Someone, who I assume is part of the Constitutional Commission, actually commented about this online. The individual said it was the Government's decision not to entrench marriage (as between born men and women) into the Constitution as they did not think it would be fair to "future generations" and wanted to leave it open for future generations to decide. Such a cop-out! We are the future and we have to protect the future. Personally, all the comment did was make me even more suspicious.
I guess they are waiting around for all the people (which is the vast majority of the voting public) who have a problem with gay marriage to die out with the hope that our grandchildren would have finally decided to "co-exist with global views on homosexuality" (PM's words) and make gay marriage legal. While the above wording of the 4th Bill may not lead to same-sex marriage the reason, in my opinion, for not amending the Bill as initially proposed is clearly suspect. Small wonder the NO vote is being fueled daily.
I'm with you on this one. Fools thought to frame it under so-called gender equality when it's clearly about adding more citizens to an already small country overrun with illegals - and we can't even get a grip on that issue. And God knows what the 4th Bill is really about. Lack of education and the gays are killing that Bill single handedly. I hope the majority vote to kill all the Bills!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When they stop giving out citizenship for votes I'll believe this. With election right around the corner, I will be voting No.
If the Dame was reading the papers, the questions are in every article in the paper. They repeat them constantly so I doubt this is true. She may not have thoroughly studied them is what I'm thinking. Nevertheless, I respect her opinion. She is entitled to have one.
In an election year, you can get citizenship in exchange for a vote and it doesn't mean you are suddenly allegiant to the country that gave it to you. Many use it as a means to an end (case in point, Loubey Georges). We are plagued with so many illegal immigration issue, we have trouble dealing with the persons who are here now, and yet we want to add three more classes of persons to the equation? We are opening a Pandora's box. Don't Do It. #killthebills #justvoteno!
I'm curious as to how they will fix this. If the proposed amendment to Bill Number four seeks to stop discrimination on the grounds of "sex" - defined as a male or female - what category would some who is born male or female but chooses to live as the opposite fall into?
jackbnimble says...
Ya darned right! #VoteNO #KilltheBills
On Arrogance of pastors who say ‘No’
Posted 2 May 2016, 1:54 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
Lol. I with you!
On Arrogance of pastors who say ‘No’
Posted 2 May 2016, 1:53 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
Spot on!
On Arrogance of pastors who say ‘No’
Posted 2 May 2016, 1:52 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
Someone, who I assume is part of the Constitutional Commission, actually commented about this online. The individual said it was the Government's decision not to entrench marriage (as between born men and women) into the Constitution as they did not think it would be fair to "future generations" and wanted to leave it open for future generations to decide. Such a cop-out! We are the future and we have to protect the future. Personally, all the comment did was make me even more suspicious.
I guess they are waiting around for all the people (which is the vast majority of the voting public) who have a problem with gay marriage to die out with the hope that our grandchildren would have finally decided to "co-exist with global views on homosexuality" (PM's words) and make gay marriage legal. While the above wording of the 4th Bill may not lead to same-sex marriage the reason, in my opinion, for not amending the Bill as initially proposed is clearly suspect. Small wonder the NO vote is being fueled daily.
On Misleading on referendum
Posted 2 May 2016, 1:43 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
I'm with you on this one. Fools thought to frame it under so-called gender equality when it's clearly about adding more citizens to an already small country overrun with illegals - and we can't even get a grip on that issue. And God knows what the 4th Bill is really about. Lack of education and the gays are killing that Bill single handedly. I hope the majority vote to kill all the Bills!
On EDITORIAL: Creating confusion to defeat the June 7 equal rights referendum
Posted 2 May 2016, 1:32 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When they stop giving out citizenship for votes I'll believe this. With election right around the corner, I will be voting No.
On Changes ‘won’t bring an easy path’ for foreigners
Posted 29 April 2016, 1:44 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
If the Dame was reading the papers, the questions are in every article in the paper. They repeat them constantly so I doubt this is true. She may not have thoroughly studied them is what I'm thinking. Nevertheless, I respect her opinion. She is entitled to have one.
#killthebills! #justvoteno!
On Dame Joan’s motives for referendum comments questioned
Posted 28 April 2016, 9:53 a.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
In an election year, you can get citizenship in exchange for a vote and it doesn't mean you are suddenly allegiant to the country that gave it to you. Many use it as a means to an end (case in point, Loubey Georges). We are plagued with so many illegal immigration issue, we have trouble dealing with the persons who are here now, and yet we want to add three more classes of persons to the equation? We are opening a Pandora's box. Don't Do It. #killthebills #justvoteno!
On Born to Bahamian father - but dream at risk because of citizenship inequality
Posted 28 April 2016, 9:48 a.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
It is my concern if they bring the issue to the public idiot!
On Transgender plea for rights
Posted 27 April 2016, 2:28 p.m. Suggest removal
jackbnimble says...
I'm curious as to how they will fix this. If the proposed amendment to Bill Number four seeks to stop discrimination on the grounds of "sex" - defined as a male or female - what category would some who is born male or female but chooses to live as the opposite fall into?
On Transgender plea for rights
Posted 27 April 2016, 11:44 a.m. Suggest removal