By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Chief Reporter
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net
PARLIAMENTARIANS are expected to return to a unified front on constitutional amendment bills now that referendum questions have been simplified, Constitutional Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney said yesterday.
The revised questions take into account concerns about bill number four and has included a definition of the word “sex” as male or female.
Question two has also been changed to make it clearer that, under the proposed change, the foreign spouse of a Bahamian woman would not receive automatic citizenship, but the right to apply subject to approval and safeguards against marriages of convenience.
Mr McWeeney said he felt confident that the changes will resolve misconceptions over the bills’ implications, which he maintained were to remove discrimination against women and men.
The Tribune obtained the revised questions last night.
Each question will begin with: Do you approve of the Bahamas Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014?
Bill one will read: “Under this proposed change to the Constitution, a child born outside the Bahamas would become a Bahamian citizen at birth if either its mother or father is a citizen of the Bahamas by birth.”
Bill two will read: “Under this proposed change to the Constitution, the foreign spouse of a Bahamian citizen would be able to apply for and obtain citizenship subject to satisfying 1) existing national security and public policy considerations; and 2) new provisions guarding against marriages of convenience.”
Bill three will read: “Under this proposed change to the Constitution, a Bahamian father of a child born out of wedlock would be able to pass his citizenship to that child subject to legal proof that he is the father.”
Bill four will read: “Under this proposed change to the Constitution, it would be unlawful to discriminate based on sex, and ‘sex’ would be defined as meaning male or female.”
Mr McWeeney addressed the misinformation that has surfaced over the proposed constitutional reform outlined in bills two and four.
“There was a widely held misconception that somehow a foreign spouse would automatically get citizenship, that was not so, that has never been the policy. The only thing that the (second) amendment sought to do was give to Bahamian women (the same right) as Bahamian men in respect to foreign spouses, in addition also seeking to further guard against marriages of convenience.”
“There is nothing automatic about it,” he said.
On bill four Mr McWeeney said: “For some reason there was again a widely held view that this amendment was opening the gate for same sex marriage, we never shared this view but are sympathetic that many people are genuinely anxious over this and want to ensure they are not facilitating something that is considered abhorrent to deeply held principles.
“Bill four, which in many respects is the foundation for the other three bills, the only intent is to enshrine the discrimination against sex. It’s already in Article 15, it’s been in every written constitution going back to pre-independence. All that is happening now is putting it in Article 26, which creates enforceable rights and the opportunity to obtain relief.
“Unfortunately, it got inflated,” he added.
He hopes the changes will calm the fracture in the House of Assembly over the bills.
“Both sides have seen the amendments before (today) but both parties have had meetings to deal with this. I suspect that those parties will be back in a unified position on this.”
Comments
ThisIsOurs 9 years, 8 months ago
Simplified my afterburner. Your rewording has addressed nothing. For me it points further in the direction that you would hijack equality for women for your own personal agenda
pilgrimagerock 9 years, 8 months ago
The rewording only confirms that the referendum is DOA.
Sickened 9 years, 8 months ago
How about... Bill four will read: “Under this proposed change to the Constitution, it would be unlawful, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF MARRIAGE, WHICH IS TO BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN, to discriminate based on sex, and ‘sex’ would be defined as meaning male or female.” ??
pilgrimagerock 9 years, 8 months ago
Well said. I will vote for Bill four for sure!
licks2 9 years, 8 months ago
Well mudder flick. . .THESE JACK AZZES DEM REALLY THINK WE STUPID NAW!! When we say sex. . .we mean man and woman!! Thats what it meen in da first place idjet. . .sissies them is man and womin only. So after that bill pass ya can't discriminate against a person with a doggie. . ."MAN" and a person wid a "crabby". . .WOMAN. . .just on the basis that they gat crabby or doggie! Soooooooooooooooooooooo that covers all included in sex. . .dat mean man and woman!!
So here is the kicker fer any future ruling against same sex marriages in the bahamas if the number 4 pass! Look at the principal contained in US v. Windson. . .the state will say only a doggie can marry a crabby. . .vise versa! BOOM. . . the privy council will tell yinna that the state cant say only one doggie and one crabby can marry becuase article 4 say the state cant make decisions based on crabbies and doggies!!! Ergo. . .two doggies or two crabbies dem can get married!
Please excuse my crassness right here people. . .but i think a child can understand the underlying of this bill and not the foolishness dem fool trynna play wid we head wid!!!
jackbnimble 9 years, 8 months ago
licks2 man you killing me!! Lol!!
mostsickandtired 9 years, 8 months ago
I think we have some seriously homophobic people in our society, that are creating bizarre scenarios, and trying to stimulate fear in this Christian based society, that gay marriage will become somehow legal if this amendment was enforced. Truly they are ignoring the fact that this amendment only seeks to address discrimination between male and female. period. If you want a woman not to be discriminated against, and if she is, to have legal recourse, then vote YES to this amendment. everyone needs to just take a breath, count to 10, and realize this amendment is necessary for equality of women. And I am a married, Christian woman, not gullible, not blind.
jackbnimble 9 years, 8 months ago
The Gays need not try to do assert any right to marry any time in the next 1,000 years, that's for sure!
Well_mudda_take_sic 9 years, 8 months ago
WELL WORTH REPEATING: McWeeney and Gomez alike are being coy and disingenuous to say the least, even after taking account of the very latest modifications to the proposed wording of the items to be voted on in the referendum. If Bahamians foolishly vote "yes"as Fred Mitchell and others like him in our parliament would wish, then the door will be opened wide for a gay man and gay woman to assert that it is their constitutional right to marry their same-sex gay companion with the requirement that the same-sex marriage be recognised in law (and presumably in the church) as being no different than a christian marriage between a man and a women. Do not permit yourself to be conned by any politician to vote "yes" for same-sex gay marriage whether the persuasion of the politician be PLP, FNM or DNA. The fact that these evil politicians are not willing to amend our Constitution so that it explicitly states in plain simple English that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman should tell all of us that they are hell bent on accepting same-sex marriages as a constitutional right of the gay community. PLEASE, JUST READ HOW THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SAME-SEX RELATIONS IN THE GOOD BOOK OF LEVITICUS AT CHAPTER 20, VERSE 13.
Reality_Check 9 years, 8 months ago
Sean McWeeney and all of our corrupt politicians must think most Bahamian voters are just plain stupid and it is most condescending of them to do so. On something as important as changes to our Constitution, Bahamians should be voting in a referendum on the exact (precise) wording of the changes as opposed to four (4) questions regarding changes that are labelled as being "proposed" for finalisation by our legislators after the outcome of the referendum, assuming a two-thirds majority of Bahamians foolishly vote "yes" in the referendum. Bahamian voters are entitled to see and know the exact (precise) wording of the changes to the Constitution that they are being called to vote on in a referendum. Our current Constitution does not allow our legislators to determine the final wording without that final wording being voted on by the people. Can you just imagine us foolishly letting our current legislators decide on the intent and final wording of the changes for us rather than us exercising our very own constitutional right to do so. Why have Minnis, Turner-Butler and McCartney not objected to a vote on questions about "proposed" changes as opposed to a referendum vote on the actual final wording of the changes if the required two-thirds affirmative vote of the people is achieved. McWeeney has for decades been behind the scenes advising the PLP on policy matters and look where it has landed all of us today when it comes to the serious problems we have with illegal immigration, incessant crime, a grade D minus public education system, and so on. I guess McWeeney smugly believes most Bahamian voters lack his intellectual ability to read and understand anything more complex than four (4) simple questions on "proposed" changes. Rubbish McWeeney! We the people, the good God fearing citizens of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas are entitled to see and know well ahead of the referendum the exact (precise) wording of all the changes that our government/legislators will make to our Constitution in the event we cast the necessary two-thirds majority affirmative vote. We the people have a fundamental constitutional right NOT to leave it for you and your cronies in government to interpret anything at all when it comes to any changes being made to our Constitution which is our most protective document as Bahamian citizens. It's really as simple as that!
empathy 9 years, 8 months ago
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s oft quoted: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" comes to mind after reading many of the aforementioned comments. It appears as though homophobia is clouding our sense of moral justice for our Bahamian daughters. As a previous letter-writer implies: if our wish is to support equality for our girls and women then voting on these issues are simple, we need not claim to see "ghosts" that are not there. It was unfortunate that the framers of our constitution enacted sexual discriminatory laws in our original constitution, deliberate or not. That was another era, almost two generations ago. We have the opportunity to correct this injustice and I implore my fellow Bahamians to please do so. About question #4 this is not about Same Sex Marriage, and those arguing that it is, most of whom are intellectually and politically savvy, know that it is not. In generations to come if Bahamians want to change the Constitution to allow Same Sex Marriage at some future date they will have to add those sentences directly into the Constitution. Our changes this year will not be helpful to them. I am hopeful our journalists will begin to ask substantive questions thus setting the tone for serious discussions, not about an MP's political future (whether he votes in-line with his Party), but whether his stance has moral, intellectual or practical merit to our people. Let's stick to the issues and hopefully our next citizenship referendum will be addressing an even more, practically important topic: that of elimination of the chance of citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants!
Well_mudda_take_sic 9 years, 8 months ago
Absolute bullocks! You know full well that if the amendments as proposed are passed there will never be any hope in hell of closing the door to same-sex marriage or for that matter of ever stopping children born to illegal immigrants from gaining Bahamian citizenship.
Sickened 9 years, 8 months ago
Picture this simple scenario if Amendment 4 is passed as is... A man couple wants to get married and are refused, in accordance with the Marriage Act, because they are the same sex. First thing they will do is say, "I have a constitutional right to marry whomever I want. The constitution says that you cannot discriminate based on sex. If a woman has the right to marry a man then, according to the constitution, a man also has the right to marry a man." SIMPLE!!!
What about this don't the politicians, and others, understand??? The majority of Bahamian people don't want to allow gay marriage. So... change to wording to clarify it (see my post above).
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID