THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED.....:hammer:
SMT!...

c
You speak of respect, and then show a blatant disregard for GLBTQ folks who you do not even know or have never met.




There's a "Q" now! There wasn't one before. It was just GLBT. What da heck. You let Quebeckers in? This is discrimination I tell you. What about the poor dwarfs? And shouldn't Harelips be given a chance as well?

THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED.....:hammer:
"OFFICIALLY CLOSED by the “voice of morality”??? John, seriously, you are both delusional and arrogant. In any event, I believe I am wasting my breath responding to you at this point, so to paraphrase a statement you made in an earlier post, "let us respectfully agree to disagree"...

However, as advocate for same-sex marriage, I am compelled to make the following statement to all and sundry, as you are apparently not the only one on BI to dismiss this important issue with a mere pompous statement:

The fight for the human rights of members in the GLBT Community, who are in same-sex committed relationships, to marry will continue here in the Bahamas until justice prevails. Just because you happen to disagree does not mean IT SIMPLY IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY... :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

The right to a state-sanctioned marriage for same-sex couples, with all its legal and social advantage enjoyed by heterosexuals, is a fundamental human right guaranteed under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

The following are excerpts from the article, Same-Sex Marriage, by Gregory A. Johnson, from glbtq:

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/same_sex_marriage.html

Same-sex couples have been fighting for the freedom to marry since the dawn of the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement. This struggle is important to the movement because of the myriad of rights and responsibilities married couples enjoy and because of the special status marriage has most countries.

A 1996 General Accounting Office study found that federal statutes and regulations confer 1,096 rights and benefits to married couples... Many of these rights and responsibilities (such as the right to sue for wrongful death, the right to family medical leave, and the spousal privilege against testifying in court) cannot be obtained through private contract; rather, they are available only through the state's grant of a marriage license.

Committed same-sex couples seek the right to marry for the happiness, the sense of worth, and the social respect that comes with marriage. With marriage the community will mature, in the words of Professor William Eskridge, "from sexual liberty to civilized commitment."

Early Cases

The first same-sex marriage case was filed in Minnesota in May of 1970, a mere nine months after the Stonewall riots, by Jack Baker and Michael McConnell. Baker and McConnell relied on the United States Supreme Court 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, but the Minnesota Supreme Court... refused to consider Baker and McConnell's equal protection claim, holding instead that "[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman . . . is as old as the book of Genesis." Baker and McConnell appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which summarily dismissed the appeal for "lack of a substantial federal question."

Massachusetts

Same-sex marriage advocates may finally have achieved their breakthrough with the historic decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health (2003). In that case seven same-sex couples brought suit seeking the right to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution. The court found for the plaintiffs. It concluded, "a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

...The court rejected the argument that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow "trivialize or destroy the institution of marriage." To that it said, "the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. . . . Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race."

Victory in California

On February 12, 2004, San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Literally overnight thousands of same-sex couples converged on city hall for their licenses. Riveting footage of couples waiting in line for hours and having their unions blessed on the steps of city hall brought national and international attention. These marriages, unfortunately, were soon nullified by the California Supreme Court, which did not at that time address the substantive question of the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage.

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Court struck down two state laws that banned same-sex marriage and declared that the domestic partnership law was not sufficient.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald George declared that the right to marriage is a fundamental right that must be accorded to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. “The right to marry,” he wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Basing its ruling on the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the Court also adopted a new standard of review in determining claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Rather than the "rational basis" test, the Court ruled that claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation require "strict scrutiny."

The ruling by the widely respected California Supreme Court is of enormous significance. Not only is California the largest of the American states, containing more than ten per cent of the nation's population, but it is a trend-setter. Other states are likely to follow California's lead.

Dutch, Belgian, and Spanish Marriage

On April 1, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, with the "Act on the Opening up of Marriage." The Act simply yet boldly proclaims, "A marriage can be contracted by two persons of different sex or of the same sex."

Belgium became the second country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage, with a law that took effect in May 2003. However, unlike in the Netherlands, same-sex married couples in Belgium are still not allowed to adopt.

In June 2005, Spain became the third country to legalize same-sex marriage. The Spanish law allows same-sex couples to adopt. Upon the law's passage, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said, "We are not legislating . . . for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives." Noting the developments in the Netherlands and Belgium, Prime Minister Zapatero proclaimed, "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven . . . by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."

