Comrade My Lady Anita is spending far too much of time on thought control.

It is simply unconscionable and highly unethical, and most inappropriate to say the least, for the sitting President of our Court of Appeal to take it upon herself to publicly opine on a possible road map to same-sex marriage in our country and then encourage "some courageous and astute Bahamian advocate" to recognize that he or she "might succeed in convincing a court that the right to marry is located in one or more of the aforementioned fundamental rights" that she considers relevant to the issue. The fact that Anita Allen has the audacity to make such public remarks on the heals of a resounding "NO!" vote by the Bahamian people to question # 4 in the recently held referendum speaks volumes about her highly unethical willingness to work with the corrupt Christie-led PLP government (and the likes of Sean McWeeney, Rubie Nottage, Allyson Maynard-Gibson, Sharon Wilson, et al) to thwart the will of the Bahamian people, who by their resounding "NO!" vote to question # 4, expressed loudly their opposition to same-sex marriages being allowed in the Bahamas. It is amazing and flabbergasting that Anita Allen should taken it upon herself to be the spokesperson for a back door approach by the corrupt Christie-led PLP government and the clear small minority to allowing same-sex marriages in the Bahamas. Anita Allen should immediately be called on to resign given the highly unethical nature of her conduct here, and her obvious alliance with the government and a very small number of Bahamians who support same-sex marriage. The Bahamian people have already had their expressed will in the gaming referendum thwarted by the corrupt Christie-led PLP government and now we see none other than the President of the Appeals Court leading the charge for the same to be done as regards the outcome of the most recent referendum. Yes, unconscionable and shameful conduct on Anita Allen's part....she has betrayed the trust of the Bahamian people in the lofty office that she holds......nothing short of her demitting office would help restore the trust of the Bahamian people in their judicial system.

This is a severe overreaction to a well-reasoned and researched speech given by a noted jurist, not an off the cuff rant as was perpetrated by her predecessor. In her speech, which I am sure you did not read the entirety of, she talks about the entire legal construct of marriage and indeed divorce and calls for among other things, the adoption of a no-fault divorce rule. Yet, the only thing you've picked up and the press has picked up is her analysis about same-sex marriage, which is factual and correct. In much the same way that judges sitting on the Supreme Court in the US regularly speak about progress of the law, Dame Anita has done so and should be commended for doing so in a manner that is thorough and in a lecture at a law school where students should be called on to critically analyse the law and its progression. That she did so after the referendum and not before, is to her credit. She has done so in a way which did not influence the vote so what is unconscionable and shameful about that!

A sitting judge should never comment on a contentious matter in society that is likely to come before the court because doing so is likely to compromise the court's impartial standing. Anita Allen went far beyond this though....to the point of rendering a legal opinion and asserting a legal strategy based on her controversial interpretation of the law. She has even expressed her desire to see a lawyer of courage present a case for same-sex marriage based on her legal analysis. Accordingly, not only is her conduct unethical, it also exhibits an inappropriate judicial temperament not becoming or fitting of a judge that holds her lofty office; accordingly she has severely compromised the court's position in the eyes of the public. She comes across as a hot tempered judge unable to control her emotions as a result of the outcome of the recent referendum, which obviously did not go the way she had greatly hoped. If you are a capable law student or lawyer you would have a much better grasp of the gravity of Anita Allen's misconduct in this matter. I have not shot her in the foot...she has done this grave disservice not only to herself but also the court, and, by extension, the vast majority of Bahamians at large!

Here's the thing...question #4 had nothing to do with same sex marriages so the public saying no is a non-issue.

"CommonSense", you clearly think Bahamians have no common sense....but be rest assured, we do!

McWeeney did say that a No vote on Bill 4 would leave the door open.

From an economical point of view we would have been better off with a Yes vote for all the Bills.
It now looks as if we will have a poor economy and same sex marriage. Where is the wisdom in that?

McWeeney is dead wrong and for you to believe anything he utters on this matter shows that you have not carefully researched the subject.

Comrade Economist, you're being one of the pure members da intelligentsia posting on this hereto Tribune blog pages, must realize that 99.9% of the fears peddled by both the referendum "Yes" and "No" sides, had so little to do with the truth about what constitutes marriage?
What neither side, nor My Lady will say, is that a marriage contracted in accordance with the law by two persons - should only be “in accordance with the law and without distinction as to the couples sex?
Comrade Economist, why should it matter, if born with or penis or later to be have the 'option' to have it chopped off, or vagina added later?

Personally, it does not matter to me. I feel that by isolating the gays we have forced them into a corner and, like anyone who is forced into a corner, they will fight.

I am concerned that we lost sight of the wider picture in all this and, as a result, hurt ourselves.

Now, Comrade Economist someone might argue that you shouldn't have to say ''it does not matter to me' - had you not gone backed yourself into a now seen as, you're confusing the readers -credibility corner?

I was referring to same sex unions. I am liberally minded and so I have no problem with same sex unions.

Well said.

Agreed...the greater good was equal rights...the LGBT portion of the equation in the Bahamas is probably under 1%...so we screwed 99% of the population who could have benefited from the legislation to spite the 1%. Foolish and narrow minded.

A judge who sits on the final court in this nation. . .beside the PC. . .is the final insult to the integrity of elections in the Bahamas!! She has "positioned" herself to those who will attempt to challenge the current law that she is "open" to the idea of trashing the law as is!!

Just think now. . .they were telling us that we did not understand bill #4 would not introduce a "backdoor" approach to same-sexed marriage because the current act for marriage protected us from the possibility of that happening. . .we voted NO and now they are telling us that the current marriage act dose not protect from the possibility of same sex-sexed marriage! SO THEY WERE LYING LIKE THE NO PERSONS WERE SAYING ALL ALONG!

All these old, tired looking people. Is this all we have to rely on ???? Really??? And is she telling us in her 'oh so intellectual way' that they are going around our NO vote and do this thing anyway????

I do believe the Lady is simply stating the factual makeup of the Constitution as relates to marriage as she understands it and I do believe her views were presented rather clearly and unbiasedly.

"DDK", contrary to your obvious wish, we Bahamians are not stupid!

Why are you equating her intellect with her "look", this is exactly why we're in the position we're in, with a bunch of nicely dressed, beautifully coiffed and attired yes men. nice looking fools allowing the country to slip right off the cliff. There's also nothing wrong with being old, you may not have speed you once had, but you can contribute wisdom and experience, that's worth much more today than a youthful face.

Joan Sawyer had retired and therefore was not a sitting judge at the time she weighed in with her personal view that a "Yes" vote to question # 4 would effectively be in support of same-sex marriage. For Anita Allen to say what she has said while still sitting as President of the Court of Appeal is astonishingly unethical even though her remarks come after the recent referendum. From all appearances she has subjected herself to being a mouthpiece for and ally of the corrupt Christie-led PLP government and its mission to have same-sex marriages allowed in the Bahamas, no matter what the vast majority of Bahamians may say or want. Political elitists like Sean McWeeney, Rubie Nottage, Sharon Wilson, Lynn Holowesko, etc. believe the Bahamian people are incapable of determining what's good for themselves and our country. These same people seem to forget that the PLP and/or FNM have been largely responsible for our country's public education system since majority rule. They have no respect for the quality of our education in Bahamian public schools nor our democratic rights that have given us our democracy and majority rule. Now we find that one of the most senior heads (Anita Allen) of what should be the independent judicial branch of our country is in bed with the corrupt Christie-led PLP government and the political elitists in our country to thwart the democratically declared will of the overwhelming majority of Bahamians who voted in the June 7th referendum. If Christie does not speak out vociferously against Anita Allen's public remarks, any Bahamian who in a moment of weakness might consider voting for the PLP in the next general election (because of Minnis) should have their head examined!

The PLP has the opportunity NOW to define the term "marriage" in either the Constitution or the Marriage Act ............. Lady Bulgie can advise the sissies in the Cabinet to stop blocking the AG Office from doing the right thing .......... if AG/Cabinet have the guts to oppose the sissies.

Same to be another sell out, with bill number four being in existence I wonder if they understand the principles of a discrimination law and a law the protects Christianity?

My question is this: How often did people test the current existing laws with regard to same sex marriage BEFORE the referendum?

They didn't. But now that the churches highlighted this and have pushed gays into a corner they will fight and test the law.

While you fools are ranting and raving about human homosexuality and the end of days, you need to get into Rawson Square **NOW** to make sure the following other species displaying homosexuality are **permanently banned** from the Bahamas!

In fact, maybe they should all be sent to live on the 'island'?

Get to it, oh great protectors of all that is right (well, according to your ridiculous sense of self righteousness)

**Mammals**

Bison[12]
Brown bear[13]
Brown rat[14]
Cavy[14]
Caribou[15]
Cat (domestic)[16]
Cattle (domestic)[17]
Chimpanzee[18][19][20][21]
Common dolphin[22]
Common marmoset[23]
Dog[24]
Elephant[25]
Fox[26]
Giraffe[3][27][28]
Goat[12]
Horse (domestic)[29]
Human[30][31][32]
Koala[33]
Lion[30]
Orca[22]
Raccoon[34]

**Birds**

Main article: List of birds displaying homosexual behavior
Selected birds from the full list:
Barn owl[35]
Chicken[36]
Common gull[37]
Emu[38]
House sparrow[39]
Kestrel[35]
King penguin[40]
Mallard[41]
Ostrich[38]
Raven[42]
Rock dove[43]
Seagull[44]

**Fish**

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) leaping for a fly fisherman's bait. Research going back to the 1950s has shown both male and female graylings exhibit homosexual behavior.[45]
Amazon molly[46]
Blackstripe topminnow[47]
Bluegill sunfish[47]
Char[45]
Grayling[45]
European bitterling[48]
Green swordtail[48]
Guiana leaffish[49]
Houting whitefish[45]
Jewel fish[50]
Least darter (Microperca punctulata)[48]
Mouthbreeding fish sp.[47]
Salmon spp.[51]
Southern platyfish[48]
Ten-spined stickleback[48]
Three-spined stickleback[48]

**Reptiles**[edit]

Three species of Cnemidophorus.
Anole sp.[53]
Bearded dragon[54]
Blue-tailed day gecko (Phelsuma cepediana)[55]
Broad-headed skink[48]
Checkered whiptail lizard[54]
Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizard[54]
Common ameiva[54]
Common garter snake[48]
Cuban green anole[53]
Desert grassland whiptail lizard[54]
Desert tortoise[56]
Fence lizard[disambiguation needed][54]
Five-lined skink[48]
Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda)[55]
Gopher (pine) snake[47]
Green anole[53]
Inagua curlytail lizard[54]
Jamaican giant anole[53]
Laredo striped whiptail lizard[54]
Largehead anole[53]
Mourning gecko[57]
Plateau striped whiptail lizard[54]
Red diamond rattlesnake[48]
Red-tailed skink[48]
Side-blotched lizard[54]
Speckled rattlesnake[48]
Water moccasin[48]
Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[48]
Western banded gecko[57]
Whiptail lizard spp.[54]
Wood turtle[53]
Amphibians[edit]
Appalachian woodland salamander[58]
Black-spotted frog[59]
Mountain dusky salamander[58]
Tengger desert toad[53]

**Insects**

The head of a darner dragonfly
Male flour beetles

*[hundreds more I had to remove for comment length...]*

Whatever types of unions may be occurring in nature by other creatures has absolutely nothing to do with humans and same-sex marriage....in much the way that some creatures can produce asexually but humans cannot do so. HarryWyckoff, you are so far off the mark in your thought processes on this matter that you cannot see the forest for the sake of the trees.

Bottom line: Anita Allen has done our judiciary and the vast majority of Bahamians a great disservice by wrongfully believing that she could disassociate her public remarks from the lofty office to which she has been appointed. Any diligent first year law student knows that her fatal misstep here is abusive of her office and subjects the entire judiciary to significant mistrust by the Bahamian people. Allen should forthwith demit office and bow her head in shame while doing so. Never in the history of the Bahamas has a senior judicial official behaved so unethically. There is no room for apology by her here.....she has sown a dire seed of mistrust that will remain for as long as she remains in office!

Comrade Economist you oppose same-sex marriages but say you would be okay with 'same-sex unions? Would you care to 'clearly define' for readers the differences as you see them between a 'married couple' and a 'same-sex union?
Too bad the Tribune's reporter Rashad, never got around to asking the DNA's Bran the same puzzling yet most important legal question?

It amounts to the same thing. I have always interpreted 'marriage' as being between a man and a woman, that's all.

Really...Comrade Economist is it going be that simple?
Will your 'civil union' also include the full legal status which comes with all the rights and responsibilities and legal rights guaranteed to 'civil marrieds - til and AFTER' death does
do us apart?
On this lone but so important point, I would challenge both you and Bran to a public forum?

The rights on a dissolution should be the same. A Same Sex Partner should be allowed to make 'life or death' decisions in the hospital, just as I am able to with my spouse.

If one partner dies while the Union still exists then the survivor should have the same right s as a surviving husband or wife does.

In other words the same rights as a married, male and female, couple.

Comrade Economist, are you even aware that your 'civil union's' rights, may NOT be recognized in jurisdictions beyond The Bahamaland's territorial borders?
A foreigner entering into a 'civil union' in The Bahamaland, will not have their union recognized beyond our waters?
You see, a 'civil union' does have its limitations, including any guarantees of a hospital outside of The Bahamaland, being prepared to accept life and death instructions, from the healthy partner of the 'civil union?

Unless I am mistaken, they have Civil Unions throughout the EU. I think it is called the Civil Parnership Act in the UK. I believe that they are recognized in most countries, including Canada and much of the U.S.

I stand to be corrected though.

Comrade Economist I know of no case law to back up your most countries acceptance of 'civil partnership' assertions?
I do know it is stickily prohibited for 'civil partnerships' to include religious readings, music or symbols. Most religious venues prohibit their use for the ceremonies to take place.
Straight couples are also stickily prohibited from entering into 'civil partnerships.'

You may well be correct on the religious aspects but it is the legal effect that I speak to.

Even in The Bahamas, while a Reverend may marry you, he does so as a "Marriage Officer" who is a creature of law. If the Reverend is not a Marriage Officer then, as far as the law is concerned, he can't legally marry you and your so called marriage is not recognized by the State.

Tal, this is what I am referring to.
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, allow same-sex couples to obtain essentially the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.

Apparently another Appeals Court judge was very recently overhead saying that Anita Allen's public remarks on same-sex marriage are hideous in that they seem designed to expedite the matter of legalizing same-sex marriage in the Bahamas to the Privy Council notwithstanding that the fear of same-sex marriage was responsible for the outcome of the recent referendum. The wheels have come off of Anita Allen......she has put her own personal wishes above the laws of our land and the wishes of the vast majority of Bahamians. The only sensible thing for her to do now is vacate her office as President of the Court of Appeal and a sitting judge. What disgraceful misconduct on her part!

Comrades, My Lady did no more than to generally contribute to an ongoing debate on a current matter of public interest on same sex marriage. I believe her only objective is to enhance
a better public understanding of the issues surrounding same sex marriage and of the possible role of the Court. There is no judiciary conflict here.
It is the norm for judges to give clarity lecturers on many topics, regardless of their explosive potential for controversy

Does anyone really care what a bent PLP troll and paid misinformation disseminator has to say?

