animal cruelty also!!!! The poor animals never consented to have sex with you yah evil DEBIL!!!!! :hammer::hammer:

God aint pleased with yah right now for all da deblish talk you spewing on here ..
REPENT REPENT REPENT .. come back to Jesus!! :hammer: :hammer:

In the meantime SpamStopper will label it is a VIRUS!!! :hammer:

Not Being Sarcastic but what exactly are you stating?
Please read the following except:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
CHAPTER III
PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
15.- Whereas every person in The Bahamas is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, has the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely-
(a) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law;
(b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association;

Simply put, these fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution give us freedom to choose what to believe, in regards to our faith. In other words, there is no state-sanctioned church or religion. :taped2:

Your arguments are obviously from a “Jedo-Christian” perspective; however, there are fine Bahamians -- Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, to cite just three examples -- who do not accept the Bible as the basis for their religious beliefs and practices.

Moreover, the Bible is not a valid basis for legal arguments in a society that adheres to the “separation of church and state”.

No one did or at least I don't know, I sure didn't and I assume you didn't also, if it were me or you, just as we have the right to also draft a questionaire as Mr Bethel did to ask those running for office certain controversial questions, they also have a right to refuse to answer the questions put forth.
Exactly...

Their decision to not answer the question may hurt more than help their chances because the majority of the public will wonder what is there to hide since the public has also has the right to know as much as possible about a person they are going to elect to not only represent them but to make sensitive decisions that can affect each one of our lives.
Arguably, this may be so...but we all know the purpose the questionnaire was to "out" any politician who may be gay... :raw:

Assuming that a politician is, in fact, gay, please explain to me how what he or she does with another consenting adult same-sex partner, in the privacy of his bedroom, has any bearing on his or her ability to govern effectively...?

I totally Concur
Wow, we have some common ground that we both agree on, can this be progress toward bridging the divide between our opposing views on same-sex marriage... :angel:

I believe you would be surprise to learn that most folks in the GLBT community are more like heterosexuals, in terms of societal values, than unlike them...

My answer is no. No. No. No.
My sample moral questionnaire for clergy men and women was merely satirical... meant to illustrate the absurdity of Reverend L. Bethel's moral questionnaire for politicians. Whilst a number of “moral lapses” by Christian Clergymen have made the national news, Reverend L. Bethel, and the Christian Council, for that matter, have been notably silent on these matters. IMO, this is the zenith of hypocrisy... :footmouth

I was not trying to test your “moral aptitude”.... BTW, are you a clergyman?

No Problem, Extinction in my previous post was use in this way. If a man has sex with a man, whether they are in love with each other or not, whether they are married or not, they can never produce a child together because a man is not designed to have a child, nothing to do with love or marriage, that just Biological fact.

Yes, this is a biological fact, but what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

I know this thread is referring to Gays/Lesbians having the right to marry but again, as I stated before, I am writing in regards to Human Biology. When those same two married, in love Gay Men are both deceased, they did not produce a child who is Biologically theirs, so they have not contributed to the extension of their family name or more importantly, to the extension of their species and even if they adopt a child, the child has to be created by a man and a woman which is the natural way, excluding Artificial Insimination or Invitro for my politically correct folks.
If we were to strictly follow your “human reproduction” argument, presuming that the same-sex couples are not infertile, they can still have children “naturally”, or utilise a surrogate mother.

Your veil attempt to make a case against same-sex marriage, under the guise of their “inability” to reproduce is farfetched. Moreover, each hypothetical scenario that you have outline above can readily be applied to heterosexual couples.

Accordingly, a couple’s ability or inability to reproduce is not a criterion for a state-sanctioned marriage license.

If you have one male Siberian Tiger and one Female Siberian Tiger left on this planet and they have cubs of both genders, they would have saved their species. On the other hand, If their were only two male Siberian Tigers left on this planet and they both die, well thats it.

You are now grasping for straws. In my humble opinion, you have not presented one single reasonable argument against same-sex marriage on this thread... :dgi:

Even though we humans are 6billion+ people away from extinction, if every human male and every human female was to become Gay or become a Lesbian, within a matter of time that would be the end of our race, (unless scientist use un-natural methods which off course those with money would be the only ones left on this planet.) We owe it the existence of our species to reproduce (again nothing to do with love our marriage or anyone who is sterile).
You seem to be implying that same-sex marriage would exponentially increase the number of Gay men and women in the entire world... I believe your arguments have now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. :taped2:

Do not allow your anxiety over same-sex marriage to cloud your judgement and rational thought... Relax my brother, many in the GLBT Community describe themselves as “ Christians” and, in general, they adhere far more closely to the tenets of the Christian Faith than their heterosexual counterparts... In other words, heterosexuals do not have a monopoly on the Christan Faith...


I guess my question is how were you and I born, I know I came from my Father and my Mother but if they were Gay/Lesbian, we would not be having this conversation.

Only if you limit your premise to the incorrect assumption that only heterosexuals can reproduce. Trust, many GLBT folks have their own biological children and are the primary caretakers, providing a loving and safe home environment for their children...

I can guarantee you that I condone no form of Abuse (Verbal or Physical) to any human being because of their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, COLOUR, SEX, NATIONALITY, RELIGION ETC. I hope that answers that for you, but just incase, when it comes to Homo-sexuals/Lesbians who state that they are being Discriminated, my point is this: I am a very Tall Black Bahamian Man and I had not choice in four things, my height, my colour, my nationality, my sex.
Nor did you choose your sexual orientation, so WHAT IS OUR POINT? If you have all this respect for the “human dignity” of folks from the GLBT Community, as you purport, then why not extend support their right to a same-sex state-sanctioned marriage...


My concern is when Homosexuals/Lesbians try to incorporate their decision to live that life style with factors that are beyond yours or my control. I could not have chosen to be a Short White American Female. Off Course I do not believe that a Heterosexual should not be chosen for a job that a Homosexual is more qualified for because of thier sexual orientation because that is Discrimination point blank but Sexual Orientation is a decision made by the individual who chooses to live that live style and can be changed on the spot by a woman deciding to not be interested emotionally and sexually with another woman and vice versa for a man, not the other factors mentioned above.
State-sanctioned marriage is very much within our control, as a society. What we cannot control is our sexual orientation; in fact, modern scientific studies on human sexuality will prove you wrong. I invite you to research these studies on-line and read the material for yourself...

Ignorance is bliss, but in enlightenment is divine...

That true because any Male Gay couple can arrange for a woman (Straight or Gay) to use sperm from one of the Gay men to have a child for them but can a Female lesbian couple use any one of their sperm for a man (Straight or Gay) so that the man can give birth to the Lesbian Couple's child?
I believe you are being facetious and insensitive with your reference to Lesbian Couples. Whatever your motivation, again, my question to you is, what does this have to do with the granting of a state-sanctioned marriage license to same-sex couples?

I have yet to see a man give birth to a child because men do not have eggs, experience PMS or have a womb...
No scramming eagle sh*t! BUT, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GLBT FOLKS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Nothing actually as I am "Again" going to not only to inform you but everyone else on this thread that I am posting Based on BIOLOGY well I guess BIOLOGY 101 as you stated. However, your question did give me a new idea. If their is nothing on the Bahamas Constitution Preventing Gays/Lesbians from getting married, then why is it the no Homosexual has gotten married in the Bahamas as yet? No seriously, without any sarcasm, I would like someone to answer that for me as I am not being smart or sarcastic?
WHAT NEW IDEA? I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THIS THREAD FROM POST NUMBER ONE (1) TO THE PRESENT? Then, if the answer to your question is still not obvious, PM me, and I will break it down for you, “AS IF I WAS SPEAKING TO A SIX YEAR OLD CHILD”...

TRUTH, Love is the answer my friend, the reason why we are suffering in this world is because of hate ...
I AM GOING TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE... PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH... :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Flatlines!
BOl....SHe getting people to unite.....whatch she soon be in a 3 on 1 match.

Yes Feb 23 2007 they celabrated 50 years


Congrads, my Grands Parents just celebrated 60 years.


Yes they were


Excellent


No Mom passed May 1 2007


My condolences


I know what you want me to say. What you are asking is imposable just as it is impossable for a hetro couple where one is sterile.


We have already established in our previous post that a sterile man cannot produce spe** and a sterile woman cannot does not have any eg** with the inability to bear a child so agian we are excluding people who are sterile.