Canada

After a protracted struggle, Canada recently became the fourth country to allow same-sex marriage. The drive for marriage in Canada achieved a significant victory with the Canadian Supreme Court's 1999 decision in M. v. H. The Court ruled 8-1 that the exclusion of same-sex partners from the definition of spouse in the Ontario Family Law Act for purposes of spousal support violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Activists quickly filed same-sex marriage lawsuits in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. Appeals courts in all three of these provinces declared that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Appeal Court ordered the government to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

Since the time of the favorable opinion in Ontario in 2003, thousands of lesbian and gay couples, including many same-sex couples from the United States, have received their marriage licenses in Ontario, Quebec, and other several provinces that subsequently legalized same-sex marriage through court action. Now same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country.

South Africa

In 2005, South Africa's Constitutional Court found that the denial of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples violated the country's constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court did not specify a remedy, but gave Parliament until December 2006 to adopt legislation rectifying the injustice.

Despite opposition from church groups and traditional leaders, the Parliament adopted legislation that both created civil unions and legalized same-sex marriage. On December 1, 2006, South Africa became the fifth nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Latin America

Although a popular perception is that the countries of Latin America lag behind the United States in granting rights to gay and lesbian couples, that perception is belied by recent developments. In 2000, the Brazilian government extended de facto legal recognition to same-sex relationships by allowing gay and lesbian couples the right to inherit each other's pension and social security benefits. The Brazilian policy requires applicants to prove a "stable union."

In 2002, the city of Buenos Aires adopted a domestic partnership ordinance that granted legal status to same-sex couples and a handful of rights such as hospital visits and pension benefits. Similarly, a bill was recently introduced in Chile's Congress to recognize same-sex couples.
In 2006, Mexico City's legislative assembly adopted a domestic partnership ordinance that provides same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage, including inheritance rights and pension benefits, though not adoption rights

Conclusion

While progress abroad has been steady, efforts to achieve same-sex marriage in the United States have been slowed by well-organized opposition from the Roman Catholic Church and the religious right. Lesbian and gay couples continue to press their case in court and before the public. In time this country may catch up to where other countries already are.

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/same_sex_marriage.html

There's a "Q" now! There wasn't one before. It was just GLBT. What da heck. You let Quebeckers in? This is discrimination I tell you. What about the poor dwarfs? And shouldn't Harelips be given a chance as well?
You are an astute observer, yes there was a "Q" added. And no, it does not discriminates, the "Q" can even include YOU, if you are so inclined...

For your edification, I offer the following excerpts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

GLBT (also LGBT) is an acronym referring collectively to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual people. In use since the 1990s, the term GLBT is an adaptation of the initialism GLB. In modern use, the acronym relates to the diversity of gay culture.

Each term in the initialism is used to refer to members of the specific group and to the community (subculture) that surrounds them. This can include rights advocates, artists, authors, etc.

Gay
In this context, gay refers specifically to males with a sexual orientation or affectional orientation predominantly (not necessarily exclusively) toward males.

Lesbian
In this context, lesbian refers to females with a sexual orientation or affectional orientation toward females.

Bisexual
Bisexual refers to people who are attracted to more than just one sex or gender. While traditionally bisexuality has been defined as 'an attraction to both males and females', it also encompasses Pansexuality, 'an attraction where the sex of the partner is of little or no relevance' (i.e. to male, female, and any other gender identity). Bisexuality covers anywhere between the sexual orientations of asexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality.

Transgender
Transgender is generally used as a catch-all umbrella term for a variety of individuals, behaviours, and groups centered around the partial reversal of gender roles. A common definition is "People who feel that the gender they were assigned (usually at birth) is a false or incomplete description of themselves." Included in this definition are a number of well known sub-categories such as transvestite and sometimes genderqueers.

GLBT History
Up until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, there were no widely known terms for describing the people in these groups other than the derogatory terms used by the straight community; third gender was in use before the second world war, but fell out of use afterwards. As people began organizing for their sexual rights, they needed a term that would say who they were in a positive way.

The first term used, homosexual, was thought to carry negative connotations and has tended to be replaced by gay. As lesbians forged their own identity, the term gay and lesbian became more common. This was soon followed by bisexual and transgender people also asking for recognition as legitimate categories within the larger community. However, after the initial euphoria of the beginnings of the Stonewall riots wore off, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a change in perception and some gays and lesbians were not very accepting of bisexual or transgender people.

It was thought that transsexual people were acting out stereotypes; and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were simply afraid to "come out" and be honest about their identity. Like many organisations, the movement underwent growing pains, and these are seen even today in the fact that there is no agreement as to whether the acronym should be GLBT or LGBT.

Not until the 1990s did it become common to speak of "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" with equal respect within the movement. Although the GLBT community has seen some controversy regarding universal acceptance of different members (transgender individuals, in particular, have sometimes been marginalized by the larger GLBT community), the term GLBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion. Despite the fact that GLBT does not nominally encompass all individuals in the queer communities, the term is generally accepted to include those not identified in the standard, four letter acronym. Overall, the use of the term GLBT has, over time, largely aided in bringing otherwise marginalized individuals into the general community.


Variants
Many variants exist, including variations which merely change the order of the letters; but GLBT or LGBT are the most common terms and the ones most frequently seen in current usage. Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have more feminist and queer connotations than "GLBT."...

It may also include additional Qs for queer and/or questioningg (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (GLBTQ, LGBTQ, GLBTQQ,?).

Variant terms do not typically represent political differences within the community, however, but arise simply from the usage preferences of individuals and groups...

No it's not :shaky:

...there wasn't a growing problem of homosexuals as it is now.
Oh, the ignorance. Not just in those words alone, but in the fact that this individual thinks that homosexuals haven't been around since the beg. of time.
However, if you ARE a homo living in the Bahamas...ya may wanna keep it to urself til they find that killer. JMO.
Bahamas seems to follow America in their laws...just very slowly. It's gonna happen eventually...this marriage thing.

The only problem I see there is “....and for the public interest...” There are those that would fight to show that same sex marriage is not in the public interest. With the religious climate we have, I could well see that as a viable argument to many.

thank you, i was wondering which sharp eye would spot that particular spot. They would have a rough time with this. it's so ambiguous...... the law makers were very smart back in the day. now the burden of proof would lay on the homosexuals to prove that it is not in the publics interest to stop homosexuals from getting married....... good luck there... this aint the states......if ya'll want ter see bay street jam up with all kinds of picketing folks then go ahead.
i'm just saying........
MAN YA'LL I GONE ONE MINUTE AND YINNA ALREADY HAVE 44 PGS OF THIS HERE? HOW DA HELL I SUPPOSE TER CATCH UP?

correct me if i am wrong but didnt u annouce on here that raibow alliance was no more vicky?

thank you, i was wondering which sharp eye would spot that particular spot. They would have a rough time with this. it's so ambiguous...... the law makers were very smart back in the day. now the burden of proof would lay on the homosexuals to prove that it is not in the publics interest to stop homosexuals from getting married....... good luck there... this aint the states......if ya'll want ter see bay street jam up with all kinds of picketing folks then go ahead.
i'm just saying........
MAN YA'LL I GONE ONE MINUTE AND YINNA ALREADY HAVE 44 PGS OF THIS HERE? HOW DA HELL I SUPPOSE TER CATCH UP?
from a legal stand-point I think that burden of proof (dis-proof) would be on the opponents of gay marriage...

correct me if i am wrong but didnt u annouce on here that raibow alliance was no more vicky?
yeah that's correct it was announced...

This story appeared in The Tribune today by Taneka Thompson. According to the Rainbow Alliance there is no law preventing gays from marrying in the Bahamas.
A LOCAL gay rights activist last night challenged the Bahamian judiciary to present specific reference to any law that precludes gay couples from legally marrying in the Bahamas.
Rainbow Alliance spokesperson Erin Greene argued that one reason gays are not allowed to marry in the Bahamas is the “perpetuation of archaic fundamental beliefs.”
But the “will of the gay community” to speak out publicly against these infringements is lacking in The Bahamas, said Ms Greene.
Her comments came in the wake of an historic ruling by a California Supreme Court which overturned its ban on gay marriage last week.
“The truth is there are no laws that preclude gay people from getting married, it’s an archaic interpretation of the law or a particular archaic policy coming out of the Registrar’s Office,” Ms Greene told The Tribune.
“The Rainbow Alliance challenges any lawyer or member of the Registrar’s Office to provide the particular - the specific law - that precludes same-sex couples from getting married.
“It’s just the perpetuation of archaic fundamental beliefs that have permeated our legal system and our democracy and that’s not exclusive to the issue of gay marriage. Human beings have the right to be in relationships with whom they want, citizens of any country have the right to participate equally (in society), to have equal access to the benefits that the government or the country provides.”
Ms Greene contended the Bahamian gay community had the same desires as their American counterparts to wed, but have not been outspoken in an effort to overturn “archaic” laws for fear of being “outed” or persecuted.
“Well, everybody feels that they should have the right to get married but everybody is afraid to take those steps which require an ‘outing’ of any sort.
“Gay people want to live in healthy communities, they want to (have) healthy families and they want to build healthy relationships, but you don’t want to be martyred or crucified or murdered to do that - they would rather build their lives outside of the institutions of the country.”
She said the recent “overturn” in California is not cause for celebration because the freedom to marry is a democratic right.
“It is not a celebratory event because we know what the law says, we know that this is what a democracy provides for all of its citizens and we know that anything else is a deliberate attempt to oppress and marginalise the gay community.”
A California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage on Thursday meaning homosexual couples in the state are free to marry.
The historic ruling made California the second state - with Massachusetts being the first - in the US to effectively legalise gay marriage.
A seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favour of US plaintiffs who contend that restricting marriage to heterosexuals was discriminatory, according to the Associated Press.
California’s courts have been noted for handing down ground-breaking rulings in the past.
The state’s courts were the first to eliminate laws barring inter-racial marriage in the 20th century.
*****************************
California will correct this insult of the wishes of the majority of families, caused by the obstruction of activist judges in their ruling to allow homosexual marriages, on November 04, 2008 when they unanimously vote "YES" to Proposition 8.
This press release issued yesterday explains further:
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melany Ethridge 214.912.8934
melany@alarryross.com
Jodi Phillip 972.267.1111
jodi@alarryross.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CALIFORNIANS RALLY TO DEFEND MARRIAGE:
Churches across State Host Simulcast Event to Arm Congregants
with ‘ABCs of Protecting Marriage’ to Share with CA Voters
LA MESA, Calif., Oct. 22, 2008 – An army of voters committed to defining marriage as between one man and one woman in the state of California was trained Sunday evening in the “ABCs of Protecting Marriage,” originating from Skyline Church near San Diego.
Hosted by Skyline pastor Jim Garlow, the ninety-minute rally was simulcast to nearly 200 more churches around the state, teaching those in attendance how to argue in defense of marriage as they interact with friends and family leading up to the Nov. 4 vote on Proposition 8.
“We are in a race to the finish line, and it is way too close to call,” Garlow said. “We need to be out there educating everyone we come into contact with about what’s at stake if same-sex marriage is allowed to stand in California.”
Garlow ran through the alphabet, letters A through J, using memory tools to aid the audience members in recalling important points about the arguments to support traditional marriage. “A is for Activist judges, who overturned the will of the people after 61 percent voted for traditional marriage in 2000,” he said. “It’s time to restore to the people that which was taken from them.”
A variety of special guests were invited to speak in support of the arguments, with Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel featured in this first category. Staver served as the attorney who pled before the State Supreme Court that a majority of Californians did not support same-sex marriage.
Other guests included David and Tonia Parker from Massachusetts, who spoke about “C is for Children.” David was jailed for asking his kindergartner’s school to notify him when they would be teaching about homosexual marriage, so that he could remove his son from the classroom, rather than have him taught that same-sex marriage was equal to traditional marriage.
Speaking about “F is for Freedoms,” several other guests represented personal and religious freedoms that had been attacked since the advent of same-sex marriage: Pastor Ake Green from Sweden, who was sentenced to prison for preaching from the book of Romans about homosexuality; Bob Tyler, the attorney representing physicians from San Diego’s North County Women’s Medical Care Group who were convicted in a discriminatory lawsuit for refusing to inseminate a lesbian couple; Chuck Limandri, the attorney for California firefighters forced to march in a homosexual pride parade against their will; and photographers Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin of New Mexico, who were fined and are still in litigation for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”
“If same-sex marriage is allowed to stand in California, we will see these and many other instances where our personal and religious freedoms will come under attack,” Garlow said.
Under “H is for Homosexual Lifestyle Choices,” it was underscored that such a lifestyle is a choice and is something that a person can change. This argument calls into question those who would equate homosexuality with skin color and plead discrimination. One of the comments that got the most appreciation from the crowd was Pastor Shawn Mitchell of New Venture Christian Fellowship in Oceanside who, in speaking of former homosexuals in his church, said, “I don’t have any ex-black persons in my church.”
— 30 —
NOTE TO EDITORS: For more information about the Protect Marriage effort, or to arrange an interview with Pastor Jim Garlow or other pastors please contact Melany Ethridge at 972.267.1111 or via e-mail at melany@alarryross.com. A copy of the “ABCs of Protecting Marriage” is available at this link: http://www.protectmarriageca.com/assets/ABCs092408.pdf.

What confuses me is that law or no law why are these peole fighting so hard to participate in something that is a christian ceremony binding the union of 1 woman and 1 man? It's like being a jew and fighting for the right to participate in a muslum ceremony.

What confuses me is that law or no law why are these peole fighting so hard to participate in something that is a christian ceremony binding the union of 1 woman and 1 man? It's like being a jew and fighting for the right to participate in a muslum ceremony.

Perhaps, Bahamians will have to take a definitive stand on this issue soon, or face a similar challenge as the Californians.

correct me if i am wrong but didnt u annouce on here that raibow alliance was no more vicky?
note the date of dis tred.

What confuses me is that law or no law why are these peole fighting so hard to participate in something that is a christian ceremony binding the union of 1 woman and 1 man? It's like being a jew and fighting for the right to participate in a muslum ceremony.

They are fighting to CHANGE the laws, not participate in a heterosexual marriage. You'd think that'd be obvious. ;)