... YOU mess with importing foreign unknown law breaking people disrespect us as a people YOU will go to FOX HILL and yes, I will be right there to turn the KEY.. YOU can ount on that.. YOU and handsome SPAMSTOPPER.... BOTH of you can get married in the same cell...... THE POLICE ARE NOW ON ALERT for you... and Mr. Handsome... SPAMSTOPPER...
BUT I will not feed the animals any more.. cause action speaks louder then words....
are the 'laws' foreign and unknown because you can't read them, or because you don't understand them:jawdroop:

Is this law (Marriage Act) in anyway infringing on the human rights of homosexuals? No no, dont tell me that's obvious. Show me the citation, and the right OUTLINED in the Bahamas Independence Order.
Actually I was not referring to the Marriage Act as being potentially unconstitutional. Vicky is absolutely correct in her statement that it is an unwritten policy in the law. I clearly spoke to the issue as being a common law doctrine versus a constitutional fundamental right and freedom. If we could frame the issue as finely as possible, it would really amount to the question of whether or not the common law doctrine of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is saved law under the constitution or is it not saved as it infringes the fundamental rights and freedoms of homosexuals. This was the question I wanted you all to address yourselves to and in my mind it's not even a question of law but of social policy. Law cannot answer this question, it rests in the individual discretion of the court. If the court is of the view that the custom ought to be upheld which is a valid view, then homosexuals do not have a right to marry, but if the court views the issue otherwise then the constitution can be interpreted generously and purposively so as to give gays a right to marry. This in my opinion seems to be the central question in issue.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]... YOU mess with importing foreign unknown law breaking people disrespect us as a people YOU will go to FOX HILL and yes, I will be right there to turn the KEY.. YOU can ount on that.. YOU and handsome SPAMSTOPPER.... BOTH of you can get married in the same cell...... THE POLICE ARE NOW ON ALERT for you... and Mr. Handsome... SPAMSTOPPER..

we will see you in Sandilands first.
i am da internet po po, so alert to dat. :hammer:

Poor catholics, looka what they have to put up with.

There's a cell in Sandilands with Watsayu name on it .. it say ..
Watsayu was here for many years, and Watsayu will be back again ...

Fisherman puts head in the sand on this one

It will NEVER happen and I would like to see your llikeness IN FOX HILL , O you maybe very comfortatble there.. SEEMS to me that is what you asking for .. you know what they say.. you always get what you ask for...
so why u wish for poor Vicky to go to Foxhill, because she speaks her mind and trys to educate others, who hate so much? Looks like u need to join her and maybe u will learn to hate less and respect more the freedom of speach. What did poor Vicky do to you>>

no, no let them try because I WAN see what will happen to them, they have their countries mix right up
May Gods blessings go with you . remember do on to others as u would have them do unto you

how come ugly people are allowed to get married? Thats what SpamStopper wanna know :hammer:
cause everybody needs someone to LOVE

cause everybody needs someone to LOVE
true .. yah know SpamStopper was just pulling a watsayu :D

there r no ugly people in the world.
sorry to disagree with you, you are referring to looks only, but ulgy is what is protrayed form the inside of peoples hearts when they show only hate and disrespect for others, God said to love each other and not to judge That is his Job to do and not ours, so I say yes we have alot of ulgy people around

Actually I was not referring to the Marriage Act as being potentially unconstitutional. Vicky is absolutely correct in her statement that it is an unwritten policy in the law. I clearly spoke to the issue as being a common law doctrine versus a constitutional fundamental right and freedom. If we could frame the issue as finely as possible, it would really amount to the question of whether or not the common law doctrine of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is saved law under the constitution or is it not saved as it infringes the fundamental rights and freedoms of homosexuals. This was the question I wanted you all to address yourselves to and in my mind it's not even a question of law but of social policy. Law cannot answer this question, it rests in the individual discretion of the court. If the court is of the view that the custom ought to be upheld which is a valid view, then homosexuals do not have a right to marry, but if the court views the issue otherwise then the constitution can be interpreted generously and purposively so as to give gays a right to marry. This in my opinion seems to be the central question in issue.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

common law is imported when there is no statute/law/legislation addressing the issue...
as soon as legislation is created the 'common law' provisions become void...

common law is imported when there is no statute/law/legislation addressing the issue...
as soon as legislation is created the 'common law' provisions become void...
That is not correct. The common law is the system of jurisprudence developed by the courts in England and is the name of our legal regime. Common law is basically the broad and detailed outline of our entire legal system. It is true to say that when there is no statute law addressing a provision then common law or case law might address the position. In this case, the relevant legislation ie the Marriage Act does not define marriage. This means that it presupposes a definition already. The only alternative source of a definition and description of marriage must come from common law. The presumption of statutory interpretation is that an Act of Parliament does not affect the common law unless it explicitly states that it does so. In this case it does not, and it does not state that it does so. Therefore the common law stands.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

That is not correct. The common law is the system of jurisprudence developed by the courts in England and is the name of our legal regime. Common law is basically the broad and detailed outline of our entire legal system. It is true to say that when there is no statute law addressing a provision then common law or case law might address the position. In this case, the relevant legislation ie the Marriage Act does not define marriage. This means that it presupposes a definition already. The only alternative source of a definition and description of marriage must come from common law. The presumption of statutory interpretation is that an Act of Parliament does not affect the common law unless it explicitly states that it does so. In this case it does not, and it does not state that it does so. Therefore the common law stands.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
it does define marriage...
it simply does not state that the two people getting married must be a man and a woman, a heterosexual couple

we have the Common Law Tradition here, but that is different from relying on common law where there is no statute law addressing the issue

... YOU mess with importing foreign unknown law breaking people disrespect us as a people YOU will go to FOX HILL and yes, I will be right there to turn the KEY.. YOU can ount on that.. YOU and handsome SPAMSTOPPER.... BOTH of you can get married in the same cell...... THE POLICE ARE NOW ON ALERT for you... and Mr. Handsome... SPAMSTOPPER...
BUT I will not feed the animals any more.. cause action speaks louder then words....

:realmad:

it does define marriage...
it simply does not state that the two people getting married must be a man and a woman, a heterosexual couple
we have the Common Law Tradition here, but that is different from relying on common law where there is no statute law addressing the issue
And that's splitting hairs.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

I dont even know what to say. The law on this point seems to be equally split so that it's a real gray area of the law. The conservative school argues that custom prescribes marriage as being a union between a man and a woman and there is some case law from the UK leaning towards that direction(viz Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Assoc (UK-CA)).
The liberal school contends that to hold to such a position would be anachronistic in light of changing social morals and values. It would be discriminatory to hold that heterosexuals can marry while homosexuals cannot. This view is not without merit. In statutory interpretation the male includes the female and the female is read to include the male. Therefore, if we apply this principle of law to the contemporary model of marriage then gay's could legally marry. But this position requires more if it is to be equally potent as against the conservative school's argument.
Perhaps it can be reasoned that if the court is to hold to the position that marriage is a union between a man and a woman then that would discriminate against the rights of homosexual couples and thereby violate Art 26 the right against discrimination. While gays have no right to marry, and have no legal prohibition against marriage to prevent the discrimination or to stave it off the court could couple a legitimate expectation argument with the broad ambit of the redress clause (Art 28) and give gays a substantive right to marry because the redress clause was used to give rise to new remedies against infringement of fundamental rights in cases such as Maharaj v AG, Demerieux v AG, and Gairy v AG. Add to that the fact that the constitution is supreme law according to Art 2 therefore it overrides inferior sources of law like custom or the common law. It would take a very bold judge to make such a ruling. I would probably do it if I were the judge but the court of appeal would reverse me in the same day. The Privy Council would reverse them though.
I suggest that the gay community find two homosexuals that intend to get married and they file an originating summons with the court to determine the question of law.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

What constitution are you referring?

Not dat gender mutually exclusive conservative monstrosity called Order in Chief 1969 . . .nee 59 aye?

And further more. . .as simpleton as da "where ya ger stop" argument does sound. . .ya notions of discrimnation in OIC begs da question, "who nex". . .hence an infinite regression into arnachy!! Not dat permission fer same sexed marriage is anachy. . .but ya assertions in reason fer establishing discrimination under OIC 69 is a natural progression of dat position. . totall "non-discrimatory" from any type of behaviour dat humans can imagine up dat may require restriction fer da betterment of order and civil dynamism!!!!!! After all er dem lil "lesser and common" laws are moved outta we ways!!

Read da preamble ta OIC 69 and you will see dat da supreme "gender specificity" is enshrined in dat document and dat da judo-christian's socio-religion view of gender roles is expected, rather than suggested.. .dis certified and sealed by HM privy council in 68!! Clearly you don find mutually inclusive gender roles enshrined in da judo-christian faith do you? So ha did you deduced gender mutuality. . .or dat third gender from da constitution?!!

Another ting I noted in you post is dat you ascribed inertial properties to OIC 69 as inherited right og gays ta marriage and at da same time require fluidity to permit an "divergent" social phenominon to be permitted in a society dat wont to restrict da same action! Dese two are mutually exclusive in nature. . .inertia is anti-fluidity!! It is either static or flexible!!

In conclusion, your reasoning is quit easy ta refuted based on human history really. . .as one pilosophy professor put it: "there is no such ting as absolute freedom ta do anything in dis life"! Therefore, (one of ma favorites) statements such as: "innocent til proven guilty" are bullshed!! Because absolute freedom requires dat there be no arrest, bails, courts or any type of removal of freedom until one is proven guilty! For example, OIC 69 gives absolute freedom and also permits "curbing" of dat freedom through arrest and hurling before a court of law. . .all breaches of dat gaurenteed freedom. . .before proven guilty!

Because iffin one can be touched, according ta OIC 69 which gaurentees freedom from curbing of associations before "proven" guilty, then we can have freedom taken away. . .before proven guilty. . .which is oxymoronic!! Hence da statement of freedom is taged wid precursors such as " social reasonability". . .anteceding the takin of personal freedoms!!

Da same can be said of male and female not individually mentioned in OIC 69 as makes da document a-sexual. . .da principle of prior mention militates against such a notion as not mentioning gender specifically gives rise to the constitutional right ta "inclusion" of a third gender. . .homosexual!

So maybe ya may don wan used dat argument any more cos after all, da "term" homosexual was not used in da constitution as well. . .and as such, according ta ya reasoning. . .constitutionally, dere be not a third gender ta consider fer marriage cos it don exist! Therefore, there cannot be no gaurentees by da constitution fer gays ta married cos dem een mentioned there!!!:hammer::cutie: