And that's splitting hairs.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
welcome to the law
the law is pedantic
didn't you learn that on your first day of law school

:realmad:

move over, save some of that wall for SpamStopper's head :realmad:

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:
I like what you say. It shows analysis. Sounds like I really gat some of you thinking. You raise a number of points. I cannot now address each of them but I will attempt to touch them all with a broadstroke approach. First, you're absolutely right. But a lot of things people dont take into consideration when they interpret the law is that a large part of it depends on the values and predilections of the judge in the individual (hypothetical) case at bar. You are absolutely right in your position that to give a right to marry to homosexuals is an act for parliament and would open the door to a wide variety of unwanted litigation. But the provisions in the constitution make provision for this deluge of litigation because it buttresses our fundamental rights along side the public interest. So in taking into consideration the rights of a litigant the court has also to take into consideration the rights of everybody else. Because buddy, your rights end where mine begin. It is therefore a very valid and valuable position that you raise. And I wont deny that, but if the judge in the case of which we speak does not possess that value system or regard that to be relevant at the moment, then alla dat goin out the window. Or, he might raise it and dismiss it.
As regards the question of gender and the constitution. You're right there again in part but also wrong in part. It is true that the principle I mentioned about the male including the female is not mentioned in the Constitution. You're absolutely right on that one and I concede the point. I mention it because the Bahamas Constitution speaks to saving law that existed prior to the Constitution, and in this instance the principle I use is one of common law which pre-dates the Constitution, is saved by it, and therefore is subsumed and superceded by the Constitution. The Constitution also adopts and accepts the common law as it was prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The principle also finds strength in the Interpretation Act.
I dont see homosexuals as coming under the category of gender as Vicky argues it. I see them as coming more under the category of creed. Be careful when you interpret the Constitution tho, the Privy Council said in Fisher that we are to give it a generous and purposive interpretation avoiding the austerity of tabulated legalism. Dont ask me what that means I just think it's beautiful.
At the end of your response you basically adopt the floodgates argument as a means of disposing of the case for gay marriage. That too is a powerful tool in the armoury of lawyers, it is a tool that I myself do not use though. It's very illogical. If we class one case with a group of other cases then rather than looking at that individual case instead we decide cases based on what may or may not happen down the road in fantasy land. I like to say judge each case on its particular facts. I never once advocated for gay rights, I never advocated against gay rights, when the case is made either way I will look at the facts, look at the law and arrive at my own conclusions, I would ask you to do the same also. Dont worry about them other cases, worry about the case at bar.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

what do you think will happen??
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-
Protection form discrimination on the grounds of race, etc.
26.- (1) Subject to the provision of paragraph (4), (5) and (9) of this Article no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (6), (9) and (10) of this Article, no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the function of any public office or any public authority.
(3) In this Article, the expression "discriminatory" means affording different treatment to different person attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin political opinions colour or creed whereby person of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which person of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description.
(4) Paragraph (1) of this Article shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision-
a) for the appropriation of revenues or other funds of The Bahamas or for the imposition of taxation (including the levying of feed for the grant of licenses); or
b) with respect to the entry into or exclusion from, or the employment, engaging in any business or profession, movement of residence within, The Bahamas of persons who are not citizens of The Bahamas ; or
c) with respect to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution f property on death or other matters of personal law ; or
d) whereby persons of any such description as is mentioned in paragraph (3) for this Article may be subjected to any disability or restriction or may be accorded any privilege or advantage which having regard to its nature and to special circumstances pertaining to those persons or to persons of any other such description, is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society ; or
its only a matter of challenging and unwriten policy vs our Constitution.
Nah ya know it never was any never-mind ta me who ya grinnin wid. . .but chile yall better read dat lil more closely ya hear. . .das da same section das ger "block" yinna from doin wha yinna wan do!! For example, 26:3c. . .read it fer yasef!!! Das da same constitution geein government da power ta "curb" some freedoms in marriage!!!!:hammer: Sooooooooooooo da power of da perceived "discriminations" in not granting homosexual marriages is constitutionally granted for governments ta do so!!

Vicky. . .I isa fraid dat yall ger lose dis one chile!!! Yinna need ta come up wid someting better dan dat section. . .das wha killin yinna fer real!! And dog eat ya lunch iffin dat one requires a refferandum ta change. . .yall dead inda water. . .een ger never happen!!:hammer:

welcome to the law
the law is pedantic
didn't you learn that on your first day of law school
You're right. On my first day they said 'Your opinion is irrelevant. Anything you say you need to back up with an authority.'
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

... 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....
I import no one silly and I break no laws.

OOOoh the secrets out and the policy may soon be challanged
O ye who keep trying to say RAB is defunct
loose lips sink ships. All in good time all in good time.

You right "All in good time" Till god sort you all out. Now that y'all find the loop hole which 2 of you ga give me some good reading and test the christian council and the bahamian people?

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
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??

You're right. On my first day they said 'Your opinion is irrelevant. Anything you say you need to back up with an authority.'
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
keith bell say call him
da autorities on da way:jawdroop::jawdroop:

You right "All in good time" Till god sort you all out. Now that y'all find the loop hole which 2 of you ga give me some good reading and test the christian council and the bahamian people?
She intorduced herself on this thread.
You refer to God the Creator understand this nothing exists without it being the Creator intent.

I like what you say. It shows analysis. Sounds like I really gat some of you thinking. You raise a number of points. I cannot now address each of them but I will attempt to touch them all with a broadstroke approach. First, you're absolutely right. But a lot of things people dont take into consideration when they interpret the law is that a large part of it depends on the values and predilections of the judge in the individual (hypothetical) case at bar. You are absolutely right in your position that to give a right to marry to homosexuals is an act for parliament and would open the door to a wide variety of unwanted litigation. But the provisions in the constitution make provision for this deluge of litigation because it buttresses our fundamental rights along side the public interest. So in taking into consideration the rights of a litigant the court has also to take into consideration the rights of everybody else. Because buddy, your rights end where mine begin. It is therefore a very valid and valuable position that you raise. And I wont deny that, but if the judge in the case of which we speak does not possess that value system or regard that to be relevant at the moment, then alla dat goin out the window. Or, he might raise it and dismiss it.
As regards the question of gender and the constitution. You're right there again in part but also wrong in part. It is true that the principle I mentioned about the male including the female is not mentioned in the Constitution. You're absolutely right on that one and I concede the point. I mention it because the Bahamas Constitution speaks to saving law that existed prior to the Constitution, and in this instance the principle I use is one of common law which pre-dates the Constitution, is saved by it, and therefore is subsumed and superceded by the Constitution. The Constitution also adopts and accepts the common law as it was prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The principle also finds strength in the Interpretation Act.
I dont see homosexuals as coming under the category of gender as Vicky argues it. I see them as coming more under the category of creed. Be careful when you interpret the Constitution tho, the Privy Council said in Fisher that we are to give it a generous and purposive interpretation avoiding the austerity of tabulated legalism. Dont ask me what that means I just think it's beautiful.
At the end of your response you basically adopt the floodgates argument as a means of disposing of the case for gay marriage. That too is a powerful tool in the armoury of lawyers, it is a tool that I myself do not use though. It's very illogical. If we class one case with a group of other cases then rather than looking at that individual case instead we decide cases based on what may or may not happen down the road in fantasy land. I like to say judge each case on its particular facts. I never once advocated for gay rights, I never advocated against gay rights, when the case is made either way I will look at the facts, look at the law and arrive at my own conclusions, I would ask you to do the same also. Dont worry about them other cases, worry about the case at bar.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
Love dat statement as well. . .kindda remind me of a ststement I once heard in sundee school: "da law was made for man. . .not man made for da law"!!!:hammer: As`such, it should serve us. . .not we it!!! In other words, avoid da human tendency ta apply law at its hashest extreme. . . consider da individual case and its merits and demerits! Hell. . .I tink I jess agreed widda jist of ya reply. . .consider one case and all ITS PACULIAR DYNAMICS AT A TIME!!!:cutie:

As fer da lass point. . .ya right. . .I call it da "lazy man's wall"!!! It is cursory, effective and most people don like da work involve in refutin it. . .hence da name, lazy man's wall!!!

Ahhhh, I gat a question. What law in the bahamas says that gay people can't get married. Heck it happens all the time here. It's just that usually one of the people getting married usually don't know they getting married to a gay person.

This whole thing both gays having the right to marry always does make me laugh, because they are not being denied the right to marry, but are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Now if it becomes a right to marry the same sex, where do we stop.

Whats to stop someone from marrying two people at the same time if everybody cool with it.

Or what would stop us from marrying animals, a lot of us like our dog more than people anyway.

Ahhh phooey, thats alls I'm saying on this subject.

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...

Is'nt this your signature? :sarcastic

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

GHANDI

:confused:
I red alot of stuff in here and i will not point fingers and call names but i can tell u one thing we will fight for it because we have to learn to live as one no matter what the race we are or the color we are and who we love.... u people are here talkin about gays and how you would do this and stand up and protest against it and stuff because we are standing up for what we want in life and then you have friends and relatives who are in the closet and ashamed of themselves for what... (****) we all are people and have feelings ok. Wanna talk about stuff talk about how guys are sleeping with the own daughters and sons and molesting young gurls and having relations with them. Talk about the murders in the country and robberies,, but wait since u wan talk about this and think its so bad think about ur boys dem who are sitting on the corner who acting like they so hard and rough and stuff and dey are the same ones who saying gays for dead and stuff but yet are sleeping with guys and dey ur boys and u dont know.... so stop and think ok..


anyway until next time. Vicky we are going to do what we have to and if it get to be a fight with the court lets go because if its not written then there is nothing they can do.


Cassy:lafs::duh:

Wanna talk about stuff talk about how guys are sleeping with the own daughters and sons and molesting young gurls and having relations with them.


Morning Cassy,
How does this compare to a gay man or woman?

What If I said "Why not talk about the older gay men and women of our society that are molesting younger males and females?"

You see you cannot take 2 wrongs to make it right, it wont work.

I cannot understand how you feel for I have never walked in your shoes but sometimes we cannot try to justify what is wrong by pointing out another wrong.

I say wrong because I personally feel it is wrong BUT then on the other hand I shall not bash you in anyway, thats your life and your judgement.

You must defend you and your point of views and why you feel it is right but you cannot do that by pointing fingers at other wrongs....