Posted By: Robert On: 9/8/2009

Title:

You are making assumptions without studying the history of the matter. The history of the system of law we have in the Bahamas is of an entirely positivist and rationalist tradition which explicitly broke from Judeo-Christian law in the late Middle Ages. It followed the non-religious and rights-based thinking of thinkers like John Austin, Hugo Grotius, Jeremy Bentham, David Hume and Hans Kelsen. I know you don't want it to be so, but it IS so. No matter how many times you say law is based on your religion, and exists to protect your faith, THIS IS SIMPLY FACTUALLY INCORRECT. On your other point, it is easy for you to say people should compromise and not call it rape - you are not a woman who has had to suffer it! I believe that kind of thinking is cruelty of the highest level. And if you think so little of the beliefs of others that you would ask them to sacrifice not only their belief but their security and peace of mind (again i point you to the countless studies which show the extreme mental trauma marital rape has caused) then why should any of them care about what you believe?

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/8/2009

Title:

Robert, all the laws we see come from the Judeo-Christian religion. "Thou shalt not kill" is not necessarily accepted by all even in bahamian society. Does that mean the Christian value should not be forced upon them? And of course one can view everything in the lens of "individual rights". There is no doubt that Christianity wants Christ to rule the world. "Long Live Christ the King!". However, I believe that is in a fair way that should be acceptable to thinking people, such as in the sense of respecting conscience to a certain point and other religions, etc. Marriage is a special case where religion and law overlap very much. Hence the controversy. ...To wrap it up, as is very clear, the Christian Council is not against making spousal abuse illegal. No one is for spousal abuse in this debate. By focusing on tearing down the nature of Marriage, the proponents of this law are actually creating obstacles to solving the marital abuse issue. They could most Easily compromise and simply not call it "rape" yet place another terrible word. If they can't do this, then maybe this debate is not about stopping marital abuse but of redefining marriage by creating laws that deny the unity of the spouses within the Marriage Covenant.

Posted By: Robert On: 9/8/2009

Title:

Sorry Anthony Taylor, but I reject your definition of the relationship between marriage and the law. It is absolutely NOT the case that laws are an effort to codify faith for believers - not in the system of law that we have in this country. Maybe in Saudi Arabia. The western tradition of law is about defending rights AGAINST subjective beliefs, to create a space where we are all able to believe what we want without people oppressing one another. You say the "persecutors" are trying to change the traditional concept of marriage. NOT SO ... they are merely seeking to have the law reflect the definition of marriage already on the law books. Everyone - Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whoever - will still be free to view marriage as sacred, secular, or however they want. Yes, it will outlaw forced sex in a marriage, but only in cases where it is reported. If your wife is a good christian woman, she will not think it is a crime if you rape her, because according to your historical culture, its isn't a crime. In fact, she will not deny you in the first place. And if you are a good Christian man, you will not force anything on your wife which she doesn't want. Since when is selfishness and self-gratification part of Christ's message anyway? But if you have it your way, some women will be forced to endure a something they believe to be wrong and which is highly, highly traumatizing. Do you think this is in the spirit of Christ's message? It sounds to me like the Christians have been delivered from the oppression of the Romans just to be come oppressors themselves.

Posted By: Akina On: 9/8/2009

Title: Angry but sinning not

Evil triumphs when good men fail to do anything. Dont think its ok to hide behind the degree that says you are annointed. Its so sad to see evil in high places within a place you should run for safety. I can not speak against any "mant" of God but you know what you do behind closed doors and you will have to be judged by God even if you want it to be ok in man's eyes. Wrong is wrong and what God writes down you cant clean out. Blurring the line of what is ok to do TO your wife is not right. I always notice pastors love to say wives honor your husbands but leave out the the part that says and husbands love your wife. Rape is Rape no matter how you put it and it leaves a scar that does not ever go away. You can not follow selective parts of the bible you must follow all of it. Pray you dont have a hot seat waiting for you sir. What you do in the dark must come out in the light. The time for exposure is here. Tick Tock Rev guess who's turn it is now.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title:

There is no law that we all can agree on. Does that mean there should be no laws? Marriage in one way is a universal reality, in another way it's a Christian reality in this country. ...In the sense of the universal reality, one can't argue much with that. Marriage is marriage. In the Christian Reality an important point is that christian values are codified in law so that Christians can live their Faith. Any attack on Marriage is an attack on Christians living their Faith. If someone doesn't believe in traditional marriage then why meddle with it? ...So you ask why force people to accept the same values but those changing marriage laws are persecuting christian values. The persecutors are in the wrong because they seek to REDEFINE the traditional concept of Marriage outside of what the culture says but rather by mostly the force of law if they can. And that's in an Artificial way!

