The Tribune

Updated for:

Friday, September 03, 2010 12:34 AM

Helpful Tools

Subscribe to:

RSS Feeds

BACK TO THE DARK AGES

Share This Article:

Delicious

diigo it Diigo/Furl

Published On:Monday, September 07, 2009

THE Bahamas Christian Council has declared itself opposed to government's efforts to protect women from being raped by their husbands, arguing that the proposed amendment to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act could threaten the institution of marriage. The council paints a picture of a society beset on all sides by forces seeking to destroy the foundations upon which it rests. In reality, the government's proposed marital rape law is a vital component of the enlightened society we should be aspiring to become, and it is the Christian Council that is attempting to drag us back into the dense gloom of darker ages.

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

MY immediate reaction to the Christian Council's rejection of the proposed marital rape law was utter disgust. Disgust, but not surprise.

It was, after all, in keeping with the council's tendency to ward off perceived challenges to its own position by branding them threats to public morality.

The Catholic Archdiocese, the Bahamas Conference of the Methodist Church and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church have all given their approval to government's proposed law. The Christian Council alone claims that while it respects the rights of individuals, an abiding concern for God's plan for "families and nations" prohibits its members from lending their support.

Anyone who doubts that this stance is self-serving should pause to ask how the Council can be so concerned about families and nations, when it has so little to say about the rampant crime, violence, sexual abuse and corruption that plagues this nation.

Indeed, it is only a select few issues that tend to frighten Christian Council members into action: homosexuality, the showcasing of "immoral" films and performers, gambling, and now the right of a man to rape his wife.

This is because in a changing world, the Council's main concern has become maintaining a stranglehold on the conscience on a large portion of this society.

The public statements of Council members over the past several years have made it clear they feel social progress - defined by most of the western world as having to do with rights and democracy - threatens much of what they hold dear. After all many of them have become exceedingly comfortable in their roles as the self-appointed moral arbiters of the nation.

This is why violent crime is never high on the Council's agenda -- it is opposed universally in modern societies and is therefore not perceived as a threat.

Homosexuality, gambling and "unchristian" films, on the other hand, all enjoy wide acceptance in the western world. What's more, they are symbolic of an outlook that values independence of mind and does not tolerate self-appointed father figures.

This also explains why the Council -- alone among the religious entities that responded to the proposal - decided to suggest specific changes to the amendment, recommending that a man should only be prosecuted for forcing sex on his wife if there is violence involved - and even then should not be incarcerated for the first offence, but rather subjected to "rehabilitative steps."

The Council also objected to the words "who is not his spouse" being deleted from the definition of rape, "thereby leaving it as is and allowing rape to only be possible between two persons who are not married to each other."

While government made no mention of religion in its proposal, the Council's response suggested that "the government and the church" should work together to create "rehabilitative centres" for husbands who force themselves on their wives.

The laws of the Bahamas are enacted by parliament without deference to any other entity, but it seems the Council will not miss a chance to insinuate itself into the debate and remind the public how important it is.

THE LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL

In announcing the Christian Council's opposition to the amendment, Council president Rev Patrick Paul went to great lengths to defend the reasoning behind the decision. As is perhaps inevitable considering the reasonableness of government's proposition, this defence was anything but airtight.

He opened with an unattributed and slightly misquoted statement by Martin Luther King Jr: "A just law is a man's code that squares itself with the moral law or the law of God."

He obviously intended this to suggest that laws are not just if they do not conform to Scriptural dictates, but a look at the context of the statement does more to contradict Rev Paul's argument than support it.

Dr King was writing from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, where he had been arrested for leading non-violent action against segregation. He was working to break a system that inflicted violence and injustice upon one group of people, because of a quality over which they had no control -- their race.

As it turns out, Rev Paul is attempting to support a system that does the very same thing; discriminate against another group - women - leaving them open to physical and psychological trauma at the hands of their spouses as a consequence of their gender.

Dr King was responding to a group of white clergymen who opposed his non-violent direct action protests and called instead for negotiations. The reverend rejected this position, because "lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily."

He was referring to southern whites, but could just as well have been talking about the Bahamian male, who in addition to a host of unspoken social advantages, has the exclusive legal right to transfer citizenship to his spouse and can force sex upon his wife without censure.

Then again, Dr King's comments could be seen as applying to the Christian Council and its members, for whom the host of social ills which plague this country seem to mean little compared to the handful of fringe issues that threaten their long established fiefdom.

Rev Paul goes on to claim society will "experience utter chaos" if laws contrary to "moral law" are passed, but he conveniently fails to mention the many countries where gambling and homosexuality are legal, where adults can watch whatever films they wish and marital rape is illegal, but they do not have anywhere near the levels of violence, child abuse, rape and murder suffered by Bahamians.

Rev Paul's choice of this particular quote is interesting for another reason. When Dr King wrote those words, he admitted that he was relying on the work of two of Christianity's most celebrated thinkers: St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. If the Christian Council intends to rely on this as a justification for its stance, must it not explain how this squares with the fact that the Catholic church - to which these two scholars devoted their lives, energy and intellect - has embraced the government's efforts to protect a wife from rape by her husband?

Dr King, following Aquinas, wrote, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority... relegating persons to the status of things."

Could the same not be said of a law that treats women as sex-objects; instruments of gratification for their husbands? Are we to ignore the wealth of evidence that states that spousal rape inflicts serious trauma on a woman, damaging her personality and relegating her to the status of a thing?

THE CONSTITUTION

Rev Paul quotes the preamble to the Bahamian constitution, a favourite strategy of clergymen making claims of authority outside the purview of their congregation.

The document states that Bahamian citizens recognise "that the preservation of their freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to self-discipline, industry, loyalty, unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the rule of law."

Rev Paul presumably quotes this to add the weight of constitutional authority to his argument. However when examined closely the language of the preamble does not support, and could actually be seen as damaging his case.

It speaks of a "commitment" to several personal virtues, but only a "respect" for Christian values. An individual can respect any faith, as well as the views of those who decline faith; this does not mean that one is bound, or "committed" to all or any of these views.

The distinction may seem trivial, but the words of the constitution were carefully chosen by its framers, as Rev Paul should know. Calling for two singers to be banned from performing in the Bahamas last year, Rev Paul had said the Christian Council intends to turn the country into the Christian nation it was always intended to be. He added: "The founding fathers that coined those things in the Bahamas believed that the Christian church would be the underpin to see fit that those virtues continue from generation to generation and be the moral watchdog of society to deal with the many issues now plaguing our society."

In response, two of the original framers of the constitution rejected the idea that the Christian church has a mandate to act as the country's moral watchdog. Former parliamentarians George Smith and Sir Arthur Foulkes - both delegates to the 1972 constitutional conference in London - said no religious body should consider itself special, or empowered to make moral decisions on behalf of the nation.

"The church itself has no constitutional power. No church has the right to perform a government function," Sir Arthur said.

Mr Smith said that for the country's founders to have promoted one body of faith, or "surrendered" the making of moral decisions to one religion, would have been "unwise".

MARITAL RAPE: THE UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES

Rev Paul contends that the heads of many churches feel a marital rape law "can have far reaching consequences" and quotes one local pastor as saying: "Marital rape is very intricate, and a multi-dimensional subject that has the potential of levelling far-reaching and cross-generational affects on any western society built on Judaic-Christian principles. The impact and implications of such a law would be incalculable."

Aside from its vagueness, this statement seems to be in complete contradiction to the available evidence. For more than 50 years, husbands who rape their wives have been subject to prosecution somewhere in the world. The practice of marital rape is now illegal in 104 countries. If the Christian Council wishes to calculate the implications of such a law, a few minutes research would suffice.

As it turns out, there seems to be no record of huge changes in a society, the collapse of the family unit, or an eruption of widespread false claims as a result of the passing of such a law.

A CONVENIENT DEFINITION

Before stating its specific reservations to the government's proposal, Rev Paul makes this curious statement: "The council denounces all acts of rape. Rape is cruel, brutal, heartless, atrocious, appalling and callous. Rape is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated or allowed amongst members of the Bahamian or any other civil society inside or outside the marriage bonds or any other relationship."

An admirable sentiment, which is also highly convenient considering the fact that the council reserves the right to define rape as it sees fit, as demonstrated by the suggestion that marital rape be classified as "spousal abuse." You can reject any practice without consequence once you decide to define it in a way that suits your purposes.

Furthermore, if rape should not be tolerated "inside or outside the marriage bonds" why does the Council recommend "rehabilitation" of an offender, rather than punishment?

THE OBJECTIONS

Rev Paul goes on to list the concerns that his members have expressed. These include:

* Will the institution of marriage be preserved?

They are worried, it seems, that the right to withhold sex will lead men to cheat and eventually become disillusioned with marriage.

With the rate at which this already occurs in Bahamian society, it is unlikely that a law protecting wives from sexual violation will make it any worse. In addition, it must be asked how these pastors came to feel it is their place to stop would-be sinners from actually committing sin.

For the believer of whatever persuasion, is salvation not a question between oneself and God? For the Christian, did not the Sermon on the Mount make it clear that in addition to action, desire and intention matter in terms of sin? For the sake of consistency, should the Council not call for legislation that allows a man to be punished for desiring to cheat on his wife, or wishing to gamble or watch an "immoral" film?

* Will the amendment not be used as a means of spite or the excuse to end marital relationship differences?

This could be said about any law. Any unmarried woman can cry rape against her boyfriend out of spite if she so chooses. For the Christian Council though, fake claims matter more in terms of marital rape. This is because their concern is not protecting innocent men, but preserving the institution of marriage. Divorce is of course perfectly legal in this country, and whether or not its incidence grows as a result of a new law is of no legal relevance whatsoever; no divorce proceeding is affected by how many others have occurred in that particular year. But the Council identifies respect for the institution of marriage with a Bahamas run according to their programme.

In any case, there seems little to worry about. Studies estimate that in Australia, 10 per cent of rape victims were attacked by their husbands, and that in the United States more than 10 per cent of married women had been raped by their spouses. Yet in these societies, where marital rape is illegal, there has been no corresponding explosion of false claims.

* Will the proper checks and balances be put in place to ensure that unfounded claims are not made?

This is a technical question applicable to any law, and the Attorney General's office has already stated that all false claimants will be prosecuted.

* Will those investigating these matters be given clear written protocols and would they be mature, confidential persons?

This applies to investigators in any rape case, or any other matter of a sensitive nature.

* How far should the government be going with things that are sacred and intimate?

Here Rev Paul gets to the crux of the matter. "How far should government be allowed to impinge upon matters which belong to us?" he effectively asks.

Of course, this is utter nonsense, as in the Bahamas, marriage is an explicitly legal and secular institution.

RELIGION, RIGHTS AND JUSTICE

Rev Paul writes: "The council fully agrees that we must protect the rights of all in our society. But we cannot be too careful to protect persons whose rights may have been violated by implementing laws that have the potential and provide opportunity for the malignant, the evil, the whoremongers and the spiteful persons who are looking for ways to get back at someone, because of some unfortunate circumstance."

Rev Paul is saying the rights of individuals are not absolute, and should be protected only up to a point. Where this may involve passing laws that create opportunities for false claims and adultery, rights become secondary.

This suggestion is ridiculous in terms of feasibility -- we would have to abolish every criminal law, as a spiteful person can make a false claim in connection with any crime. It also betrays a worrying obsession with regulating the behaviour of others beyond the proper place of the law. Adultery is not against the law in the Bahamas, and therefore should not factor into the lawmaking process, despite what the Council may think.

Rev Paul then goes on to call the Bible the "airbag" of humanity; the only book "that seeks men and women's highest good and protection."

His argument is that because this book emphasises righteousness, this is the key to "stability and safety" for man, but because the Bible teaches that no man is righteous on his own all those who renounce their sins are forgiven. It therefore follows that husband and wife should be willing to forgive each other after unpleasant incidents - even rape, it seems.

The problem here is that this is all a matter of opinion. Not only are there many interpretations of the road to salvation within Christianity - be it through grace or works - there are also a great many people who live in this country who do not share Rev Paul's faith. What would our Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic and atheistic brothers say about this attempt to make laws in accordance to Rev Paul's faith?

Rev Paul goes on to say that "righteousness equals justice" and that "justice is an expression for reconciliation." It may be so to him, but it is not in the eyes of the law. As far as the law is concerned, justice is the punishment or rehabilitation of an individual through fines, incarceration or other penalties, as a consequence of his having been proven guilty of breaking one or more of the clearly defined codes or regulations enshrined by the nation's legislative body.

The law deals with concrete evidence, and calls for guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no room for "the remorseful, regretful and apologetic heart" that Rev Paul says is the condition upon which a husband who has raped his wife should be forgiven -- unless this peculiar heart condition can be proven by means of a chest x-ray.

Furthermore, this idea that justice is " an expression of reconciliation" is quite something coming from an organisation whose members have supported capital punishment. Why does the Council not think murderers should be "reconciled"? What about armed robbers and child molesters? If they feel this way, why are they not protesting the very existence of Her Majesty's Prison?

Of course, when it suits our nation's more vocal pastors, the definition of justice becomes "an eye for an eye." It seems they would take us back to the days of the witch hunts and the inquisition, where the definition of justice shifts to suit clergymen, who can condemn a man by looking into the "heart" and finding out his secrets.

MARRIAGE

On the subject of marriage, Rev Paul is better prepared, arriving at the battle armed with various scriptural references, many of which affirm the "conjugal rights" of both spouses.

He uses these to explain why a rape law should apply to unmarried couples, but not to those who have taken sacred vows.

The problem with this is that legally speaking, marriage is a contractual arrangement which has nothing to do with religion at all.

Had Rev Paul taken a moment to peruse the Marriage Act, he would have perhaps noticed that a cabinet minister has the final say in all matters surrounding marriage. He or she can appoint any public officer or religious minister as a marriage officer, and can reject a religious minister if he sees fit.

Article 15 insists that no clergyman who has not been authorised by the minister can publish the banns of marriage.

Article 24 is worth quoting in full: "If the parties so desire they may, after certificate or licence duly granted, contract and solemnize marriage at any place and in the presence of a registrar and in the presence of two witnesses, with open doors, and between the hours of six o'clock in the morning and eight o'clock in the evening, making the declaration and using the form of words provided in section 23 of this Act; but in such case no religious service shall be used."

AN IMPORTANT DEBATE

The debate on marital rape is an important one. It may also offer members of the public the opportunity to consider where they stand on an even more significant question.

If this nation is to progress, each one of us will eventually have to decide how he or she regards the doom-mongering of the Christian Council on issues of human rights and individual responsibility.

A federation of predominantly Baptist churches, the largest organisation of its kind in the Bahamas, the Council has enjoyed the unchallenged status of primary moral voice of the nation for decades.

Many of its members portray themselves as latter-day Davids, standing against the Goliath of degenerate modernism. In reality, they have become more like the New Testament Pharisees, who declare they are defending righteousness while putting the letter of the Law above its spirit.

I for one believe they are fighting not for justice, but against change, because change is the barometer of their fading influence on society. The powerful will not give up the advantages of their position willingly, as Dr King, in his letter from a Birmingham jail, so eloquently pointed out.

What do you think?

email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net

Reader Comments - 40 Total

House Rules

Be nice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if it differs from yours.
Be honest. Check your facts before posting.
Don’t curse. Surely you can find a way to communicate without resorting to profanity or delving into the gutter.
Keep your comments relevant to the topic of conversation.
Links to outside sites will be deleted.
If you want to sell something, contact webads@tribunemedia.net to book an online advertisement.
If you’re doing something illegal, don’t write about it here. And don’t encourage anyone else to break the law.
Let us know if something offensive, slanderous, libelous or just plain illegal has been posted by clicking on the ‘report this post’ link.
We like feedback, so let us know what you think of a story. If you have more information, share it.
If you spot a spelling error in one of our stories or think we've got our facts wrong, email jrobertson@tribunemedia.net or call 242-322-1986

Posted By: Ken On: 10/1/2009

Title: Great piece

Well researched, well written, well presented. I couldn't care less about who is right or wrong in this matter because I think the government is simply being politically correct and the opponents are protecting their hides or reacting out of ignorance. However, this piece is a journalistic triumph! Congratulations. to you sir!

Posted By: kendal R. On: 9/25/2009

Title: rape in marraige

ever since womens lib women were crying for more and more rights. they praise themselves when they achieve great things then blame man when they dont they stopped being mothers to achieve all other goals now the children has gone astray so blame man todays women is causing most all this problem between father and son they cause their sons to hate thier fathers

Posted By: nassau boy On: 9/25/2009

Title:

I am a married man I need to have two women now if my say no she wont

Posted By: Voltaire On: 9/9/2009

Title:

PS - Anthony Taylor, I have seen your comments arguing for the Christian Council's position on about five different stories on this website, and in every case, multiple people refute what you say. Aside from you, only about two commentators have come out against this law, while a host of people have supported it. No one is trying to take away your marital rights: presumably if you are married to a good Christian woman (as you define it) who agrees with you, she will not report marital rape in any case. Do you really think you have the right to force the rest of us into your way of thinking, when we clearly don't agree?? GIve us our law, and you can enforce your "spiritual" imperative in your own house.

Posted By: Voltaire On: 9/9/2009

Title: Oh please

@ ANTHONY TAYLOR - Government in the bedroom is a bad thing is it? Well what about beating your wife in the bedroom, is that ok? Saying the government has no right to legislate in the bedroom is like saying that if I kill someone in a church, the police have no right to arrest me. Laws protect rights and avenge their violation - regardless of the location.

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

Title: @agreeing with wendy

As regards what you're talking about, I don't disagree that these things are wrong. I just don't think the Gov' should outlaw them or create laws to try to "impede" these things. That's the Gov' in the bedroom.

Posted By: agreeing with wendy On: 9/9/2009

Title: @ Anthony Taylor

My good sir, a body needs both feet to work in tandem in order to walk, it cannot walk if only one foot is is in motion in fact one foot cannot take a step forward without the other to balance. So should the act of sexual intercourse be between husband and wife. The conjugal act cannot according to scripture, cannot be denied or COMPLETED without agreement of the two. The husband has no authority of his own to say that the act is complete but you know just as well as i do should you choose to be honest with yourself that a good many husbands roll over and go to sleep after their orgasm. That is not right unless the wife clearly says its ok. How is a husband making a unilateral decision to end the act different from the wife making a unilateral decision to not commence the act? Where is the unity in premature ejacuation Mr. Taylor? A woman should be able to demand that her husband help her achieve an orgasm right? I know that may sound a little crass but you know full well that the husband usually dictates when the sex is done. You know this and men like you are also saying that the husband also have the 'right' to decide when it begins. Husbands already know that they are going to be pleasured but those who make it a priority to make sure their wives are adequately pleasured in the process receive little if any resistance at all from their wives. The truth is that your position has little to do with Biblical accuracy or the proper administration of conjugal rights but it has everything to do with selfishness and the desire to be in complete control. Men like you seek to use your sex to control your wives. This law 'appears' to be an impediment to carrying out or 'continuing' to carry out that desire and that is in fact why you oppose it.

Posted By: SMT On: 9/9/2009

Title: agreeing with wendy

I agree with Ms. Williams. For men the outcome of sex is always the same but women never know what they are going to get. Part of the reason wives say no is because of the inconsistency of their husbands. It's funny though that these same men expect their wives to be patient and understanding when it comes to their shortcomings but are not patient enough to wait until she is mentally and physically in the mood. Selfishness on the part of many husbands is one of the reason many wives don't put out. Even in cases where stamina is not an issue it does not necessarily translate into pleasure for the woman. Generally if more husbands tried harder they would get more yeses from their wives. But I think one of the most important reasons why some wives say no is because on a subconscious level there is the belief that frequent sex will cause their bodies to become 'worn out' thus causing them to loose their appeal to their husbands altogether. Everyone over the age of twelve is probably familiar with this belief as it is probably one of the first lessons that society teaches us as to why men are allowed to be as sexually liberal as they choose but women should do the exact opposite. It is not uncommon for girls to be told from men and other women that too much sex causes the vagina to loosen and once that happens no man will want them. This fear does not simply disappear when a woman gets married in fact it may even become stronger as sexual activity for most women increases in a marriage relationship. Its funny how men will reinforce this fear in women but then when it comes to their wives they expect them to be totally sexually liberal. Hypocrisy at its finest. Potential husbands should consider these things before they go looking for a 'good wife'.

Posted By: Johnson On: 9/9/2009

Title:

Sorry ... "men fear they will be unable to compete with WOMEN in an ethical free market" i mean to say

Posted By: Johnson On: 9/9/2009

Title: @Anthony Thompson

I think you are exaggerating and generalizing when you say that ALL the countries that have this law are dying out. The U.S. does not have a falling birth rate. But anyway, I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country where the population is shrinking and where people can live in peace and decency than a country with a growing population where people are beset by violence and murder, child abuse and rape.... and where men think they have a God given right to dominate and oppress women and take whatever they want. In the end this whole debate is about insecurity: the insecurity of men that their unfair advantages - which they have used religion to justify - are being taken away from them. See, men fear they will be unable to compete with men in an ethical free market. They suspect they can only make it if the game is fixed in their favor.

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

Title: @wendy Williams

I'm not saying the unity of Marriage is total. But that the idea of rape changes. Some people believe nothing changes in the context of Marriage.

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

Title: @ wendy Williams

Wendy, the definite position is that personhood changes in the context of Marriage. There is a unity in marriage. You cannot rape yourself. Therefore, you cannot rape your spouse. Though there can be "spousal abuse". People who support the proposed law may have a rejection of belief in an actual unity of persons in marriage. They see no difference between married and unmarried persons. ...The whole move to outlaw "marital rape" comes from the secular humanists who want a complete equality between men and women in marriage. This is to the point in which they construct laws, the greatest being this so-called "marital rape". But there are other laws they plan to put within marriage so that women can have a supposed complete equality. (A vision of families for the twenty-first century: a declaration of secular family values.) ...So this is all part of a plan to destroy and redefine Traditional Marriage.

Posted By: wendy Williams On: 9/8/2009

Title: @ Anthony Taylor

How will this law destroy marriages? Rape destroys marriages. You can try also you want to put a different definition to it but it is what is is and that phrase has already been coined. The physical and psychological effects on the victims are virtually the same regardless of the offender. The definition of rape does not rely on the person committing the offense or the person being violated it only speaks to the behavior itself and its effects. Words do not cease to have meaning because we do not like who they describe, it is ridiculous for you to even imply that this is possible.

Posted By: Wendy Williams On: 9/8/2009

Title: flip the script

Please publish in the letter section of the Tribune: Many men in this country (Christian council included) are opposing the marital rape law because they feel as though rape cannot exist in marriage and that the law would put their conjugal rights in jeopardy. I disagree with their position but I would even respect it somewhat if they were not being so one sided. All these men around here talking about how it is a wife's duty to satisfy her husband sexually and that according to the Bible she cannot deny him unless he agrees, I hope they remember that the next time they pull out of intercourse before their wife has been satisfied. I'm saying that if a woman denying her husband the opportunity for sexual gratification is wrong then by that very logic a husband quitting the act before his wife has achieved gratification is also wrong. It goes both ways. Husbands have a duty to satisfy their wives sexually just as wives do, lest the wives be prone to give into temptation. It doesn't even have to be the temptation of other men but simply the temptation to say no, I don't want to. The same way she is not supposed to say no, he is not supposed to say 'I'm done' it should be 'we're done. If she does not consent to adjourning the act she has the right to DEMAND that he get back up and satisfy her, after all his body belongs to her. Surely these learned men would not purport that only a man's body has biological limitations when it comes to intercourse. Do not the women have biological limitations as well? But how often do we as women get the short end of the stick? No pun intended. These men are a bunch of hypocrites. The ones who are complaining are most likely the ones whose wives have are apathetic to sex because it has become the norm for them to not be satisfied. Is there any wonder why they have to use force to begin with? Let's talk about that for destroying the sacrament of marriage, husbands who expect total satisfaction but do not fully honor their wives desire for satisfaction. To these men I say step your game up and maybe your wife will actually 'WANT' to sleep with you. Don't quite on your woman, that is just as wrong as her saying no to sex. If you can't get back up use some other means to achieve the desired end but God has also given you a mandate to fulfill.

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

Title: @Johnson

The countries that have little regard for the traditional family are societies that are dying out, with low birth rates. In their midst are Muslim communities that have high birthrates. Of course the family is fundamental to society. "The family constitutes the fundamental "cell" of society." - Pope John Paul II...Lastly, Marriage is obviously fundamental to the family. So it has to be protected or society will collapse. There is simply nothing stronger in society than the family. Not even the elements of Religion, certainly not Education. Your Mama is more important than your teacher.

Posted By: Johnson On: 9/8/2009

Title: @Anthony Taylor

First of all, go look at the 104 countries on that list, and compare their violent crime and social decay rates to ours. I think you will find that most of them do a lot better than us. At some point, you are going to have to acknowledge that there is no truth to the idea that an erosion of family values and respect for religion are at the root of our problems. There are many countries around the world where there is little regard for religion and even less for the traditional family, but their society is leaps and bounds ahead of ours in terms of peace, justice and community spirit. EDUCATION is what we are missing.

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

Title: @Johnson

First of all the local Archbishop Patrick Pinder agreed with the law. The Pope has said nothing that I know of. So it's not the whole Catholic Church that agrees in the concept of "marital rape". ...Many countries have all kinds of abortion laws as well, and are ready to pass so-called "gay marriage" laws. There's no Utopia in these supposedly enlightened countries but rather divorces, abortions, wild children, etc. Not many are even able to sit down for an evening meal. Not that it's much different here, but why take them as a model? Of course some don't see any problem with the family structure as it is. This is because the very concept of Marriage has eroded. Hence people don't see the absurdness of so-called "marital rape". They would also not see the absurdness of "marital prostitution" so low have we all gone in our estimation of the Sacredness of Marriage.

Posted By: Johnson On: 9/8/2009

Title: I don't get it

As the Insight noted, there are more than a hundred countries around the world which already have marital rape laws. Many of them are predominantly Christian nations. I can understand why the Christian Council doesn't want this passed - selfish reasons. What I don't get is, what is in it for people like Anthony Taylor? You have to realize what you are talking is nonsense. The Catholic Church, the most ancient Church in Christianity, agrees with the government. What is your beef?

Posted By: Joe Blow On: 9/8/2009

Title: I concur

Anthony Taylor, I have to agree with The Bubba and give you the benefit of the doubt. You MUST be spouting this senseless drivel only to get a rise out of people and keep the debate going. I REFUSE to believe you are really and truly this ignorant.

Posted By: THe Bubba On: 9/8/2009

Title: Seriously?

What are you talking about? Are you saying that its ok that a teller gets killed in a robbery but not if she is pregnant? How does the condition of her womb make her anyless human? The lines of wrong and right is so smeared you seem to think that there is a gray area. There is no way to say that forcing something on some one is right. I honestly think you are saying these ridiculous things to get a rise out of someone. It is for any sensible person to think like that.

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

Title: An Outrageous Violation?

One of the meanings of Rape in Webster is "3 : an outrageous violation". Rape has to be "outrageous". One could say a bank teller killed in a bank robbery is not outrageous. But if the bank teller was a pregnant woman then it would be outrageous. ..Rape between unmarried or strangers is outrageous. So called "marital rape" is not really outrageous though it is a terrible violation. Hence, it shouldn't be called Rape.

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

Title: The Catholic Church

I am a Catholic but I disagree on this point with Archbishop Pinder. If the Pope ruled on the issue, then I would have to agree however but it doesn't look like that has happened. Indeed it may be complex to rule on because no one disputes that serious spousal abuse is wrong and should be punished. However, what it should be CALLED in light of the understanding of Marriage and Christian Marriage is the issue. ..What it's CALLED will decide whether Marriage is redefined and so called "homosexual marriage" is accepted.

Posted By: Johnny 5 On: 9/8/2009

Title: Rapist in the Church

If the Anglicans, the Methodist, the Seventh Day Adventist and the Catholic Church agree to the fundaments of this amendment - Which Congregations are left to oppose and who is it that supports Rev. I support marital Rape Paul and who is it that comprises this so called 'christian council ? I am a Baptist and will be calling my Pastor in the morning - I encourage you all to do the same - Baptists, Church of God, Church of God of Prophecy, Penecostals, Rasta, Muslim and Jew let your voice be heard - Call a talk show, write a letter and let it be known that we respect the equality of Bahamian women, understand that abuse cannot be sanctioned and we are a nation of considerate, compassionate, civilized, thinking people.

Posted By: my point of view On: 9/7/2009

Title:

I read this article today in the paper and I was so impressed at how well thought and and how well articulated this editorial was. As a young woman single woman this topic is one that has struck a chord with me as I have listened intently to both sides of the argument. It is so sad that some men consistently refuse to put anything else above their own sexual gratification. The portion of scripture that says wives must submit to their husbands also goes on to say that husbands should love their wives even as Christ loved the church, that is the key. Christ never 'forced' his agenda onto anyone, we were given free will. Even though wives we mandated to submit to the husband in all things the husbands were mandated to love their wives on a divine level so that the love would be upheld whether she submitted (disobeyed) or not. Is that not what salvation is all about. No matter what we do we cannot be separated from God's love and the Bible also says that love is patient and kind, not envious and not full or pride or boastful. There is no way that the Almighty would sanction us to violate the dignity of spouses that simply is not what his love is about.

Posted By: Ricardo Wright On: 9/7/2009

Title: great journalism

this is by far one of the best Insight articles ever.it is so factual, relevant and articulate. as for the Christian Council, they have become a joke to our country and a disgrace to our moral fabric.......i dont even care to know who the president is anymore. it takes a gutsy government to make this call and i am glad my government did.....women are abused too much in our country and i fully endorse the bill.as for Mr Paul, will he please stick to important matters like gambling [lol]

Posted By: L On: 9/7/2009

Title:

It is shocking that the Christian Council is able to distort Scripture. Although marriage can be seen as a secular contract, to many of us, marriage has a religious significance. Scripture speaks to love of our fellow human beings and respecting the dignity of every human being. Nowhere is this more true than with marriage, in which many intimate moments and acts are shared. Rape is a violent crime, used for thousands of years as an act of war. Rape isnot a right of any person, nor should it be seen as a sexual act by anyone who promotes "Christian values". Christian values mean respecting every human being and their rights. Marital rape undermines and destroys the very basis of good Christian values.

Posted By: Darinique On: 9/7/2009

Title: They are at it again!

As I read the news paper this morning and the Insight editorial, i was completely disgusted with the views that the Christian Council and Rev Paul share in regards to the amendment of the marital rape law. How can they say they represent Jesus (as Christ is love) yet are completely against a woman having the protection against an abusive husband. Its funny how you only hear from these False Prophets when it comes to homosexuals and movies but you never hear them speak out amongst their own "brothers" in regards to buying flashy Bentley cars and reaping additional tithes from already cash strapped church members. Bahamians, it is time to wake up and realise the real Men and Women of God and see that the "others" have their own agendas for control and possible ambitions - be it political or otherwise.

Posted By: Erasmus Folly On: 9/7/2009

Title: Taliban in the Bahamas

As far as I am concerned, the Christian Council, in taking this position, is the equivalent of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Christian fundamentalism is as backwards, ignorant and disrespectful of people's rights, in particular women's rights, as their Muslim 'brothers'. Wake up Bahamas! Shake off these false prophets, shameless scammers and Bentley driving fools and THINK for yourself. Protect your daughters and mothers and sisters from the evil men who think that there is a difference between 'force' and 'violence'. I never heard such a foolish argument in my life. Rape apologists... the whole lot of them... and that doesn't sound too Christian to me. I hope more people think for themselves than follow these con artists. I see nothing but the very same Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus so adroitly put in their place. Time to the do the same in this country. Say goodbye to these false prophets and Bentley driving tiefs!

Posted By: GP On: 9/7/2009

Title: Unbelievable

What I want to know is how does the Christian Council manage to brainwash about 50% of the Bahamian population? Religion really must be like crack, or as Karl Marx said "the opiate of the masses". It doesn't surprise me that Rev Paul – or any self-appointed moral authority for that matter – sees nothing sinful with a man raping his wife. However, I REFUSE to believe that these women who agree – rather, who are forced to agree, for if not they will go to Hell – actually believe in their hearts that it is proper for a husband to force himself on his wife. How could they truly believe that their God would want this for them? I guess the fear of being thrown into the fires of Hell is powerful enough to let themselves get raped. Or worse, powerful enough for them to defend the act. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that marital rape causes emotional trauma to women. What sort of women defend this kind of act? More importantly, what sort of church leaders let that happen?

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

Title: Collapse of the Family Unit

Quote from article: "As it turns out, there seems to be no record of huge changes in a society, the collapse of the family unit, or an eruption of widespread false claims as a result of the passing of such a law." --------That's cause there's no family left to destroy. The family unit collapsed decades ago with Television. The countries that have the law are no poster children for Utopia.

Posted By: Charlton Deveaux On: 9/7/2009

Title: Politics

This issue is so political that its a sham. Women have are the majority in this country and in the voting demographics. The economy is in the gutter, which has been the single most catalyst for governmental change during recent elections. If, you propose, then pass a legislation preporting advance the agenda of the majority voting block you retain your governmental status quo. This is a ploy. How about reading the Sexual Offence and Domestic Violence Amended Act 2008.

Posted By: xipna On: 9/7/2009

Title: Sark Ages is right

Nice to see the Christian Council has moved into the 21st Century - keep it up guys with attitudes like yours soon there will be NO church. Wouldn't it be a shock if your congregation sat out on your next service - or much worse took back their tithes - wonder what your tune would be then? Those who attend these churches should show their antiquated "leaders" the way.

Posted By: Nickie On: 9/7/2009

Title: Great Job

Beautifully Written!! Every point was solid, well articulated, and backed up. The Tribune certainly has come a long way! As a student off to school, it's so refreshing to get good reporting and be able to stay up to date on what's happening back at home. Thanks!!

Posted By: Lady On: 9/7/2009

Title:

If a man withholds funds from his wife because she will not have sex with them, I think it should give her grounds for divorce and she should take him for everything he has. If she has any sense, she will leave him. How do you figure withholding sex is a violent act?

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

Title: Prostitution?

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). Or should that be Prostitution where the husband is treated as a John? And that's just as absurd as supposed "Rape" in Marriage. There can be no Rape because the two are One Flesh. Ephesians 5:28-31 In every culture Marriage is a unity that this Anti-Christian, Anti-Marriage law denies. ..Obviously the proponents of this law (who understand it) are more concerned with overturning Judeo-christian values than they are in protecting women against spousal abuse. They could EASILY Compromise and get to the real issue.

Posted By: B. On: 9/7/2009

Title:

The Christian Council do not need to convince all of us, they already have the biggest congregations in the country listening to everything they say. The government wants these people as voters, so they will have to be careful. That is how the CC wins fights.

Posted By: Enough On: 9/7/2009

Title: GOOD POINT

Good point. It is all fine and good to say each of the persons in a marriage has "conjugal right" when only one of them can "enforce" these rights. I wonder too, in cases of men who work hard and are not always at home to fulfill their partner's "needs", is it acceptable for the woman to cheat? How come the Christian Council doesn't take a stand against long office hours for men, as this may leave his wife no alternative but to cheat. The whole thing is hypocritical and self serving, but what do you expect?

Posted By: Marlon JOhnson On: 9/7/2009

Title: Thanks

It is pleasantly refreshing to see that there are those willing to stand up for civil liberties in the Bahamas. Stay true to your convictions.

Posted By: sick and tired of this foolishness On: 9/7/2009

Title: equality

I wonder.... if it were physically possible for a woman to force herself upon a man, thereby invoking her marital rights as outlined by all those opposing the law, would we be having this same discussion? Unfortunately,(or fortunately for him... he can't be forced or raped) if he's not interested, willing or able, his penis does not rise to the occasion, therefore making this a non-issue. Shame womens' vaginas don't seal up when they're not interested, willing or able.

Posted By: Johnny 5 On: 9/7/2009

Title: Back to the Dark Ages

I am thoroughly impressed by your deconstruction of Rev. Paul and the Christian Councils positions on marital rape. You did a masterful job! That aside I see something beyond your view that this resistance by them is primarily a resistance to change and their need to maintain their fiefdooms. I believe its also due to a willingless by the majority in this society to accept the lowest common denominator on most issues of national importance - It has been happening on almost every issue and its simply a case where the loudest, generally the least informed are leading the debates and directing the masses - This begs the question of leadership (political and most importantly otherwise) It reminds me of the movie Gladiator - THE mob IS Rome...The mob is The Bahamas!

Today's Poll

Question: A group of experienced politicians and newcomers to frontline politics are said to be in talks to form a new political party. Would you consider voting for a party other than the FNM or PLP in the next general election? Feel free to comment after you've voted below View Results