Not a problem. Thanks for being gracious and further responding. Sadly, many move on without any acknowledgement. You've distinguished yourself from them.

Economist, you clearly have not been paying sufficient attention. The public record is replete with my support for Bill 1. Bill 1 is the only Bill that I support. If you wish to provide an informed commentary on why I support Bill 1 and oppose Bills 2, 3, and 4, please visit www.thinkbahamas.org.

Economist, I actually have read and understand our Constitution (not entirely yet, but I have certainly read and understand Chapter II that deals with citizenship, which is what Constitution Amendment Bills 1, 2, and 3 are about).

You quote Article 6 and then accuse the government of choosing to say "that if the father is not wed to the mother the child does not get the citizenship." However, you should note that the government can't ignore Article 6 as you are accusing them of doing.

The issue is that, as stated in Article 14(1), our Constitution does not recognize men who father children out of wedlock. Article 14(1) clearly says that for citizenship purposes, in relation to children born out of wedlock, any reference to “father” means mother. Therefore, Article 6 is understood in light of Article 14(1). It is for this reason that our courts have consistently ruled that Bahamian men who father children out of wedlock CANNOT pass citizenship on to them.

You wrote: "Bill 3 corrects that so the child can get the fathers citizenship, even if the child is born out of wedlock." Think about your statement. If a child is born out of wedlock and its mother is a Bahamian, the child is a Bahamian. Would it make sense for a Bahamian man who has a child out of wedlock with a Bahamian woman to waste money on a paternity test to pass citizenship on to his child despite the fact that the child automatically gets Bahamian citizenship through his Bahamian mother? Certainly not! By the time the paternity test results are back, they child would have already been registered as a Bahamian through his unmarried Bahamian mother. Why do I point this out? I point it out to underscore the purpose of Bill 3 as clearly stated in my letter to which you responded. The purpose of Bill 3 is to allow Bahamian men (married and unmarried) who father children out of wedlock with foreign women to pass Bahamian citizenship to those children once paternity is proven.

I trust the above elaboration helps you to understand the purpose of Bill 3.

Economist and Publius, I respect your decision to support Bill 3. I do not support Bill 3; I trust you will afford me and others the same respect. This referendum is a citizens' exercise. We don't need to demonize those who disagree with us. We can fight ideas without fighting each other. We are all Bahamians.

If you wish to read in detail my reasoning for opposing Bill 3, please visit www.thinkbahamas.org and click on the link to the left "Bill 3 Explained."

All the best!

No, TalRussell. Jesus calls those of us who follow him to a much higher standard. Any erotic physical involvement between individuals who are not married (even if actual sexual relations don't happen) is still sexual immorality. And those who violate God's laws do so to their own hurt.

I encourage you to read the article again. I was asked by the Tribune to comment specifically on the so called same-marriage ceremony that took place between 2 men on Harbour Island. Everyone knows that the so called ceremony could be nothing other that a "play marriage" ceremony because in The Bahamas marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. So if two grown men want to go through a "play marriage" ceremony, even though I unequivocally oppose same sex marriage, my position is they are free to engage in their ceremony. That's all a part of living in a free, democratic society: people are free to do what the law does not prohibit.

I've been called many things, but being a waffler is not one of them. Therefore, it is my view that anyone who concluded that I was waffling in my comments has obviously misread my article, or, worse, has a comprehension problem. I focused on the important point of what should and can be legitimately prohibited, and that is marriage officers performing these ceremonies between same sex couples because to do so is misleading and misrepresenting their office as marriage officers.

My last point has to do with vilifying those who do not share your view. Why do you and others like you need to try to vilify me just because you don't like what I said? Let's lift the level of public discourse and be civil. If you support a society where you can force people to act in ways that you want them to, even though the law does not require them to, you are free to do so. Therefore, if you feel that it should be illegal for people of the same sex to engage in the so called "same sex marriage" ceremonies that have absolutely no legal effect, then I suggest that you and your anonymous friends come forward and begin to advocate for such "Taliban" measures. And if the majority of Bahamians support your views, then "play marriage" ceremonies like the one purported to have taken place in Harbour Island will become illegal. I do not support such an approach, but I do oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, please don't try to attack and vilify me just because we understand democracy differently. Thanks for considering this!