But you forget one thing Homosexuality has been around from the begining yet humanity is still here. Why because of the law of average just as there are a precentage of human that are left handed as there are a presentage of humans that can roll their toungs this is a presentage of homosexuals transsexuals and intersexuals. If The Creator intends that one should exist even if the parrents are homosexual they would have a child its that simple.


Are both a man and a woman needed to produce a child (excluding invitro and artif insimination) even if one or both of them are either straight or gay?


Because not all human beings will be homosexual there will alway be breeders (I will add to that) their will always be a need for a female to breed/become pregnant (since a man cannot become pregnant), in which a man impregnates her, do you agree?.


But that is my question again. You say homosexual breeders but yet a man cannot get pregnant and produce a child. At the end of the day, does a man still have to mate with a woman to produce a child (ONCE THEY ARE NOT STERILE and without Invitro or Artificial Ins)? (Yes) or (No)



Just thinking here for a moment would you ever be homosexual??

I personally would never ever.


Based on your last sentence I would like to ask you, Truth Hurts, and Postmortem or anyone else these two questions for me?

Can a Heterosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a homosexual?

Can a Homosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a heterosexual?

I personally would never ever.
Based on your last sentence I would like to ask you, Truth Hurts, and Postmortem or anyone else these two questions for me?
Can a Heterosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a homosexual?

Yes

I personally would never ever.
Can a Homosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a heterosexual?

No

dat's what you call sense
:jawdroop:


Why I am confused about your definition of sense is because you have yet to respond to my simple question I asked?:confused:

Interesting, okay here we go.


Oh FYI, SARCASM AND SMART COMMENTS OFF FOR MY ENTIRE RESPONSE!!!


Please read the following except:
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
CHAPTER III
PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
15.- Whereas every person in The Bahamas is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, has the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely-
(a) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law;
(b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association;
Simply put, these fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution give us freedom to choose what to believe, in regards to our faith. In other words, there is no state-sanctioned church or religion. :taped2:
Your arguments are obviously from a “Jedo-Christian” perspective; however, there are fine Bahamians -- Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, to cite just three examples -- who do not accept the Bible as the basis for their religious beliefs and practices.
Moreover, the Bible is not a valid basis for legal arguments in a society that adheres to the “separation of church and state”.


All of that is fine and good but I am confused about what the different religions or the constitution has to do with Human Biology 101. I never said anything about “Jedo-Christian”/Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, I am posting based on Human Biology (and nothing to do with the Bible or Religions) which I have repeatedly stated to you, Vicky, and Postmortem over and over, so I guess in a way, I will accept the fact that I am 1/2 way hijacking this thread.



Exactly...
Arguably, this may be so...but we all know the purpose the questionnaire was to "out" any politician who may be gay... :raw:

Also Agruably but we will agree to disagree on that if need be because the questions also relate to Fornication/Sweethearting/Cheating etc.


Assuming that a politician is, in fact, gay, please explain to me how what he or she does with another consenting adult same-sex partner, in the privacy of his bedroom, has any bearing on his or her ability to govern effectively...?

What they do in thier bedroom is their business but many Bahamians will also want to know what kind of people they are electing to make decisions for them (myself included) in parliment along with other misc decisions which elected officals can make that will directly and indirectly affect us all.

I am sure that you would like to know as much about any official who comes knocking to your door for a vote. No matter what we say, their beliefs and standards will determine whether or not we vote for them whether it relates to their sexual orientation or not and if one is running for public office, the public has the right to know as much about them as possible.


Wow, we have some common ground that we both agree on, can this be progress toward bridging the divide between our opposing views on same-sex marriage... :angel:


In regards to agreeing on Same Sex Marriage? Never.

In regards to Lyle Bethel or others Leaders or anyone else proclaiming to be voices of morality focusing their attention on not only Homosexuality, but also highly addressing Fornication and Sweethearting as well to promote Monagamy and waiting to have sex after Marriage between a Man and a Woman as the Natural Way of life? I totally concur.