She did a little more than try to enhance public understanding. She invited a challenge and she let the potential challengers know she is on their side.

Agreed.

Read Bahamas. Read. Section 21 of the MCA speaks to void marriages. Section 22 speaks to voidable marriages. It is clear that if a marriage is void, it could not lawfully or effectively be conducted in The Bahamas. Because marriage other than between a male and female is defined as a void marriage, I do not see how anyone could reach the conclusion that it could be legally carried out. I find it frightening that so much reliance is put on the public's refusal to read and research points made that complete fictions are propagated as reality by the ruling class on a daily basis here in The Bahamas.

Thank you.

Thank you @Economist. Now, since few persons tried for same sex marriages under the current laws BEFORE the referendum, why is it believed that they will now start lining up in droves to test the laws? Especially in reference to note from @BahamaPundit.

It's weird that they say the no vote "opened" the door, when all it did was maintain the status quo.

As I understand it, the Constitution overrides legislation if it is contrary to the Constitution.

What Wayne Munroe, Anita Allen, Sean McWeeney, Fred Smith are saying is that the court may interpret the Constitution in a way that will allow same sex marriage.

If the court does, then the Constitution will override the sections in the Marriage Act that are contrary to the Constitution.

@Economist. This is not the case in this situation. The constitution distinctly allows for discrimination in relation to marriage (s.24(4)(c)). In this respect, any discrimination (in relation to voiding marriages other than between a man and a woman) under the MCA is constitutionally protected.

So why are those who voted No bothering to say anything? If we can't have same sex marriages then that is the end of it.

Thank you, would that mean that their own argument that the Marriage Act would protect against same sex marriage, should bill four have passed, was a outright lie?

**As they continue to push their agenda, it's looking more and more like they set out to deliberately deceive an entire nation.**

By leaving out a reference to section 22 in the discussion, as to the clear distinction the MCA makes between that which is void from inception to that which is voidable after the fact and only referring to section 20 and 21, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a clear and present intent to confuse and intimidate the public by the ruling class.

**......... Politicians and diapers should be changed often....both for the same reason ............**

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/15…

Comrade Economist the differences between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union'
are staggering. Marriage brings full legal status and social acceptance that a civil union does not. This is so sad, considering that both the couples tend to want to marry each other for reasons of love and commitment?
One is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. The other is often singled out to be discriminated against?
One is called 'my spouse. The other 'my partner?
Comrade Economist, are you not willing to acknowledge there really are major and important differences between the two unions?

Tal,
The link below gives an interesting history into all of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of….

It will be noted that even in the Roman Catholic countries were the opinion polls are against it, they have permitted it. Hold outs appear to be the old Communist Block in eastern Europe. Even in Greece and Cyprus, where you would think that the Orthodox Church would have stopped it, they have allowed it.

Comrade Economist if you really want discover what many among us does really think about gays, just you do some Sunday morning and evening hop around the church services to hear
the venom spilling from those snake oil preacherman's pulpits, over the 49 young lives
gays murdered in Florida over weekend?
We does have a long road yet to travel, before we can legally perform same sex marriages of any kinds.

Ignorant, stupid and communists, what a combination. While I believe that if you believe your cause is just you should continue fighting no matter the opposition, the yes voters are really sounding like petty sore losers. I can't think that Martin Luther King would have launched a speech to describe white people as ignorant and stupid. From the start, the tone of the yes vote has encouraged divisiveness. Did the no vote campaign do the same? Sure some of it, but it wasn't government funded divisiveness.

**................................ COURT of Appeal President Dame Anita Allen ............................**

She is stunned, absolutely confuddled and suffering a reprobate mind.

Get used to it witch, ***MORE*** to come!