Home > News > Marital rape ban ‘tragically wrong’ says the Christian Council

Marital rape ban ‘tragically wrong’ says the Christian Council

Marital rape ban ‘tragically wrong’

By JASMIN BONIMY ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ jasmin@nasguard.com:

The Bahamas Christian Council (BCC) said yesterday that the proposed amendment to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act outlawing marital rape would be “tragically wrong” if made legal in its current form.

“Such a law is appropriate to govern sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married to each other because, unlike married people, they have no contract that implies open-ended sexual consent. Therefore, specific moment by moment consent is required by them,” said a four-page statement from the Council.

“But can it be right to bring married people under such a law designed for unmarried people? We strongly disagree. It is not right, and it can never be right to bring all married couples under this definition of rape whereby moment to moment consent is required for every stage of every act of sexual intercourse.”

The Christian Council said that if the amendment passes into law, “while it may be legal, it will be wrong.”

“And it will be tragically wrong because it would be disregarding the marriage covenant and contract between a man and woman, when on the day of their marriage in the sight of God and in the company of witnesses, they pledged to give themselves to each other in holy matrimony and thereby gave each other upfront implicit open-ended sexual consent.”

The umbrella organization that represents many Christian denominations in the country said discourse with heads of local churches has lead most in the Council to believe the marital rape law could have far-reaching consequences.

Citing biblical text, the BCC said marriage between a man and woman seals a contract of “conjugal rights” between the pair, which implies mutual rights of companionship, aid and sexual relations.

“Therefore as it relates to sexual relations, by virtue of getting married, a man and a woman give upfront, implicit and open-ended sexual consent to each other on the day of their marriage for the duration of their marriage,” said the statement.

“If one party to the marriage wishes to revoke their implicit sexual consent, he or she can apply to the court for some kind of order of protection, separation, or dissolution of the marriage. However, until such time, implied sexual consent arising from the marriage contract continues.”

The Christian Council said the proposed amendment, in its current form, would interfere with the marital contract entered in by two people as it defies “open-ended sexual consent.”

Currently, marital rape is only recognized in The Bahamas if the husband and wife are separated or in the process of getting a divorce. If a couple is married and there has been no separation, no rape can occur under Bahamian law.

In late July, the Ingraham administration presented proposed legislation to Parliament that would totally ban marital rape in The Bahamas.

Since then, several religious leaders from various denominations that fall under the BCC have said they support the marital rape ban.

In a recent statement, Catholic Archbishop Patrick Pinder said when forced sexual activity takes place within the context of marriage, the biblical understanding of marriage is distorted and the relationship between husband and wife is ruptured. Pinder stressed that such sexual activity is not conjugal love and is rightly seen as a crime against the dignity of the human person.

“It must be clearly understood that rape is never an act of love nor is it ever an act of intimacy. It is always an act of violence against the person. Like any act of violence, be it physical, verbal or otherwise, rape has no place in the communion of life and love which is marriage properly understood,” Pinder said.

Earlier this week, The Bahamas Methodist Church urged the government to bring the legislation into force as soon as possible.

“The double-standard we have held between marital rape (since it cannot be legally defined as such) and other rape needs to be removed. Rape, which is a crime of violence, must be defined, tried and punished as such,” said President of the Bahamas Conference of the Methodist Church William Higgs.

“No crime of violence should ever be confused with the sexual intimacy of marriage.”

And in an address to a Rotary club yesterday, Anglican Archdeacon James Palacious also expressed support for the amendment being proposed.

“I believe that the law seeks to discourage men who are in very strained relationships with their wives even if they are still living together from forcing their wives to have sex,” said Palacious.

“In other words, such relationships are already dead and they only need a formal burial to be performed by the courts. Consider the woman whose husband is having sex all over the place ‘homosexually’. Does she not have the right to protest by saying no?”

While insisting that it denounces all acts of rape, the Christian Council said yesterday any laws passed should seek to encourage, strengthen and build a better understanding within the family unit.

The Christian Council made several suggestions that it said would address concerns raised.

“The words ‘who is not his spouse’ should not be deleted from the definition of rape, thereby leaving it as is and allowing rape to only be possible between two persons who are not married to each other,” said the statement.

The Christian Council recommends that Parliament pass a new amendment that makes forced sexual intercourse in marriage a crime which can only be prosecuted in cases of provable force and harm, thereby barring trivial and other allegations that cannot be proven.

“The basic form of the offense should be called a term similar to ‘spousal abuse’ and severe forms called ‘aggravated spousal abuse’. This new amendment should require the attorney general’s consent to charge in cases where the accused person is under 21 years of age,” the statement said.

“Additionally, if a spouse is convicted of violence which led to rape within marital bonds, there should be mandatory rehabilitative steps prior to any form of incarceration. Should there be subsequent abuses leading to rape of a spouse then the full strength of the law should be applied, that is imprisonment etc.”

The Christian Council added, “Perhaps in this regard the government and the church should seek to partner along with other social agencies to ensure that we have qualified, trained and professional persons and personnel to provide appropriate rehabilitative centers to facilitate such a growing concern within our society.”

Friday, September 4, 2009

Categories: News
  1. September 18, 2009 at 13:47

    I got to really appreciate the work done!!!!! keep it up.

  2. Mac
    January 20, 2011 at 15:01

    In marriage both husband and wife have given their consent to sexual intercourse with the other spouse “until death do them part.” A husband has no right to refuse sexual relations to his wife on his mere preference. If he is sick, injured or the like, he has a valid reason to delay until he recovers. If she is sick, injured, menstruating, recovering from childbirth, or the like, she has a valid reason to delay until she recovers.
    That said, the obligation to accommodate the other spouse’s sexual desires is moral, not legal. One partner (usually the husband) does not have a right to force the other (usually the wife) by violence to provide sexual services.
    If a relationship is in such condition that one spouse is using violence to compel the other to submit to sex, they have a much worse problem than the unwanted sexual activity.
    Violence can always be prosecuted criminally if necessary to get the offender under control. (S)he can be prosecuted for assault, aggravated assault, battery, use of a weapon, as appropriate. The only crime that one spouse cannot commit against the other is criminal sexual contact.

  3. Mac
    January 20, 2011 at 15:05

    “Such a law is appropriate to govern sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married to each other because, unlike married people, they have no contract that implies open-ended sexual consent. Therefore, specific moment by moment consent is required by them …”
    “Moment by moment consent?” If he has already begun ejaculating, and she says, “Stop!” has he committed rape even before he can pull out? To do that, he would have to be in greater control of his semi-automatic reflexes than I can imagine. Reality is that he’s going to finish up before leaving.

  4. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 16:45

    I am a victim of marital rape. Some people don’t understand that even though you have a contract with your spouse it does not give them the right to force themselves on you especially when you are not able to consent as I was due to being medicated for a illness. Could you imagine waking up in the middle of the night to your husband tearing up your insides making it raw and painful for weeks and having your uterus shifted and because of that it is very difficult for me to be intimate with anyone else. How would one feel if they were in that situation?

  5. crisiscentrebahamas
    May 25, 2011 at 00:25

    I am so sorry to hear your story. Unfortunately, we have not had the support we had hoped for amending the bill to include marital rape but experiences such as yours are a reminder of just how devastating it is to be raped by one’s own partner or spouse, as that is supposed to be someone you trust. If you would like to talk to someone about your experience, you are welcome to call 328.0922 and speak to a counsellor.

  6. April 28, 2015 at 08:39

    Thanks for your personal marvelous posting!
    I actually enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will make
    sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come
    back someday. I want to encourage you to continue your great writing, have a nice day!

  7. November 26, 2015 at 15:34

    Simply desire to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your submit is simply nice and i can suppose you’re knowledgeable in this subject.
    Well together with your permission let me to take hold of your feed to stay
    up to date with impending post. Thank you 1,000,000 and please carry on the gratifying work.

  8. August 23, 2016 at 12:16

    There would be no rape if the wife submits herself in the first place as prescribed in scriptures and allow the master (husband) of her body to use it. Her refusal to submit to her husband is itself a sin. Does allowing the husband then to physically take her by force make it right? No as well. Two wrongs never make a right. The wife is wrong and so is that husband. But since the wife is wrong first she should be punished more severely. What does the wife expect by depriving her husband of sex? To force him into adultery??? Thats a big sin. According to scripture, if you cause anyone to sin its better for you to drown in the ocean with a rock tied round your neck. The very purpose of marriage would be dented by a wife’s refusal to have sex. Can a husband also refuse to provide for the family???

  9. August 23, 2016 at 12:18

    With the exception of medical conditions no wives should withold sex.

  10. December 22, 2016 at 14:58

    If you want to obtain much from this article then you have to apply such methods to
    your won webpage.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: