“Brenda Lana Smith, consul, activist.”

http://tinyurl.com/yexxbcq

and…

“brendalana” aka “Biber Gal…”

http://tinyurl.com/yao3zog

Its really unfortunate that people would use the bible to deny certain basic rights to another human. This was done long ago during slavery. White christian slave masters used the bible to justify why slavery was “okay”. And hey, they had good argument, the bible does very much justify slavery.

Food for thought.

Those people were as misguided as you are now.

If a church doesn’t want to perform a marriage, any marriage, it shouldn’t have to, straight marriages included. The Catholic church certainly has it’s restrictions.

What is wanted is the right to have a marriage period. In a church that accepts such things. On the beach. In a garden. Wherever the heck, and that the two people involved, have all the rights, benefits and obligations as opposite sex couples.

And if you really want to stop and think about it, gay people have been getting married in churches for years, just not to a same sex partner. In the past there were many gays or lesbians who followed societies expectations and had marriages, children, etc.

I’d love to know which is a worse sin. Lying your entire life to conform, or loving someone of the same sex.

While I understand what you’re saying, I find myself wondering why you believe this.

Many, many marriages in this day and age are not remotely connected to the church or religion, and yet are still referred to as marriage. Heck, my marriage was held in a church and officiated over by a minister and yet neither my husband nor I am religious people.

The suggestion that the term marriage is still connected to a religious rite is deeply misguided.

the kid will go to school and while everyone has different aunts, nieces, grandmas etc, that poor kid is gonna have his mom and grandma in one, or his sister and aunt in one.

thats just f***** bro.

“hey im attracted to the same sex.”

hey im attracted to my mom.”

see the difference, strange one?

An amendment to the Human Rights Act will not require the type of consequential amendments you suggest. The Act only applies in relation to discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and the provision of goods, facilities and services.

While the Succession Act is in my view outdated, and should be amended to give same sex couples the same inheritance rights as opposite sex couples, such a change is outside the ambit of the Human Rights Act.

While on that point, I fail to see why anyone would get excited about a change to our succession laws that would grant committed same sex partners the same rights as heterosexual partners. I wouldn’t dream of dictating what should happen to your assets at the time of your death, or your partner’s death. I don’t see what business it is of you or anyone else to dictate what should happen to mine. In any event, this is an issue that must be dealt with separately, and would not require a consequential amendment as you suggest.

Your comments about ‘common law’ heterosexual couples actually illustrate why some form of legal recognition must be given to same sex couples in Bermuda. If mixed sex couples want the rights associated with marriage they can always choose to get married. If for whatever reason they choose to remain in a relationship that does not accord legal rights associated with marriage that is their choice. Same sex couples do not have that option. That however, is a discussion for another day.

Your insurance example does relate to the issue of discrimination. However, no consequential amendment is required to compel an insurance company to comply with an amendment to the Act that introduces protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 5 of the Act, which prohibits discrimination in relation to the provision of goods, facilities and services would be sufficient to do so following the addition of ‘two words and a comma’ in section 2(2)(a) – which addresses direct discrimination – and 2(2)(b)(i) and 2(2)(b)(ii) – which address indirect discrimination.

You will know that given the implications of the proposed amendment there is likely to be lead-in time between the amendment being passed and coming into force. This gives organizations, like the insurance company in your example, the opportunity to consider how its policies and practices should be changed to ensure they are compliant, and to take legal advice to the extent they need to do so.

The amendment does not infringe on the rights of religious people who do not agree with same sex relationships – I think it’s important to draw a distinction between those types of religious people and others who are LGBTQ affirming, because many of us are. I digress; following the amendment a religious person who doesn’t agree with same sex relationships will be in the same position, for example when renting an apartment, as they are when approached by an unmarried heterosexual couple.

Also, there is already considerable protection built into the Act under section 6(6) and 6(8) that would protect a religious organization in the circumstances you cite. I would encourage you to read those.

Discussions of LGBTQ rights lately are coloured by the issue of marriage given developments throughout the world, and most recently in the United Kingdom. It is important to view marriage as it is currently recognized as fundamentally a legal institution that, and I think we both agree on this discrete point, confers certain rights to individuals.

Additionally though, many of us view the celebration of marriage as a religious sacrament. Different religious groups have differing views of the sacraments. My view, and the view of many like me, is that the sacraments of our faith are available to all. While I support marriage equality because I believe there should be equality under the law, my faith also compels me to support such unions because I believe we are all created with the capacity to love and are entitled to celebrate that love and commitment in a manner that is faith affirming.

Same sex marriage is as much about religious rights and equality as LGBTQ equality. You will know from having followed the events in the United Kingdom that vocal support for the changes there came from religious groups that have historically been on the forefront of the fight for equal rights, namely the Methodists, the Quakers and the Reform and Liberal Jews.

So um. How many children are born out of wedlock? And how many single mothers are raising children? And how many men have more than three children with three different women?

When ‘God’ next acts out and does his next little firey brimstone stunt, I pray you’re the first to go.

Right now, possessing or using marijuana is against the law. Ohbill made a choice (!) to break the law. Ohbill has to deal with the consequences. Why should an employer NOT have the right to fire an employee who breaks the law? If YOU were the business owner, with your money and time invested in the business, would you want to be unable to fire someone who broke the law?

Whether or not it is a good law is a completely separate question. Maybe it should be changed. But right now, it’s the law. If you want it to be changed, or stricken- work with your representative to get it changed.

But until then, it’s still the law. Ohbill chose to break the law. Why is that so difficult to see?

EW

You might have worked in a court but I guarantee you are no lawyer.

here is anothe rexample. You are an absolute idiot. That is not an orientation either. It’s just a fact.

I believe that humans are born with the ability to love whoever they choose – - as a child, I can say that I was attracted to both girls and boys – - people in general are beautiful. However, through my environment and my upbringing, I chose to ACT upon my attraction to the opposite sex.

That’s why I can say that I believe in choice – - note I didn’t say that people can’t believe that they are born a particular way – - I said that I don’t believe it as my reality proved otherwise.

Your right to believe what you want versus another person’s belief system – - your human right.

My choice was my choice – - what’s yours?