‘Where are female PLPs over referendum?’

Loretta Butler-Turner in the House of Assembly.

As of Wednesday, April 29, 2015

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

FORMER Social Services Minister Loretta Butler-Turner yesterday criticised female PLP parliamentarians saying they could have done more to advance the “forgotten” constitutional referendum, which seeks to enshrine equality into the Bahamas’ guiding principles.

Nearly two years since the referendum was initially promised, the Long Island MP said it was “disappointing” and “unfortunate” that the Christie administration had not lived up to its promise to ensure women are considered equal to men in the Constitution.

Mrs Butler-Turner said it has become evident that the Christie administration has lost the political will to bring changes to the Constitution.

Prime Minister Perry Christie had initially set the constitutional referendum for June 2013 but later changed the date to November 2013.

However, the matter was postponed again and was expected to take place before the end of June 2014. That deadline was missed and in July 2014 Mr Christie announced the vote would take place on November 6.

The latest delay came last September with Bain and Grants Town MP Dr Bernard Nottage’s announcement that the referendum would take place sometime in 2015. Earlier this year, Mr Christie said he wanted to hold the referendum in June.

The government has said very little of its plans to hold the equality vote since then.

Mrs Butler-Turner said: “The women on the other side could drive this process. I think that more could have been said from them publicly.

“I feel I have done so much in reaching out and holding back on things to remove the political barriers and there is very little that is being said.

“The women on that side are too busy putting out political fires. It is now just so unfortunate that here we are here at this point with no movement.”

She added: “It seems that the women are not heralding this and I hate to say this because I have stood hand in hand. So the entire handling of this equality referendum is so very disappointing. I just don’t see the political will.”

She also questioned if the government’s education campaign, which began last July across the country, was still going on.

“It is a little disconcerting to know that they are putting so much into carnival and bringing in generators and partying and frolicking. There is not prioritisation for this referendum,” Mrs Butler-Turner said.

In February, Mrs Butler-Turner suggested that government “incompetence” is to blame for any further delays to the proposed referendum on gender equality.

duppyVAT 8 years, 11 months ago

WAITING ON THE MEN IN CHARGE TO AUTHORIZE THE REFERENDUM .......... DUHHHHH

Well_mudda_take_sic 8 years, 11 months ago

It seems LBT is unaware that Sean McWeeney has advised Christie not to proceed with the referendum until after the U.S. Supreme Court has fully heard and issued its ruling on same-sex marriage. This advice in and of itself acknowledges that the proposed amendments to our constitution as currently drafted, would, if passed in a referendum, allow same-sex marriages in our country. Shortly thereafter, bi-sexual individuals would insist on their right to a threesome marriage whereby they would be entitled to marry both their 'significant other' man and 'significant other' woman. If we throw out the window that marriage can only be between (or involve) one man and one woman, then we may as well also say good-bye to marriage being between only two individuals. After all, if we must protect the rights of gays to marry, then surely we must also protect the rights of bi-sexual individuals to marry both the man and the woman they happen to so dearly love concurrently. It would be most unfair to force the bi-sexual individual to choose between marrying either their male companion or their female companion; they should be able to marry both to enjoy the same right of happiness and other benefits that gays now seek to enjoy by way of same-sex marriage. COME TO THINK OF IT, WHY DON'T WE JUST GO WITH 'GROUPIE' MARRIAGES OF ANY KIND SO AS NOT TO OFFEND THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE! THE MESSAGE OF THE GAY COMMUNITY SEEMS TO BE LOUD AND CLEAR: WHY SHOULD ANY OF US CARE ANYMORE ABOUT PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS IT HAS BEEN DEFINED AND KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF CIVILIZED MANKIND? Yes, I'm all too frothy with cynicism.

Reality_Check 8 years, 11 months ago

Let's just hope the U.S. Supreme Court in its attempt to appease the gay community's desire for same-sex marriages does not inadvertently open the door to polygamy, polygyny and fraternal and non-fraternal polyandry, etc. .....all which are all too frightening and would have serious detrimental consequences for any society.