Google
 

View Full Version : Gays say they can marry in the Bahamas


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Corabell
05-19-08, - 09:26 AM
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.

Brown Suga
05-19-08, - 09:58 AM
Man it too early in the week to start this kind of thread!

miracles
05-19-08, - 10:02 AM
Technically, if you read the Marriage Act there's nothing prohibiting them from getting married; as the Act isn't specific instead of saying man and woman it states parties-and that can be interpreted as anything. But the argument can be that when the act was written there wasn't a growing problem of homosexuals as it is now. And although a constitution should change to reflect a growing society-this is one law that because everyone seemingly shares one view it won't change.

Little Fisherman
05-19-08, - 10:17 AM
Man it too early in the week to start this kind of thread!

I agree

Brown Suga
05-19-08, - 10:27 AM
I agree

Thanx~

watsayu
05-19-08, - 11:01 AM
I agreeI agree as welll and it is good to be on the SAME side as Brown suga for a change !!!!, lol

EbonyApollo
05-19-08, - 11:34 AM
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.~

EbonyApollo
05-19-08, - 11:35 AM
It ain easy.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

The Exotic One
05-19-08, - 11:42 AM
Law or not I don't think any minister or JP for that matter is going to marry two persons of the same sex here in the Bahamas... Our tolerance of homosexuality is no where near being on that level...:footmouth

EbonyApollo
05-19-08, - 11:55 AM
I doubt it'll happen.

Brown Suga
05-19-08, - 12:04 PM
I agree as welll and it is good to be on the SAME side as Brown suga for a change !!!!, lol


LOL

It's all good!

nationbuilder
05-19-08, - 12:08 PM
Law or not I don't think any minister or JP for that matter is going to marry two persons of the same sex here in the Bahamas... Our tolerance of homosexuality is no where near being on that level...:footmouth
It isnt about their tolerance level though..a marriage license will not be issued in such a case to enable them to marry the people.

Corabell
05-19-08, - 12:16 PM
It isnt about their tolerance level though..a marriage license will not be issued in such a case to enable them to marry the people.



That's interesting. But would that mean its because it would be illegal or just because people wouldn't want to see the license filed. If that's they case then it would be about the level of tolerance.

Vicky
05-19-08, - 01:46 PM
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.

The Exotic One
05-19-08, - 02:23 PM
It isnt about their tolerance level though..a marriage license will not be issued in such a case to enable them to marry the people.

I AGREE NATION. THE LICENSE WILL NEVER BE ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE...:cutie: