The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Once bitten, twice shy. That’s how I feel about Prime Minister Christie’s assurances that same sex marriage will not result from amending Article 26 of the constitution to include sex as an additional ground for non-discrimination.

Yes, Prime Minister Christie similarly assured us that he and his government would abide by the results of the gambling referendum; but he reneged on his word after they lost that referendum (yes, they lost it).

So nowadays, when it comes to Prime Minister Christie giving his word on anything, once bitten, twice shy is my response.

Rather than give his now untrustworthy word to try to allay the same sex marriage concerns of voters, Prime Minister Christie and his government should instead in this same referendum also provide for an amendment to the constitution to clearly state that marriage in The Bahamas is between one man and one woman and prohibit in The Bahamas the recognition of same sex marriages from elsewhere.

In addition to remembering how the Prime Minister reneged on his word after the gambling referendum, voters would also be wise to remember that if we amend the relevant sections of Article 26 in a vacuum to include sex, at the end of the day it will be left up to the Privy Council to decide if such an amendment includes the right to same sex marriage.

Although I do not see how the proposed amendment to Article 26 can on its face lead to same sex marriage, given the way the activist judges of the Privy Council continue to insult our intelligence with their “worst of the worst” moving goal post rulings on the death penalty, in the absence of an explicit constitutional prohibition against same sex marriage, I’m persuaded that they can and will create a right to same sex marriage from the proposed amendment to Article 26 as is.

So, once bitten, twice shy is also the way I feel about the Privy Council.

In view of these realities about the word of the Prime Minster and the rulings of the Privy Council (and the realities of the world around us as they relate to the issue of same sex marriage), I believe the surest and safest way to seek to amend Article 26 (3) and (5) to include sex is to seek to amend the constitution simultaneously to clearly prohibit both the creation and recognition of same sex marriage in The Bahamas.

With such a clear prohibition against same sex marriage, we won’t leave ourselves dependent on the Prime Minister’s unreliable word or vulnerable to the Privy Council’s dubious rulings.

However, without such a simultaneous two-tiered approach to amending Article 26, I and many others will have no other reasonable choice than to vote no to the proposed amendment.

May God grant us mercy as a nation as we seek to amend our constitution, the results of which will affect our lives and the lives of Bahamians yet unborn for decades to come.

PASTOR CEDRIC MOSS

Nassau,

August 10, 2014.