May be you did not get it Cassy and her fiancee are going to challange the policy..

Interesting challenge. I am neither way with what she wishes to do and would not condemn nor condone it. Lets see how the church, government pays it out.

Good luck to the couple. Not an easy battle, for sure.

(Little Fisherman puts head back in sand)

You know the strange thing about this whole gay issue that they themself understands thats in a marrige one plays the woman role and the other the male. Confuse people who needs help.
Now thats a lie and a joke. Yes there are some that would seem like that but most are not.

ya'll will end up fighting constitutionally and if you do success then it will go to a referendum to define the marriage act and dog eat ya lunch twice if you take dis to the Bahamian people.
Maybe but I doubt it. The law is already there.. changing the constitution is hareder than you think..

are they asking to be married under a Christian Religion, or just married?
Dont other religions also have marriage?
Do we recognize other religions in the Bahamas, or are we leaning towards fanaticism?
SpamStopper is not into the whole marriage thing himself though either way, but to each their own.
I don't care about christian marriage no one will force a church into doing gay marriages this is a secular thing out side of the church.

you know all those polygamists will be like "wait a minute" next thing ya know you have polygamy with heterosexuals plus homosexuals
long as the are adults what business is it of yours??

3 questions for all.
These women have been living together for years what has it changed in your life??

What will it change in your life if if they are married??

What rights do they take from you?

3 questions for all.
These women have been living together for years what has it changed in your life??
What will it change in your life if if they are married??
What rights do they take from you?

And, why is it any ones business.

When can you not learn to keep your face out of other persons business, thats all we ask.

They can be happy married adults and leave it at that.

Why make it a big point and bring these two womens life into the spotlight, except to jump on your own horn.

Vicky, give it a rest.

you got an animal fetish hey??
If an animal can give consent who are you to argue.
You never cease to amaze me!!! I marvel at your sick mind!!

And, why is it any ones business.
When can you not learn to keep your face out of other persons business, thats all we ask.
They can be happy married adults and leave it at that.
Why make it a big point and bring these two womens life into the spotlight, except to jump on your own horn.
Vicky, give it a rest.
Don't you understand I have been talking with them for a while now. They have asked for my and RABs help. I told Cassy about BI when we were talking about the wedding plans. I wanted her to hear some of what people will say. I want them to know they will be the scaraficial lambs so to say.
Ask her I warned her over and repetadly that there will be a lot of problems to face. Once they start it it will be out there forever. I think I have even been discouraging as I don't want them to think this will be a bed of roses. So please stop trying to make it about me.
Please read her 2nd post
http://bahamasissues.com/showpost.php?p=270218&postcount=74

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.

Here's an idea, why doesn't someone go back in time to when the law was written, and ask the lawmakers, whether or not they intended for homosexuals to have the right to marry?

Perhaps it was so far out of their mind, they did not think it would even be considered as acceptable, or come into question.

But yeah, go back in time, and end the debate.

You never cease to amaze me!!! I marvel at your sick mind!!
You asume that we are the higher life form. But are we?? Anything other than human is considered animal. If an animal is sentient who are you to argue?? After all we are only animals as well.

Here's an idea, why doesn't someone go back in time to when the law was written, and ask the lawmakers, whether or not they intended for homosexuals to have the right to marry?
Perhaps it was so far out of their mind, they did not think it would even be considered as acceptable, or come into question.
But yeah, go back in time, and end the debate.
Or maybe they were hoping??

Or maybe they were hopping??

Hopping? You mean they were rabbits?

Hopping? You mean they were rabbits?
does that make you happy now??

In all due respects Lady Chippie, firstly, one must admire the personal courage and strength of Ms. Cassy for her impassionate stance, in the face of hostile opposition, to love the person she chose, and, to demand the same privileges as heterosexuals to the state sanctioned “bond of marriage”, with all its legal implications.
Secondly, as far as your comments on Ms. Cassy’s comparison of “two wrongs”..., it is YOU, with your basic premise that “homosexually” is wrong, who has created the comparison. In an antagonistic environment, Ms.Cassy merely, metaphorically speaking, “held up a mirror” to Bahamian Society and challenged us to “TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT VE- SELF”. Moreover, she showed tremendous character by not retaliating against her opposition with similar "low-class" personal attacks.
Who among us can contest her statement that, despite the unsympathetic and intimidating arguments about gay marriage, WE ALL have friends or relatives who are “in the closet”, or in some cases, outwardly gay, and we may or may not be “ashamed of them”. And this is so true about us Bahamians, one would hear only in whispers our “dark family secrets”, but nothing is ever mentioned in the “open”...
She then goes on to remind us of the realistic problem of incest, a scourge that has permeated our society, and caused tremendous emotional and psychological harm to our children, even into adulthood. Yet, as a society, we have never conducted an indebt study or implemented a national strategy to eliminate this problem.
Ms. Cassy also mentions the spiralling murder rate and violent crime that has a strangle hold on our society... Where is the passion here to lock up the perpetuators and get them off the streets...?
Lastly, she exposes something that most anti-gay persons denies.. That is, even though they teach their children to be anti-gay, those who may have a homosexual orientation are forced to live on the “down low”, pretending to be “straight”. Many are compelled by social pressures, to enter into “empty” heterosexual “relationships”, while maintaining a “secret” homosexual lifestyle characterised by “shallow” relationships and dangerous sexual liaisons with multiple partners. IMO, this risqué lifestyle, has contributed tremendously to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in our society.
So WHY would anyone, including anti-gays, be in opposition to persons exercising their constitutional right to enter into a monogamist relationship, in the legal bonds "marriage", regardless of the fact that their partner may be of the same sex ?
Whatever one’s personal beliefs, in a true democracy, exclusivity cannot be used to define an “inalienable right", to borrow a term from the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, homosexuals, as citizens of our Beloved Bahama Land, are created EQUALLY , and IMBUED with these “INALIENABLE RIGHTS" ... and, NO MAN or WOMAN, REGARDLESS OF COLOUR OR CREED, SHALL BE DEPRAVED OF THESE INALIENABLE RIGHTS... :hammer:
Bouy you sure you isa lawyer? I tot somebody said one time dat you issa lawyer. . . cos dat line er do do dere een "smell" like no lawyer poop dat out chile! Dat is lamer dan auntie susie's "broked" wind duck. . .or wabbly as rory "broke-dawn" moto scooter. . .das before heem gone tun rich and "tief". . .er mean buy one new jeep and ting!:jawdroop: