Don't you all get tired of writing the same stuff over and over again? People will simply vote how they want to vote.

You have a point. They have to be very careful. Minnis doesn't operate like a typical politician from my observations of him in parliament, and if they keep it up he may start acting like one for real. If he brings his hand down, it will not be pretty. This is entertaining though. There are so many FNM's with their panties in a bunch.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">The word ‘sex’ is, by its very nature, interpretative; that is, it has many meanings to various cultures and time periods. The word ‘gender’ would reduce the need for interpretation. We are debating a Gender Equality Bill and not a ‘Sex Equality Bill’...According to dictionaries ‘sex’ is a noun and a verb while ‘gender’ has two meanings and is a noun only. The concept behind the bill is wonderful, but the wording leaves room for interpretation.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">This is misconceived. The word ‘sex’ in its operative nature is a constrained and limited term, and it is typically understood to denote biological characteristics, while gender is a loose term that refers to sexual identity. The common consensus is that sexual identity or gender is a societal construct, making "gender" a concept as broad as the sun. Dictionaries are useless in modern discussion.</p>

<p align="left">I think your letter is a good example of one the referendum's many flaws, which was the decision to brand the proposed amendments as “gender” equality bills. The word gender alone gives opponents multiple methods of attacking not only the individual amendments but the concept of the referendum itself. </p>

<p align="left">The arguments put forth by the “No” opponents are weak but are still extremely effective. If they started making strong arguments they could derail this referendum effortlessly. I do agree however that the law is interpretive and to say that there are facts is slightly misleading.</p>

If they really want Minnis to resign or to somehow call an early convention, it looks like that would only require a few strategically recorded conversations sent to whatsapp/facebook/etc to seal the deal. This place is absolutely lawless.

Most people cannot attain this level of awareness. Well put and aptly described.

This still has a good chance of passing since they only need more “yes” voters to show up at the polls than “no” voters. In terms of getting the majority to show up, that’s doubful. The gaming referendum had about 40% ~ 45% turnout. The referendum back in 2002 had about a 59% ~ 61% turnout if I remember correctly.

The gaming referendum was a failure in democracy because they could not convince the majority to enter the voting booth. Will this one be a failure too?

The ‘PLP’ will sweep, unless some miracle happens. The odds are increasingly becoming more favourable, especially as events fade away from the public eye. They only need to throw a rock into the ‘FNM’s’ school yard fight and walk away.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">In response, Mr Miller said: “If you want to like man, that’s your damn business but don’t try to impose your will on other people.”</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">The thing about the minister for Tall Pines is that the more attention he gets, the more his points become substantiated. This little controversy, if one can can call this a controversy probably secured him a significant amount of votes for his constituency.</p>

<p align="left">If he employs a few more tactics, he’ll be just as irresistible as the assumed republican nominee of a certain country. </p>

<p align="left">The desperation for a "yes" vote is truly real, and ads run ad infinitum. It is becoming eerily similar to the “Stronger Bahamas” campaign introduced last year. </p>

<p align="left">The “no” campaign will not see whatever measly amount of funds they requested from the Government because that would inadvertently reveal the true cost of the referendum and hurt special interests. This is almost a textbook example of how not to run a referendum.</p>

<p align="left">In the past there was a fear that the educational commission would be used to press a “yes” vote but it was hardly expected that the Government would shoot themselves even further by funding their own fully equipped horse, by the public purse no less.</p>

<p align="left">The reality is that when one side brings out their position, you can only expect for the opposition to come out and present their position. Imagine if other referendums for future issues of a different nature were hosted in a similar manner. Many quiet voices would find it egregious.</p>

<p align="left">The Government and its so called “elites” created their own confusion on this exercise by following through with the term “gender equality” as an apt description of the proposed amendments. Those words are mixed up in all type of other stuff, hence the term “transgender”, and only God knows what people think when they hear the word “equality”.</p>

<p align="left">As always, the people who exercise their right to vote will decide how this go, but to be honest i’m sick and tired of hearing about this damn referendum and i sure as hell don’t want to hear over and over again about who’s a bigot, homophobic, transman, misogynist or caveman, because it’s so counter productive.</p>