Posted By: Robert On: 9/7/2009

Title:

But that is the entire point: from your point of view, "individual rights" are not as important as Scriptural dictates, but I and many other people may not agree. There is freedom of religion in this country, which means I do not have to be forced to live according to anyone else's beliefs. If I and my wife are atheists, for example, the only thing she has or believes in are her individual rights. What is the point of having a law that takes away her rights, based on a book she doesn't believe in? If I as her husband force sex on her, it is nothing but a straight up rape to her, and arguments about what this book or that book said are irrelevant to her. Democracy is not about expressing the will of the majority, it is about protecting the views of the minority. This is the reason individual rights are the only fair basis for the creation of laws. My wife is protected, and Christian men can force sex on their wives all they want - after all, if she is a good Christian woman, she won't deny him in the first place, and certainly won't report it afterwards. How would you feel, I wonder, if a job opportunity took you to a musilm country, and they forced you to pray to Allah six times a day? I think you would resist, because you have your own God and no one can force you to worship another. It is the same in this case - don't force your beliefs on others.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title:

"Individual Rights" should be a bit different within the context of marriage. Joint ownership, the entity of the family, etc. Perhaps this hasn't been quite defined. So let the Culture define it, and maybe this is part of the Process.

Posted By: Robert On: 9/7/2009

Title:

I agree completely that pastors should speak out on whatever issue they wish. I think everyone should speak out on issues that are important to them. The question is whether we should make the law conform to what these pastors say. Culture does indeed indeed culture which is the source of laws. In Saudi Arabia, they have a system of laws based on their culture, which is formed around the dictates of religion. In our case, we chose to adopt at our independence a system of parliamentary democracy, based on the protection of individual rights, as defined under the law. Under this system there is NO ARGUMENT - whether based on belief or otherwise – which can allow the violation of individual rights. Perhaps we have a clash of two cultures within our culture and that is the problem.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title:

Correction: " It is Culture that defines Marriage because it is Culture that defines laws." ....Should be: It is Culture that defines Marriage and it is Culture that defines laws.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title:

Robert, regarding Marriage you said "There is nothing mystical or religious in this." Well, I certainly could not disagree more. I would say that there is everything mystical and religious about it such that one could say that religion and marriage are wedded. So much so that the traditional place to get Married is in a Church. Culturally, in front of a Minister. People understand it as mystical and semi-religious. Regarding the Marriage Act, I see it such that our culture is the real eventual decider of our laws. ...I do agree with a certain separation of Church and State as does just about everyone. However, many people opine that Christian pastors should not speak out on issues. When in fact, they have the duty and the authority in the culture to speak out. This is a Christian Nation because it's a culturally Christian Nation. Iran is a Muslim nation not because of its laws but because of its culture. It is Culture that defines Marriage because it is Culture that defines laws.

Posted By: Robert On: 9/7/2009

Title:

"the state of being united" means just what it says - united "in a consensual contractual relationship". When two companies merge; they are in "the state of being united". There is nothing mystical or religious in this. Of course religion is going to have its say - it always does in this country - but it does not have a say when it comes to the formulation of law. In a parliamentary democracy like the Bahamas, law is based on a system of clearly defined rights and with reference to the already existing laws. That is why I told you to check the Marriage Act; civil servants, not ministers have authority over marriage. I understand that a marital rape law does not fit into your religious world view. Fine. But many people do not share your world view. Luckily, the rule of law takes care of this problem by making a system that does not consider beliefs, but instead rights. The Bible also encourages this separation: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. And I wasn't talking about toads and antelope, I was talking about the history of many traditions of marriage INCLUDING early Christian marriage. You should be sure of your facts before you make sweeping claims like "The common man in any culture in history rape within marriage is absurd".

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title: To Anthony Taylor

"the state of being united" - what does being united mean? Isn't religion going to have its say? Marriage is going to be similar in all cultures. Sure you can maybe find a group marrying toads and antelope, but marriage will still be similar everywhere. What that means in practice is that a thinking person does not redefine marriage putting the children as head of the household. Indeed there's not much respect for "historical culture" from the respect of where we have been and where we are going, traditional values too but rather to quickly tear down anything that stands in the way of a supposed "new and exciting", a supposed "up to date" sexual morality. This appears to be the type of Progress you speak of.

Posted By: Robert On: 9/7/2009

Title: To Anthony Taylor

Hi Anthony. Well, according to the dictionary, Marriage is: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) The mutual relation of married persons : wedlock: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage". I don't see no religion in there. As far as your claim that marriage is defined similarly by all cultures, i would like to make two points. The first is that cultures both ancient and modern have recognized marriage in very different ways. For the ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, it was an entirely contractual agreement which religion had nothing to do with. In ancient Chinese culture, it was the wife's family who dominated marriage, and a new husband would move in and become subject to his wife's parents, not the other way around. You might be surprised to learn that marriage was also a private matter for the first 300 years or so of Christianity. Religion had no place in it. In fact, up until the 1500s, no witnesses or even priests were even required at Christian marriages! There have also been numerous tribes around the world in which the wife dominated marriage and the husband was her subject. The second point I would like to make is that many people in this country are not concerned about "historical culture" and are more worried about PROGRESS. For the purposes of social justice - ie fairness for all no matter what their beliefs are - marriage should be a contractual agreement between individuals which is recognised under the law and subject to regulations which protect each individual from being subject to violence or abuse.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/7/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

Hello Robert, Gov' can put all kinds of rules and laws regarding marriage but doesn't define what Marriage is. Religion does that. Granted it's a complex situation but I don't think Gov' has ever been one to define the nature of Marriage. Marriage is a cultural reality. And religion comes strongly into culture to define it. One certainly cannot define it in any way one wants to but to discover what Marriage is at least in a general way, one has to look at "historical culture". The common man in any culture in history rape within marriage is absurd. If a man threatens his wife who forbids the marital act with a retraction of an allowance, is this rape through threat? Or is it Prostitution? Maybe he should be charged in the way of a John? If Rape, why not Prostitution as well? Both perspectives deny the union of Marriage which clearly basically shows itself in cultures throughout history and universally.

Posted By: Robert On: 9/6/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

Mr Taylor, I would like to say something in response to the foolishness you have been spouting here. The first is, no matter how many scriptural precedents you quote, you are ignoring the fact that in the Bahamas, marriage is an entirely non-religious institution. If you doubt this, check the Marriage Act. You can believe what you wish, but you do not have the right to force it on the rest of us. Did you ever wonder what the wives who live in this country who do not share your faith are supposed to do when they are raped? What would you say to a Muslim or a Hindu wife who has to endure rape? They would not care a bit about Ephesisans or whatever. This constitution of this country guarantees religious tolerance and you do not have the right to preserve a law that takes away the rights of women who do not share your point of view.

Posted By: Ms. Nickie On: 9/5/2009

Title: FINALLY!!!

I was beginning to think that Bahamians were just an insensitive and disturbed people. To hear the amount of radio talk shows applauding the Christian council's poor decision to reject the marital rape law is beyond appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves to say they are men of God. We should be even more ashamed to hold so close to the Bahamas being "A Christian Nation" when we can not even see how necessary such a law really is. Thank you for giving me some hope that our country still has a semblance of reasonably minded people. Is our society really this blind or have the majority just failed to use the mind God so graciously blessed them with. We don't have to always shake our heads in agreement; it's okay to say I disagree with the masses and have a valid and well informed opinion. Ugh...Bahamians get it together!!!!

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/5/2009

Title: Scripture Basis

I think below is the Scripture quote of why there can be no such thing as Rape (as is commonly understood) within Marriage. (A bit of a correction on my part) St. Paul says that wives should be submissive to their husbands but also that husband must love their wives, which is similar. This would be an Anti-Christian law if it came into effect just because a few people want the stigma of "rape" attached to marital violence. ---- So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Ephesians 5:28-31

Posted By: Harry Wyckoff On: 9/5/2009

Title: Disgusting

So the Council and all its members are publicly condoning the violent, barbaric and animalistic rape of women. This is both disgusting and terrifying. The cycle of violence in this country will never end while disgusting groups such as the council have a voice and while people are stupid enough to listen to them.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/5/2009

Title: St. Paul

"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21 Well, this is the thinking of St. Paul. Neither has the autonomous rights expressed by some people regarding this proposed law. They both are subordinate to each other. And I think this expresses very clearly the whole situation.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/5/2009

Title: RE: violence and rape aren't the same thing

Correction: Joe said: "This is why we say the act of forcing someone to have sex against her will, otherwise known as rape, is in and of itself a violent act." ----- Agreed. I didn't quite read that correctly. However, you're speaking about rape without violence as indicated with the title of the post. When you use the word "force" this means violence. So you can't separate rape from violence. A situation in which a husband who threatens to take away an allowance from the wife if there isn't the marital act, within marriage that should not be called Rape. But apparently you believe it should?

Posted By: love and peace On: 9/4/2009

Title: Not sure that I wrote this part clearly...RE. Anthony Taylor

Let me write this part a bit more clearly, Mr. Anthony, I'm not sure that I wrote the last part of my post clearly as It may appear that I'm asking you to ask God to change my distorted mind when what I meant was that you should ask God to change your own distorted mind. Let me re write this..... If I were you, I would say to God, 'Please help me to change my distorted mind and my cold heart and to help me to become more Christ like'. I know this may appear insulting but you insult every man or woman who has ever been raped and you obviously have no clue what it feels like to be raped!

Posted By: love and Peace On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

Mr. Taylor, the only people that I imagine would disagree with the marital rape law would be people who are themselves guilty of raping. I don't know what you are talking about when you talk of 'the marital act...' and that 'saying no' is a violent act within marriage. Do you understand what violence means? Why would you want to force yourself on your wife? What kind of a sick person would think this is pleasure? You need to understand that if you think this is okay and you have at some time or another forced yourself on anyone, you are guilty of rape full stop. I don't actually believe your heart and your mind is in a very Godly place. It is to me in a very dark place and is of a dark nature. If I were you, I would ask God to help me to change my distorted mind and my cold heart and to help me to become more Christ like. The God and Christ I know would never believe that you force yourself on anyone, man, woman or child. It's all wrong!!!

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: violence and rape aren't the same thing

Joe, it's certainly not violent Of Itself in the case of a married couple since the two are literally one flesh. In other words, the marital act ITSELF can never be a violent act within marriage. So you have to deal with the problems outside that core reality. That's probably where the disagreement on this point is. Both the husband and wife have a right to the marital act. This changes the nature of "rape" as is commonly understood and mitigates what would normally be outrageous violations of dignity. The nature of "violations" changes since the two are one flesh. A wife unjustly forbids the marital act, quite possibly in an effort to punish the husband or to exert control. Which is itself a violent act. The husband says if no marital act, then no allowance, then the wife can charge rape through threat (according to webster) not that she is lying but that she is factually correct and that the husband under a new law committed rape. What that is is marital dispute, not rape. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." Genesis 2:24

Posted By: Donavon On: 9/4/2009

Title: Christian...you mean pagan christian council

It seems that this is no a christian council at all. Any organisation that does not respect the rights and dignity of the human person is not worthy of any support. This seems to be more of a pagan council, that maintain barbaric and outdated ideas of respect for the human person. Sex is an activity that should always be consentual of both parties. Both are equal and should be respected as human and not property.

Posted By: Joe Blow On: 9/4/2009

Title: violence and rape aren't the same thing

Anthony, I'm not sure you're willing or able to understand sense in this debate, but i'm going to put it out there anyway. You and others who oppose this law seem to feel that the real issue to be dealt with is sexual violence. That's a whole other matter, equally as wrong. Not every rapist leaves a mark that you can see. He leaves behind emotional trauma caused by forcing a woman to give up her dignity. And this is the case whether the victim knows her attacker or not. This is why we say the act of forcing someone tohave sex against her will, otherwise known as rape, is in and of itself a violent act. And let me use your own logic against your own argument for a moment. Just as you're concerned a woman could falsely accuse her husband in court of forcing her to have sex if this law were to be enacted, couldn't a man just as equally say 'but you honour, she always used to like it rough'.... as a defence?

Posted By: KBK On: 9/4/2009

Title:

The dictionary defines Rape as any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person; whether it be a Man or a Woman. I agree with Joe Blow 100%. We all are humans. And we all are allowed to have days when we are just not at our best. We should have the choice, whether Married/Unmarried, to choose to be intimate with someone. Marriage is not a document that grants permission for anyone to be intimate with you at their leisure, it should be a mutual agreement between both parties. And Joe raises a very important point; some women simply may want to protect their own health against unfaithful husbands. FINALLY A MAN WITH SOME SENSE!

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

Joe, There's always the chance a Wife can forbid in an unust manner. My point is who decides whether it is unjust or not? The State? This proposed law says that a husband cannot demand the marital act in terms possibly even of going against the wishes of the Wife. The Wife could claim that there was not consent. ..Too far reaching into the Bedrooms of Bahamians. Let them call it something else, focusing on the real issue of sexual violence!

Posted By: Joe Blow On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

So Mr Taylor, let me see if i understand you correctly. As far as you're concerned once a woman gets married she has forfeited control of her own body to the point where she can't have an off day and not wish to have sex with her husband lest she "cause great hardship within the marital covenant." She can't be mad at her husband over whatever couples get mad about and want nothing to do with him for a night or two lest she "cause great hardship within the marital covenant." She can't deny him sex if she knows or suspects he's being unfaithful and could possibly infect her with HIV or another dangerous STD lest she "cause great hardship within the marital covenant." I pray to God that you are not a married man and if you are, I pity your wife as I'm not sure she or any other married woman in this country realised just what she was signing on for.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

MD said: If the wife forbids the marital act, isn't that a form of violence as well? NO Isn't that an unnatural violation against the husband? NO How far will the Gov' enter the bedrooms of Bahamians? NO Perhaps if you think the answer is yes, you would be more at home living in Iran under sharia law. --- MD, You are saying, and possibly the perspective in this bill, is that the persons in christian marriage (or any marriage) have no special relationship other than a civil document? Marriage regards the two becoming ONE FLESH. The wife cannot forbid the marital act and it not be an unnatural violation. And one which possibly causes great hardship within the marital covenant. ..Even if you disagree with Christian Marriage (or Marriage) you should agree that this IS the Covenant agreed on as a matter of fact and not opinion.

Posted By: Rik Skegneti On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE Anthony Taylor

From your idiotic comments, one can only assume you're the self-appointed "bishop" of some tin-pot church. So, when a woman says "no" it is a form of violence against the husband ... For the sake of this country I hope you are a minority. This kind of thinking is DANGEROUS.

Posted By: MD On: 9/4/2009

Title: RE: Anthony Taylor

If the wife forbids the marital act, isn't that a form of violence as well? NO Isn't that an unnatural violation against the husband? NO How far will the Gov' enter the bedrooms of Bahamians? NO Perhaps if you think the answer is yes, you would be more at home living in Iran under sharia law.

Posted By: mysteri0us On: 9/4/2009

Title: Bahamas Idiot Council is more like it.

Isn't rape a form of violence? This group of men have held this country back for too long with their opinions. I'm so tired of hearing these fools have their opinions on what we do and how we do it. We need some more separation of church and state. Starting with the removal of this dumb council.

Posted By: E. Albury On: 9/4/2009

Title: Marital Rape Law

Sometimes I wonder how someone who can call theirselves christian could think of a woman as a thing. I know that it is hard to understand this but this is not a fact of , honey not tonight I have a headache but a man forcibly taking something that is not his. If the law doesn't pass maybe there will be more woman baking "sweet potato pies" for the husband who takes what is not his

Posted By: Rock of Ages On: 9/4/2009

Title:

If the subject matter weren't so serious, the Christian Council's decision would be laughable. And they have the affront to think of themselves as being Christian. This country will only become civilised when pulpit nutjobs stop spreading the thoughts of their diseased mnds.

Posted By: Anthony Taylor On: 9/4/2009

Title: Turn it Around?

If the wife forbids the marital act, isn't that a form of violence as well? Isn't that an unnatural violation against the husband? Shouldn't that be outlawed? ..How far will the Gov' enter the bedrooms of Bahamians?

Posted By: dick funke On: 9/4/2009

Title:

when a woman says no for that fact a man no means no rape is a crime in a marriage just as it is outside a union