I believe you would be surprise to learn that most folks in the GLBT community are more like heterosexuals, in terms of societal values, than unlike them...
My sample moral questionnaire for clergy men and women were merely satirical to illustrate the absurdity of Reverend L. Bethel's moral questionnaire for politicians. Whilst a number of “moral lapses” by Christian Clergymen have made the national news, Reverend L. Bethel, and the Christian Council, for that matter, have been notably silent on these matters. IMO, this is the zenith of hypocrisy... :footmouth
I was not trying to test your “moral aptitude”.... BTW, are you a clergyman?

No, I am not old enough to be a clergyman but again, my opinion is that Fornication and Sweethearting should be addressed by men like Mr Bethel with just as much attention as Homosexuality.



Yes, this is a biological fact, but what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

EXACTLY, you are the first well the second because Vicky also stated in a previous post and I quote: I know what you want me to say. What you are asking is imposable just as it is impossable for a hetro couple where one is sterile. so my point is this, I am posting on Biology and you just stated that my comment was Biological Fact so I guess you have juss proven my point that a man and a woman will always be needed on this planet or any other planet in order to reproduce (don't worry Vicky I have not forgotten you) ONCE THEY ARE NOT STERILE. I will say again that my posts has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage, Religion, the Bible, it has to do with the continuation of our Species.

If we were to strictly follow your “human reproduction” argument, presuming that the same-sex couples are not infertile, they can still have children “naturally” with utilising a segregate male or female.


EXACTLY, you would still need A MAN AND A WOMAN.

I would like to copy a statement from one of your above sentences:

Wow, we have some common ground that we both agree on, can this be progress toward bridging the divide between our opposing views on HETEROSEXUAL marriage... :angel:



Your veil attempt to make a case against same-sex marriage, under the guise of their “inability” to reproduce is farfetched.


Again, my free Biology lesson has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage so I hope that clears up my previous posts were in regard to. Human Biology is fact e.g. a man cannot get pregnant, go in labour and give birth to a child, a woman will always be needed or else we will be EXTINCT whether you or I am married or not.

Moreover, each hypothetical scenario that you have outline above can readily be applied to heterosexual couples.

But a Heterosexual couple can produce a child with each other naturally (once they are not sterile) without the need of a seregate Mother or a Spe** Donor.


Accordingly, a couple’s ability or inability to reproduce is not a criterion for a state-sanctioned marriage license.


Now I totally agree with you on that.:hammer:


You are now grasping for straws.

[B]Not necessarily, I was simply using an animal who is presently on the Endnagered Species List as a simple explaination because we do have many records of Animals now that are extinct, but if their were a male and a female still alive and were NOT STERILE, would their species still have a chance?

(Yes) or (No)



In my humble opinion, you have not presented one single reasonable argument against same-sex marriage on this thread... :dgi:


I guess you would have gotten me like a dear in the headlights on that one but I can prove to you from my previous post that I said I am posting based on Biology, infact I dont even have to do that because you were the one to correct me with the proper term: HUMAN BIOLOGY 101 in which I am thankful because dispite our major differences, ya learn something new everyday.


You seem to be implying that same-sex marriage would exponentially increase the number of Gay men and women in the entire world... I believe your arguments have now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. :taped2:


You do realize that you messed up on that one because you cannot edit what I have already post unless you have my password. I say that because at no time, I have addressed Same Sex Marriage as the reason why I made that statement. Whether a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman are married or not, okay I will break it down:

If their were only men in the world, our species will die, if their were only women in the world, our species will die, nothing to do with Marriage or Religion, just Scientific Fact. I say that because the fact is a Homosexual Male couple will always need a seregate mother to produce a child and a Lesbian Female Couple will always need spe** from a Male. Human Biology 101. I one is completly missing from the equation, thats it, and that is thee most important differance between a heterosexual couple (who is not Sterile) and a homosexual couple who will always need the opposite sex to reproduce no matter if they are married or not.

Do not allow your anxiety over same-sex marriage to cloud your judgement and rational thought... Relax my brother, many in the GLBT Community describe themselves as “ Christians” and, in general, they adhere far more closely to the tenets of the Christian Faith than their heterosexual counterparts... In other words, heterosexuals do not have a monopoly on the Christan Faith...


You are halfway correct on that one I must admit because in and out of the church they are:

a) Many so-called Christians who are in the closet Homosexuals and

b) Many Homo-sexuals, Fornicators, and Sweethearters among many others who claim they are Christians not realizing the fact that when they are knowingly and intentionally commiting a sin because they see nothing wrong with it "AFTER" after accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, will still go to hell, unless they repent (EXCLUDING SUICIDE).

By the way, that is the only time I have made a statement based on Religion so I guess I cannot state that I have never posted based on Religion on this thread any more.

Only if you limit your premise to the incorrect assumption that only heterosexuals can reproduce. Trust, many GLBT folks have their own biological children and are the primary caretakers, providing a loving and safe home environment for their children...

Understood but again, a man and a woman will always be needed to produce that same child the Homosexual Couple takes care of right?



Nor did you choose your sexual orientation, so WHAT IS OUR POINT?

So are you stating that a heterosexual man/woman can never become a Homosexual man/woman and vice versa?

If you have all this respect for the “human dignity” of folks from the GLBT Community, as you purport, then why not extend support their right to a same-sex state-sanctioned marriage...

For the same reason why you would not support the right to a Hetero-Sexual State Santioned Marriage between a Man and a Woman a the correct way regardless of anything else. Just because I disagree with your Sexual Orientation does not mean I do not have respect for your "Human Dignity".

As I said before, I will say it again, I work with many Homosexuals/Lesbians/Fornicators/Sweethearters etc and do business with many of them and I have respect for them despite what we disagree on. All I try to do is to encourange them that Monogamy (being faithfull), and Marriage between a Man and a Woman is the natural way of life (nothing to do with Religion), where as the afore mentioned is morally and ethically wrong no matter how one tries to use their methods/motives/agendas to justify it being natural because it is not.



State-sanctioned marriage is very much within our control, as a society.

Correct

What we cannot control is our sexual orientation; in fact, modern scientific studies on human sexuality will prove you wrong.


I will ask this again, can a homosexual man or woman become a heterosexual man or woman anytime they please?

and

can a heterosexual man or woman become a homosexual man or woman at anytime they please?

I invite you to research these studies on-line and read the material for yourself...


Can you guarantee on your life that they are 100% accurate like how I can guarantee on my life that a man can never bear a child?

Ignorance is bliss, but in enlightenment is divine...

I totally Concur with that on more than anything else you posted FYI


I believe you are being facetious and insensitive with your reference to Lesbian Couples.


I cant see how if I have yet to call names or to describe to them as six year olds. My posts were to degrade no-one as I was using Human Biology as a source of referance admitting to the fact that my post were probably .01% related to the actual topic of this thread so I plead guilty to hijacking.

Whatever your motivation, again, my question to you is, what does this have to do with the granting of a state-sanctioned marriage license to same-sex couples?

My answer to that is above and on other post made earlier on this thread.
I am man enough to admit when I agree with one who states the obvious.


No scramming eagle sh*t! BUT, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GLBT FOLKS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Hey Hey Calm Down Man, as I said to Postmortem, despite our differance, we are all one people so no need for obscenity and verbal violence. Lets agree to disagree respectfully and responsibly without any name calling or personal insults to each other.

WHAT NEW IDEA? I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THIS THREAD FROM POST NUMBER ONE (1) TO THE PRESENT?


I admit that I did not read Page 1 but I will definetly read it and the others then I will respond to your immediate above comment.


Then, if the answer to your question is still not obvious, PM me, and I will break it down for you, “AS IF I WAS SPEAKING TO A SIX YEAR OLD CHILD”...


OH MY, I AM LOOKING AT THIS COMMENT AND SAYING TO MYSELF THAT YOU ARE ON OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO I HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR WHO HAS YET TO SEND ANY PERSONAL INSULT TO ANYONE INCLUDING MYSELF BUT I GUESS I WAS WRONG. OUT OF RESPECT FOR MYSELF, YOU (TRUTHHURTS), AND OTHERS, I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN WHAT YOU WANT TO TO DO WHICH WILL INEVITABLY RESULT IN SUCH A VERY SERIOUS THREAD TO BE CLOSED. I WILL NOT TRUTH HURTS AND QUITE FRANKLY I AM DISSAPPOINTED AND I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY TO YOU.

I AM GOING TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE... PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH... :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:


IT WAS A PLEASURE TRUTH HURTS, I REALLY THOUGHT THAT WE COULD COMMUNICATE AS MATURE ADULTS.

I personally would never ever.
Based on your last sentence I would like to ask you, Truth Hurts, and Postmortem or anyone else these two questions for me?
Can a Heterosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a homosexual?
Can a Homosexual man or woman at any moment in their life become a heterosexual?
A heterosexual can engauge in homosexual sex but it will not make them attracted to the same sex.
Just as you will never be attracted to the same sex. If you were raped by someone of the same sex would it make you homosexual? After all by choice or not you still had sex with someone of the same sex.
If a homosexual never has sex is he still homosexual??
If a gender dysphoric never crosses the gender boundery is he or she less gender dyaphoric?
If a right handed person loses their right hand are they now left handed?

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.
Ms. Russell, you are not only an alarmist, to suggest that the recent landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of California, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, would result in a “backlash of angry Americans, who will no longer tolerate the will of the people being overruled by a judiciary substituting its own enlightened judgement”, but you also demonstrated a total ignorance of the Constitution of the State of California and the events which lead up to this monumental legal decision. :footmouth

Allow me to enlighten you... I invite you to read the following article by Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York and the author of two New York Times Bestselling books:

THURSDAY MAY 15, 2008 13:50 EDT

California's marriage ruling -- what it means and what it doesn't mean

In a landmark ruling certain to spark far-reaching political and legal consequences, the California Supreme Court today ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it is unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage," even if such couples are granted the right to enter into "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" which provide most, or even all, of the same rights as "marriage." The Court is comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges. The ruling had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, but instead was based on the California State Constitution's guarantee of the "right to marry" and its guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.

Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution (emphasis in original):

[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.

The crux of the Court's ruling is grounded in what it called "the right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family." That right "constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons." The Court rejected a "separate-but-equal" arrangement for same-sex and opposite-sex couples -- where only the latter can enter into "marriage" -- because:

affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of of opposite-sex couples, [. . . and] assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same sex couples . . . poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.

Given the controversial nature of this ruling, there are certain to be all sorts of myths being spouted by pundits and various advocates who object to the outcome here. Thus, it is vital to note:

(1) No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that "marriage" should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage"?

To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I've written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court's decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure "judicial activism" (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one's preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of "judicial activism" without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of "judicial activism."

(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.

Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. While there was a referendum passed in 2000 limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, five years later (in 2005), California's state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so. Thus, even leaving aside constitutional guarantees (which, in a constitutional republic, trump public opinion), today's ruling is consistent with that state's democratic processes and public opinion, not a subversion of it.

(3)Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so. Thus, those states which wish to continue to deny basic marriage rights to their gay citizens will be free to continue to do so. Today's ruling applies only to California.

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 -- right before the midterm elections -- the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called "marriage").

As I noted at the time, all sorts of pundits and right-wing hacks shrilly predicted that the New Jersey gay rights ruling would lead to a major voter backlash that would mobilize social conservatives and destroy the Democrats' chances for victory in the midterm elections. Needless to say, for reasons I pointed to at the time, nothing of the sort happened. Our national elections are simply not determined by a decision by the state of California -- or New Jersey, Vermont or Massachusetts -- to extend equal rights to their gay citizens.

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

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.
As I said, you are an ALARMIST, indeed, and your veil threats to the Bahamian Judiciary is evidence of your desperate "judicial activism" in regards to the constitutionality of excluding same-sex couples in the Bahamas from entering into the state-sanctioned bond of marriage.

As you well know, your position on this issue is untenable, at best. Thus your reference to the U.S. Supreme Court Landmark Ruling, disallowing mandatory prayers in American Schools, based on the constitutional principle of “Separation of Church and State”, is a mere “smoke screens”, and, btw, has nothing to do with the legal rights of same-sex couples to marry in the Bahamas.

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.
Your self-righteous rhetoric, as if heterosexuals have an exclusively on the Christian Faith, is not only pompous, but ludicrous as well.

Also, your claim that same-sex marriage would usher in “the total destruction of what remains of the tattered moral fabric of Bahamian life”, is BASELESS, and FEAR MONGERING at its worse. Your spreading of discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension against members of the GLBT Community, in a homophobic society such as the Bahamas, as you well know, could insight violence by sick minded individuals against GLBT folks... HAVE YOU NO CONSCIENCE, MS. RUSSELL, HAVE YOU NO SHAME???!!! :realmad:

IF THIS IS YOUR IDEA OF THE CHRISTIAN “LOVE” THAT YOUR FAITH ESPOUSES, then I want any part of it...

Moreover, someone of your intelligence should be cognisant of the fact that our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle of a “separation of church and state”. As you well know, the Bahamas is NOT a Christian Nation, those constitution is based on this faith, as opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is governed by rules directly out of the Islamic religion. :taped2:

Further, how dare you call folks from the GLBT community who are in "committed" same-sex relationship a “failed experiment”? Many GLBT folks have not only co-habited for years, but some have also are raising children in a loving and caring environment. Your words are not only insensitive, but condescending and mean-spirited as well. :mad:

FYI, GLBT folks have loved and co-habited since the beginning of time. GLBT same-sex couples are simply asking for "equal protection" under the law, as citizens of this great democracy. :cheers:

Ms. Russell, Let us ignore for a moment the fact that many mainstream clergy around the world, in the major Judeo-Christian denominations, support the legalisation of gay marriage and already perform religious same-sex commitment ceremonies. The more fundamental problem with your reasoning is that the Bible is NOT a valid basis for legal arguments in a society that adheres to the "separation of church and state". :taped2:

Lastly, you are a master of deception, as you have failed to offer any valid legal arguments against the constitutionality of same-sex couples having access to a state-sanctioned marriage. :hammer:

BTW, you have a great day, as well!:sarcastic

I have a question: What is the Bahamas' stance on antidisestablishmentarianism (i.e. the seperation of Church and State)?

Because i dont want anyone to get us confused with the United States of America.

Anyway I took the liberty of googling it: i wish i was home, because you know the true stance of such things is never on the Internet. The US Department of State (smt) has an online report of our country's human rights practices for 2003.

Found an interesting piece of information (not saying that its binding, as in its primary, after all its from the United States):

c. Freedom of Religion

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. There was no separation of church and State in the country, and the Constitution explicitly calls for respect for Christian values; however, there were no allegations of violations of religious freedom during the year.

I cited that to ask: well if there is no seperation of Church and State in The Bahamas, would it not follow that the Church has an integral and indeed obligatory say on moral issues (in turn, laws) such as homosexual unions?

[B]The more fundamental problem with your reasoning is that the Bible is NOT a valid basis for legal arguments in a society that adheres to the "separation of church and state". :taped2:

Try not to get the Bahamas mixed up with the United States.

Try not to get the Bahamas mixed up with the United States.
Show me where in our Constitution that we are a Christian Nation, whose laws are taken directly from the bible... show me where we have an established state church... to make your job easier, here is a link to a copy of the Constitution of the Bahamas::hammer::hammer::hammer:

http://www.lexbahamas.com/bahconcitizen.htm

A heterosexual can engauge in homosexual sex but it will not make them attracted to the same sex.

Agreed because it would make them a homosexual (a person who has sex with the same gender regardless of whether they are attracted to each other or not, that happens with many heterosexuals too, they have sex with people they are not attracted to as well.

Just as you will never be attracted to the same sex.

I totally Concur

If you were raped by someone of the same sex would it make you homosexual?

No because the rapist was the one initiating and it was non-consentual by the victim, I know of someone (a male) who is not a homosexual but he was raped 5 times in prison before he came out in the fall of 06.


After all by choice or not you still had sex with someone of the same sex.

Exactly ""BY CHOICE" if your are the one initiating or recieving willing in having sex with the same Gender, your GAY plain and simple.

If a homosexual never has sex is he still homosexual??

No because a homo-sexual is one who ENGAGES IN SEX WITH THE SAME GENDER, otherwise the simple answer to that question is obvious, He or She is A VIRGIN.



If a gender dysphoric never crosses the gender boundery is he or she less gender dyaphoric?
If a right handed person loses their right hand are they now left handed?

If they have to support a family and pay bills, they better be because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.


Vicky nothing personal but you have yet to truely prove Biology Wrong but I would like to hear your response.

Try not to get the Bahamas mixed up with the United States.




:hammer::hammer: