|
Last Updated: Feb 13, 2017 - 1:45:37 AM |
 In a recent letter to the editor, Retired Archbishop Drexel Gomez addressed a May 18, 2016 opinion written by me in response to particular comments made by him relative to the upcoming referendum. Although Archbishop Gomez and I remain on different pages regarding the issues in this referendum, I am happy to allow Archbishop Gomez’s gracious response to stand generally without further comment from me. However, I believe it is important for me to respond to two issues raised in his letter, namely the reasons I oppose Bill4 and my and his divergent views of a statement in the Constitutional Commission’s Report regarding Recommendation 25 and the issue of guarding against same-sex marriage.
Misrepresented Again
Pointing to my opposition to Bill 4, Archbishop Gomez writes: “It is abundantly clear that Moss’ entire case is based upon the failure of government to adopt Recommendation 25 of the Constitutional Commission.” Once again, Archbishop Gomez misrepresents my position, and once again I’m surprised, because my public written and verbal opposition to Bill 4 have almost always been supported by three additional reasons for opposing it.
Removing Distinctions
First, separate and apart from the government’s rejection of Recommendation 25 (and the accompanying benefits to guard against same-sex marriage), I’ve repeatedly stated my opposition to Bill 4 because, if it succeeds, it will require that we treat males and females without distinction, just as we treat people of all races, places of origin, political opinions, colour, and creed in the exact same manner. Therefore, if for example, a male teacher at a government operated school wanted to wear the same kind of clothing that female teachers are allowed to wear, or a male student wants to use the same bathroom that the girls are allowed to use, both will have the constitutional right to do so, if the proposed amendments to Article 26 contained in Bill 4 are successful.
Business Owner’s Rights
Second, I’ve indicated that I oppose Bill 4 because, if it succeeds, those who operate businesses under government issued licenses [Article 26(7)] will lose certain rights they now enjoy in the operation of their businesses. At the moment, for example, a business that hosts dinner parties and socials can choose to accept business from Tom and Sue, as they celebrate their heterosexual relationship with their friends, while refusing to host the same dinner party for Tom and John to celebrate their homosexual relationship. The difference is a discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation, because Tom is a constant in both scenarios, and Sue and John are the variables. However, if Bill 4 succeeds, Tom and John will have a constitutional right to be protected from discrimination, and they must be treated in the exact same manner that Tom and Sue are treated.
Landlord’s Rights
Third, I’ve indicated that I oppose Bill 4 because, if it succeeds, landlords who lease premises [Article 26(8)] will lose rights they now enjoy in determining who they lease their premises to. Again, to use the Tom and Sue and Tom and John example, currently, a landlord can choose to rent to Tom and Sue but not to Tom and John, and there is nothing that Tom and John can do about it. Why? Our Constitution gives them no right that they can enforce in this regard. However, that will all change on June 7, 2016, if Bill 4 succeeds in the referendum; not only would Tom and John have a constitutional right to enforce and be able to sue the landlord, but the government could also pass laws to enable the courts to fine the landlord for discrimination on the basis of sex.
Reading Naturally
As pointed out by him, Archbishop Gomez and I differ in how we read and connect these words of the Constitutional Commission, found on page 125 of their Report: “It should be noted, however, that the Commission was not unanimous in making the foregoing recommendation, as it was felt by several Commissioners that existing provisions in the Constitution (namely article 26(4)(c)) already give constitutional protection to laws prohibiting same-sex unions (e.g., Matrimonial Causes Act, s. 21(1)(c)).”
Archbishop Gomez takes the view that “the foregoing recommendation” refers back to the suggested wording that the Commissioners offered for the additional amendment which they proposed in Recommendation 25 (which is 3 sentences removed from the quoted statement at issue). If Archbishop Gomez is correct, and I don’t believe he is, the placement of that statement would stand out as an aberration in a very well written Report. However, I hold that a more natural reading of “the foregoing recommendation,” connecting it to the recommendation in the sentence immediately before it; that recommendation is “the large number of recommendations it [the Commission] received, particularly from the religious community, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the constitution.” It is that marriage amendment recommendation that the Commission was evidently not unanimous on.
It Matters Not
However, even if I grant, as Archbishop Gomez claims, that “the foregoing recommendation” refers to Recommendation 25, it matters not. The fact that Recommendation 25 made the Report is sufficient proof that a majority of the Commissioners supported it, thus Archbishop Gomez’s point falls away. Further, even if Archbishop Gomez’s reading is correct, it does not follow that it was reasonable for the government to reject Recommendation 25 simply because the Commission was not unanimous in its recommendation. If unanimity was a pre-requisite in order for the government to accept a recommendation, then the whole Report should be rejected because on page 213 of the Report, Commissioner Lester Mortimer, QC dissented entirely from it and made the point that he is “one of those who do not believe that there is anything wrong with our Constitution.”
Theology and Democracy
What is clear is that for Archbishop Gomez, the fight for biblical marriage is an issue of theology. While I wholeheartedly agree with him, I also believe that democracy has a role in our fight. Therefore, while I agree with Archbishop Gomez that, as ministers of the gospel,
we must all work together on the theological front in support of the biblical teaching on marriage, I also believe that as Christians we should also function as salt and light and work on the democratic front to help to remove marriage from the hands of the politicians and place it in the hands of the people by way of a constitutional amendment. This will allow a majority of the people to determine the definition of marriage in an ongoing way, and rightly so. I encourage Archbishop Gomez to join us on the democratic front as well.
Cedric Moss serves as senior pastor of Kingdom Life Church. He also serves as the leader of the referendum education group Think, Bahamas! cmoss@kingdom-life.org.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his/her
private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of
TheBahamasWeekly.com
© Copyright 2016 by thebahamasweekly.com
Top of Page
|
