Petition Supporting Same Sex Marriage Reopens

October 26, 2015

Following a petition being launched opposing same sex marriage in Bermuda, the petition calling for same sex marriage to be legalized has been re-opened, with the petition calling for the Government to “legalize same sex marriage and implement complete and full human rights for all Bermuda citizens and visitors.”

The petition in support of same sex marriage was originally launched in April of this year by entertainer and tourism advocate Tony Brannon, and was open for a month before being presented to Minister of Community, Culture & Sports Patricia Gordon Pamplin in May 2015.

The website text for the petition opposing same sex marriage says it was “formed by a wide cross-section of citizens in Bermuda that desire to preserve marriage in our country”, and the official Bermuda domain registrar website lists Cornerstone Bible Fellowship as the registrant for the domain the petition is hosted on.

7-minute video of the petition in support of same sex marriage being presented in May 2015:

Tony Brannon, who launched the petition, told Bernews: “We are not asking for any church to marry any same sex couple, we are asking that the Government of Bermuda legalize same sex marriage so that any same sex couple can be married in Bermuda be it on a pink beach, hotel, private home, cruise line or registry office.

“I respect the churches to decide who can or cannot get married in a church, however we are not asking for any church to marry a same sex couple – after all why would a same sex couple even want to get married in a place they are not welcome?

“If God is love, then God loves all. Only humans get in the way.”

Mr Brannon continued, “I will also point again to the huge tourism benefits of same sex marriage. This island could easily see another $100 million annually in same sex marriage tourism benefiting hotels, weddings planners, entertainers, caterers, airlines, taxis, restaurants, sightseeing and more.

“I will remind everyone in Bermuda, who were ecstatic when President Barack Obama was made President of the USA, that the 1st Black President of the United States became a champion of human rights and indeed same sex marriage. Way to go Mr. President.

“Same sex marriage is a human right and it is the right thing to do,” added Mr Brannon. “Bermuda is sadly behind the times on this issue.

“I urge the Government of Bermuda to do the right thing. I will also remind everyone, that separation of church and state is essential. We as a society accept everyone’s right to worship the God of their choice.

Graphic associated with the petition:

moongate_bermuda2

“It is the Government’s duty to ensure that everyone has the same rights including same sex couples and that includes their right to get married in a place of their choosing,” added Mr Brannon.

The petition calling for same sex marriage to be legalized can be found here.

The petition opposing same sex marriage is hosted on a website, not a dedicated petition website, and following our story on it a number of comments were left on Bernews with people complaining about the system and saying they signed the petition multiple times, and in response to queries about the petition system, a spokesperson from the group said, “It is secure and being closely monitored.

“We have had a few persons that have been placing curse words, obvious repeated sarcastic names and derogatory remarks in the fields. These persons should know that they can be identified by their IP Address and all identified records are deleted immediately and are not included in the total number of petition signatures. We would like to request that this practice discontinues to avoid further action.

“It is important to add that to disagree with same-sex marriage is not being hateful nor homophobic. It is simply our right to disagree in order to uphold the current definition of marriage in Bermuda.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (174)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ed Case says:

    At least this petition has some validation due to the email. The other one you can sign as many times as you want with any name and no email. I signed the other one as Prince Charles and also as several characters from a UK TV show.

    • Smh says:

      Why try to sabotage their petition. As stated above, ‘…obvious repeated sarcastic names and derogatory remarks in the fields. These persons should know that they can be identified by their IP Address and all identified records are deleted immediately and are not included in the total number of petition signatures.’

      • Ed Case says:

        All I was saying is that without some form of validation, the petition is meaningless and should not be submitted to government. It is badly thought out and should be redone if these people are serious. In its current state it cannot be taken seriously.

        • @ Ed, I do not support same sex marriage but I am in total agreement with you, concerning the petition. The validly of both petitions and any petition is of the utmost importance that they be factual and not falsified by any means.

          On another note I wish that those who don’t agree with same sex marriage will stand on their core values and don’t be bullied by those that oppose, and to those who support same sex marriage you are entitled to stand for what your belief is and that has never been a issue in my view.

          The greatest danger of those who are fighting for rights of same sex marriages,this is not the issue that others oppose you only upon those grounds, were do you draw the lines in the sand, you can blatantly speak and fight for that which you think is right, but then if you follow in the footsteps of the U.S, like most times you do, what rights do the Christians community have when we choose to not marry you.

          So there is a serious conflict of interest, live your gay life and do whatever you feel is pleasing in your eyes,I could care less as long as you don’t infringe on my rights in the process, because at the end of the day we all will answer to one God.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Whose rights have been infringed upon in the states?

            The rights of the Christian community have not changed at all. They still have the exact same rights as they did before marriage equality became the law.

            Where do we draw the line in the sand? Marriage equality.
            When our friends and brothers and sisters can share in the same rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us? That’s the line.
            That’s all we are asking for. Equal rights.

          • alsys says:

            The Christian community has a legal right to not marry anyone they choose for whatever reason they deem fit. That has nothing to deal with a legal marriage. I was not married in a church and was not married by a religious officiant. Still legally married. Your beliefs are fine in all ways except those in which you deny someone else their rights.

          • SANDGROWNAN says:

            The issue is that those in favour are not forcing anything on those that oppose. It’s a false argument to say otherwise.

          • jt says:

            So you’re fine with marriage/civil union or whatever name is used so long as the churches maintain their rights to decide if they will perform the marriage and so long as this has no impact on your religious rights.
            I doubt many would take issue with this position, but you must be able to see the irony in the statement “I could care less as long as you don’t infringe on my rights in the process.”

          • Not exactly says:

            @Duane. Christian community’s rights have not been infringed. That said if one chooses to work for the Government they must facilitate functions offered by the State and protected by the law (ie Kim Davis).

          • Ed Case says:

            Duane, you had my attention until the very last word of your comment. God should not be a part of this issue. He only matters to those who believe in him and most people don’t. Therefore, he should not be part of the equation. The petition though does need validation. At least we agree on that.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Why is it that people never answer simple questions?

            Surely showing examples of these infringements would be easy if they are really happening, no?

            Why the reticence to show them?

      • Morning says:

        Here’s my reply to the petition in support of same sex marriage in Bermuda. It’s disgusting for 2 men to be playing Base Ball with each other that way.

        • Ed Case says:

          Similarly 2 fat people doing the horizontal could be seen as disgusting as well. So what? Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to? Live and let live.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Then don’t do it.
          Why does what you think about it have anything to do with what other people do?

        • SANDGROWNAN says:

          Why are YOU interested in gay sex? Are you, perhaps, curious?

        • Rhonnie aka BlueFamiliar says:

          Then don’t think about it.

          I don’t know about you, but I don’t make a habit of thinking about what other people do in their bedrooms. If you do… well… uhm… I’m going to leave that alone.

          The reality is… this isn’t about sexual practice. This is about the denial of rights to a minority. Gender is not grounds to deny anyone rights.

        • Unbelievable says:

          Baseball? Is that the most grown up thing you can say?

    • Legalize de CHRONIC.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Different topic. Nothing to do with this.

        But you aren’t wrong…

      • The only reason I choose this topic is because its the only one that makes sense.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, as I’ve mentioned to you repeatedly, if you start a movement to do so, you will probably find a whole load of support from folks that are supporting marriage equality.

          But to dismiss it because pot isn’t legal is a misstep.

      • What's good for the goose says:

        While we’re at it, legalize polygamy too!!

        • Mike Hind says:

          This has nothing to do with this topic. This is a completely different subject.

    • Tough Love says:

      You need to put your parish, which I assume means that the petition leaders are verifying in which parish you are a registered voter. So try to sabotage as you like. It will just be removed from the final list.

      • Zevon says:

        doesn’t stop someone pretending to be someone else though does it.

    • I’m tired of them trying to impose these Nasty Habits.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And we’re tired of you thinking you should be allowed to deny people rights and privileges because of your personal choice of religion.

  2. SANDGROWNAN says:

    “It is important to add that to disagree with same-sex marriage is not being hateful nor homophobic. It is simply our right to disagree in order to uphold the current definition of marriage in Bermuda.”

    Ah..religious doublespeak. really, the religious just need to SU and keep it to themselves. The fundamental problem with the religious though, is that they cannot keep it to themselves, they will not be happy until you believe it too. Time to take a stand.

    • Ok then says:

      So if you’re religious you don’t have a right to voice a belief or opinion? Yet it’s ok for you to voice yours?

      Talk about being hypocritical.

      • SANDGROWNAN says:

        This is why I know you’re an idiot. The problem with the religious voicing their “opinion” is that they believe “god is on their side” and they won’t rest until you believe it too. My pact with the religious would be, keep it to yourself and I won’t bother you. But you force your belief on me and then we have a problem. Got it?

        The difference here, if you can comprehend, is that no-one is forcing the religious to gay marry or perform gay marriages in their churches. No-one is even asking them to like it. They can be terrified little bigots all they want, as long as they don’t force their view on anyone else. Which is what they a currently doing.

        The religious. Wrong on every issue since time began.

        • Oh cry me a river says:

          If you all felt so strong about it you would have a march, but you continue to hide in the closets.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Marching isn’t the only way to get your voice heard. Come on.

            • Will says:

              It worked for Martin Luther King jr when whites didn’t allow blacks to use the same bathrooms among other things. He had a dream speech but I’m pretty sure his dream wasn’t about 2 hair men in the same bedroom.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Not saying it doesn’t work… just that it’s not the ONLY way to do things and to denounce a group for not marching is silly.

                And Rev. King’s views are irrelevant on this subject.

                • Who are you to dismiss Martin Luther King’s views on a topic like this as irrelevant? How audacious! You are starting to show your true colors.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    No, your desperate faux outrage is very clearly showing yours. Come on.

                • Question? says:

                  Mike Hind you appear to be glued on this post, tell me do you want to marry a man? If so that’s your choice and I will stop right there!

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Nope. But a lovely attempt at a high school level personal attack. I don’t have to be gay to understand that marriage equality is important and denying rights and privileges to people for no real reason besides someone’s personal choice of religion is wrong. Childish posts like yours prove that I’m on the right side of this.

        • Ok then says:

          How is anyone forcing their religion on you. Just because we oppose the marriage of gay individuals does not mean we are forcing anything. A relationship with God is a personal decision. We will continue to show God’s love. You can’t speak on behalf of all that they won’t want to be married in a church. Guaranteed at some point they will.
          P.S. name calling won’t get you anywhere.

          • SANDGROWNAN says:

            “How is anyone forcing their religion on you. Just because we oppose the marriage of gay individuals does not mean we are forcing anything.”

            Er..that’s patently false. The religious want to deny gay people the same basic rights of marriage that the rest of us enjoy. They are using their belief, their faith (it’s not even tangible FFS) to discriminate and deny the right to marry. That is forcing their belief on others.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Exactly. It’s a personal decision.
            It shouldn’t affect anyone else’s life.

            Opposing the granting of rights and privileges to a group of people, based on that personal decision, is, in fact, forcing religion on people.

            • Beanie says:

              All this talk about rights…Since when is being gay a human right?? I suppose those who partake in beastiality have a ‘right’ to continue to do so?? Some lay with brothers and sisters, they have the ‘right’?? Those who want to lay with children have a ‘right’ to do so?
              Seriously, where did this ‘right’ to do such unnatural acts come into play? Who said you have a right to marry who you please??

              • Mike Hind says:

                Here we go again…

                There are hundreds of rights granted to married people and these rights are denied to gay people under the current legislation and some of us think this is unfair.

                The examples you gave all have nothing to do with this topic, as they are non-consensual acts. Animals and children cannot give consent and incest can cause harm to a child that comes of it.

                As for the right “to do such unnatural acts”? Well, I’ve discussed your disgusting examples, but the right to be gay is not in question. People have that right. We’re not talking about that.

                We’re talking about the rights and privileges granted to people through marriage and how they are denied to a group of your fellow citizens.

                Oh, and society says that we have the right to marry who we please… as long as you’re not gay. That’s what people have a problem with.
                Got it?

                • “As for the right “to do such unnatural acts”? Well, I’ve discussed your disgusting examples” So you are now judging those people who don’t measure up to your standards? Even you can see this blatant hypocrisy. What about the “rights” of ALL irrespective of sexual orientation?

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Come on. You can do better than this weak sauce. At least try to address what I said rather than just jumping on something to be fake outraged about. Let’s try a little honesty.

              • Common Sense says:

                Beanie asks a very pertinent question which has already been answered clearly in law right here in Bermuda with the passage of what was commonly referred to as “The Stubbs Bill”. This Bill was passed by Parliament in 1994 and it amended our law so that it was no longer a criminal offence for adult gay couples to have sexual relations.

                Our Human Rights has since been amended to make it an offence to discriminate against persons because of their sexual orientation.

                The law is the law and our laws say, in effect, that being gay – plain and simple – is a human right.

                It is a criminal offence to commit beastality in Bermuda, and to commit incest, and to the best of my knowledge no-one has ever petitioned or even suggested that beastiality or incest be legalised. Ever!

                Also to the best of my knowledge, no-one is advocating that churches here in Bermuda should in any way be forced to marry same sex couples. I for one would be totally opposed to such a move. But I would also oppose anyone passing a law that prohibits any and every church from being allowed to change their opposition to same sex marriage if their congregation decided to do so. That would be their choice.

                Same sex couples are seeking the right to marry in law i.e. at the Registrar’s Office and, respectfully, that really is not the business of the churches.

                I often hear the totally false suggestion that it was the “old UBP” who passed the Stubbs Bill, but that is manifestly untrue. The Stubbs Bill was subject to a “free vote” (and I stress the word “FREE”) which was supported by a majority of MP’s including The Hon Frederick Wade, Dame Lois Browne-Evans, Dame Jennifer Smith, The Hon Alex Scott, and the Hon Ewart Brown. All these eminent MP’s have one thing in common in addition to supporting the Stubbs Bill. They ALL were either leaders of the PLP at the time of the vote, or they went on to become Leaders of the Progressive Labour Party.

                Yes, Beanie, it is all about human rights, and if our greatest champion of human rights were still with us today, I have no doubt whatever that Dame Lois would support an amendment to our laws to allow gay marriage.

              • Torian says:

                You do realize homosexuality has been around since the beginning of mankind right? Hell, they were a lot more open about it than people are in these times too. Tells you how backwards we are as a people.

          • impressive. says:

            Sandgrownan, can’t make a point without attacking anyone,, its sad, but true..

          • Bermie says:

            By denying someone their God given right to be treated with the same dignity and respect as every other member of society, you are indeed forcing your viewpoint.

            We still have churches who deny inter-racial couples the right to marry. “Backwards” is the most polite term I can come up with to describe such a stance in either case. That being said, churches can continue to dictate the rules of their own house but Government needs to remain secular for justice to prevail.

            Shakespeare said it best:

            “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
            An evil soul producing holy witness
            Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
            A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
            O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

        • What's good for the goose says:

          You don’t even have to be religious to see that homosexuality is of the “devil” or whatever you call the evil nature that is permeating throughout our society. It is actually anti God or whatever you call that positive force and it is a direct attack against the family! The “Gay Agenda” is sponsored and promoted by a very powerful and resourceful handful of people. The greatest form of love in ancient Greece was called “Agape Love” which is between a man and a boy. What do you think comes next once they legalize this…? The records are there if you read a book. #KnowThyself

      • Mike Hind says:

        No one is saying that you don’t have a right to voice your belief or opinion.

        But other people have the right to voice theirs. And voicing their’s isn’t silencing you or forcing you to be quiet.

        If your position is so weak that someone writing something opposing it silences you, then you should probably have a good look at that position.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        It is everyone right to voice their opinions, freedom of speech. But he hat freedom comes with responsibilities to exercise it wisely and does not give someone the right to unlawfully deny equal rights to another. Churches aren’t being forced to marry those they don’t want to, never have been, so same sex marriage has no bearing on infringing anybody’s rights. Same sex couples are the ones who are having their rights and equality suppressed by those who think they are wrong, using the same arguements a that were used to maintain slavery and segregation. Those arguements were wrong then, and they are wrong now. You don’t like same sex marriage, fine, but you should not have the right to deny another the same rights you enjoy because of your belief, it falls under the founding tenants of democracy, freedom from religious persecution.

  3. paperboy says:

    This is an important conversation for Bermuda. It raises a number of issues that demonstrate the complexity of one aspect of Diversity- sexual orientation- engaging one’s view of religion and our rule of law. I know there are many people pained on either side of this discussion and I hope we find ways to speak comfortably as we respect all aspects of Diversity in our community including our current laws and practices.

  4. Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

    Other than the actual “right” to marry at the moment what are the “rights” that are being denied to gays?

    • Fsbod says:

      The right to marry.

      The right to walk down the street and not get called names by the degenerates.

      • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

        Being called names??? Are you for real..?? So should I start a petition to prevent you from calling people degenerates??

        • af87 says:

          I think you might have a little problem with your own sexuality. There are resources for hatefilled homophobes like you, just google and consider. come join us!

          • Mike Hind says:

            Personal attacks are their tools. Don’t stoop to their level.

          • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

            I asked a legitimate question. ..none of you had the intelligence to answer maturely…I wasn’t looking for your opinion…that has no credence here…now if there is any intelligent folk here that can answer the specified question then maybe we can make some headway . “What rights other than marriage are gays being denied”??

            • Mike Hind says:

              You do get that this is about marriage equality, right? so your question is moot…

            • Family Man says:

              Inheritance rights as a spouse.
              Visitation rights in hospital as a spouse
              Right to work in Bermuda as a spouse of a foreigner.

              Those are just off the top of my head. Good enough for you?

            • Build a Better Bermuda says:

              The right to marry isn’t a singular right, it is a multitude of right and legal protections for couples, that comes from the single marriage agreement. Inheritance, mutual medical rights, pensions, immigration rights, protection of your union under the law…

        • Common Sense says:

          Sad to say, I have personally witnessed innocent members of the public who may look gay, and may indeed be gay, who have been subjected to obscene and vile verbal abuse while walking in Hamilton. In fact I once offered to give evidence on behalf of one victim, but he declined saying it would only make matters worse.

          I have also witnessed two young Philipino girls walking down Reid Street holding hands, as young girls in the Philipines and throughout the Far East do regularly, and completely innocently, and they too were subjected to vile obscenities and accused of being “lesbians”.

          I would like to think that such ignorance will no longer be tolerated and that we have moved past that type of bigotry to the point where haters such as these young men would be prosecuted for using offensive words in a public place . I would also like to think that “Keepin’ It Real! 4 Real” would agree that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

          I believe that we heterosexuals generally have no conception of the type of a abuse still being hurled at people suspected of being gay. Is there any chance that every Minister and Pastor on the Island would take it upon themselves to denounce this dreadful behavouir from their pulpits next Sunday morning? It is probably far too much to hope for.

          • What you have described is wrong and should be denounced by everyone.

            • Zevon says:

              Well you’ve changed your tune all of a sudden.

              • No I have not changed my tune as I have never supported vile and obscene language directed toward gays or anyone else for that matter.

                • Zevon says:

                  So what difference does it make to you if they are married?
                  None at all.

            • Common Sense says:

              Many thanks Larry. I know you have strong views on the issue of gat marriage but it is reassuring to hear that you, too, denounce the bigotry of those who harass and insult those who are gay.

    • Onion Soup says:

      The rights and responsibilities under marriage differ from country to country, so I suggest you research Bermuda domestic law or speak with someone who is well-versed in that field.

    • Mike Hind says:

      There are hundreds of rights and privileges granted through marriage.
      Those rights and privileges are being denied to gay people.

    • Not exactly says:

      Right of Marriage carries many other freedoms such as visitation rights in the Hospital, inheritance rights, adoption rights, spousal work permit rights, etc etc

  5. af87 says:

    I have a huge problem with this statement:

    “We have had a few persons that have been placing curse words, obvious repeated sarcastic names and derogatory remarks in the fields. These persons should know that they can be identified by their IP Address and all identified records are deleted immediately and are not included in the total number of petition signatures. We would like to request that this practice discontinues to avoid further action.”

    IF in fact they have deleted the offending fake names, the number of signatories should be well below 1000, as i happwen to know some people who spent all day yesterday, with 5 people on 5 devices, sgning this petition under the name Jesus F Christ, and the numbers were never deleted. Also- what are ou going to do if we continue this practise? Come to our houses? call the police? Give me a break you bigots.

    • hmmmmmmm says:

      so you think just because you added fake names there is not just as many people who do support this also signing. you will be surprised.

      The wording on the petition i do not agree with but the concept i am fully behind.

      • SANDGROWNAN says:

        bigot.

      • af87 says:

        Luckuy for us, it is going to happen whether you bigots want it or not! This government is not a stupid, backwards one. soon everybody will have their equal rights and you, you will be left to apologise to your “god” for your mistreatment of your brothers and sisters. Shame on you.

    • And I have a problem with people who have no respect for democracy and therefore deliberately attempt to sabotage a legitimate petition. It is interesting to note that when a gay group started a petition no Christian tried to disrupt the process because although we may disagree we nonetheless respected their right to do so.

      Sadly that same respect was not seen when Cornerstone started an opposing petition. That is a sad reflection on the cowards who, hiding under pen names, engage in silly games and in the process reveal themselves as any thing but tolerant. What those five individuals done yesterday was reprehensible and instead of you delighting in their shameful tactics you should be bringing them into check. That said it is obvious your lack of morals prevents you from doing the right thing.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Being intolerant to intolerance is not a bad thing. Sorry.

        • So having a different opinion on gay marriage makes someone intolerant? That’s nonsense! Obviously you have a very distorted definition of intolerance which is molded in order to facilitate an agenda. People are entitled to their opinion whether you agree with them or not. And please stop insulting those who are on the other side of this issue.

          Do you condone disrupting a petition or not? It seems that there are those who have that “by any means necessary” mentality that has raised its ugly head especially in the U.S.

          • SANDGROWNAN says:

            Larry, I think you are missing the point. Cornerstone, and those that support their view, are exposing themselves as bigots. No one denies them their right to express that view, however their opinion directly infringes on the rights of other. The “pro lobby” is not infringing on the rights of Cornerstone. there’s a huge difference.

          • Not exactly says:

            @larry marshall

            “I believe that Jews should not be allowed to own houses.”

            Is this an opinion or intolerance? Feel free to replace “Jews” with any “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” and ask yourself the same question.

            Now replace “own houses” with “get married” and again ask yourself that same question.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Here we go again.

            It’s not about the opinion. People are absolutely entitled to their opinion. We keep saying that and you folks don’t seem to hear it.

            It’s not about the opinion, it’s about the denial of rights.

            And yes. If you support the denial of equal rights and privileges to a group of people based on your personal belief? You are intolerant.

            I haven’t insulted anyone. Please try to address things that actually happened, not what you wish had happened.

            And I haven’t spoken for or against the disruption of the petition, ever, and I think the topic is a distraction from the actual point.
            I’d rather speak about why people think it’s ok to deny rights and privileges to people based on their personal choice of religion.

            • Whose definition of rights? Just because you believe gay marriage is a human right does not mean that’s the right opinion. There are those who believe that it’s okay to marry their sister/brother based on their human rights but I also disagree with them.

              And you did insult Christians when you described them as cowards who run when faced with a challenge about their religious beliefs.

              • Mike Hind says:

                A incest is a different subject and has no place in this conversation.

                And what I said wasn’t an insult, it was an observation, based on years of fighting this fight. What I described is a pattern of behaviour that keeps reoccurring. Pointing it out isn’t an insult.

                • So referring to Christians as cowards is not an insult but “an observation based on years of fighting this fight.” We have now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

                  It is indeed an insult irrespective of how one comes to that conclusion. You cannot refer to an entire group of people in such a derogatory manner and then hide behind the silly excuse it is based on years of observation. That type of thinking and behavior is typical of bigots.

                  If you really believe that Mike then you are either intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest with no moral barometer whatsoever.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    What I said was “then cue the exodus of “righteous” people defending their bigotry when called on it, running away like cowards when asked simple questions.” I didn’t refer to all Christians, just the ones who do this. And if you look at the two pages on this topic from the past week, you will see that I am correct. The “righteous” people HAVE run away when asked simple questions about their position.

                    So… What was your point? Other than to insult me?

                    Wait… Isn’t that bad?

      • Zevon says:

        And I have a problem when a mickey mouse petition is presented as something it isn’t.

  6. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    I totally disagree with same sex marriages ….Period….human rights are being abused all over this world ….women on women is not human behaviour….man on man is not human behaviour.Trying to squeeze this behavior under the bar is an abberation…..A gay christian community is a G-D less community and is to be condemmed a gay Muslim community is to be condemmned.A gay Rasta community is to be condemmned.Any gay community that claims G-D as its base is already condemmned by G-D himself so just go stammer yourself out of existence ….and leave human beings out of it Get ye behind me Shaitain.

    • SANDGROWNAN says:

      Serious question – why do you care if a gay couple marry? How does that affect you personally?

    • Mike Hind says:

      And you are welcome to believe all of that. What you SHOULDN’T be allowed to do is force other people to follow the rules of your belief.
      Believe in G-D all you want. Go for it.

      Just please don’t demand others do so. You wouldn’t accept other people demand that you follow their religion’s rules, would you?

    • Rhonnie aka BlueFamiliar says:

      If this is your belief, that’s fine. But I ask why you are taking on God’s job in judging and punishing?

    • Common Sense says:

      Please Takbir! Consensual sex between adults in Bermuda was decriminalised in 1994 with passage of the Stubbs Bill. It is now an offence against the Human Rights Act to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. What you and your religious community believe, and what any other religious communites believe is up to you and to those communities, but you must not discrimate against anyone you consider to be gay because it is both morally and legally wrong.

      I can assure you that the sky will not fall down if and when gay marriage is allowed in Bermuda, and no-one will want to force you to engage in gay sex, or to have your mosque of church perform gay marriages.

  7. hmmmmmmm says:

    “I respect the churches to decide who can or cannot get married in a church, however we are not asking for any church to marry a same sex couple – after all why would a same sex couple even want to get married in a place they are not welcome?”

    it is amazing you can say this with a straight face when the person of the front page distinctly said she wants to be married in the chuch she has attened all her life.

    Others have stated the same this.

    Human right are one this and Marriage is something totally different. you can get the same rights by passing laws and civil unions as other countries have done.

    but there are other things to consider regarding marriage that neither side is even taking into consideration.

    Also civil unions will need to be open to both Same sex couples and heterosexual couples, because way to many people are getting married in the church which should ne be allowed as well.

    this is really a time for churches to really look at themselves because if you are not pushing the saintly of marriage and holding it the God’s standards than why should anyone else.

    Thi is a time for the church to stop peraching what get seats according to 2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

    Churches if you want to be taken seriously start taking the Word seriously. The Bible is not a box of trail mix to pick and choose what you want from it.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Has anyone actually forced a church to marry a gay couple?

      Not a religious corporation, a church.

      (Oh, and the word “Marriage” is not the property of the church. Churches perform weddings, not marriages.)

      • There is absolutely nothing preventing a couple from taking the matter to court if gays were allowed to marry. Absolutely nothing! And they might win which would then trample on the rights of ministers and the church.

        • SANDGROWNAN says:

          Why are the rights of ministers and churches at risk? Explain.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nonsense.

          Churches are already protected from being forced to marry people they don’t want to. By law.

          This is a completely invalid argument.

          Interesting that you ignored my question. I wonder why that is…

          • Which law is that Mike?

            And the answer to your question is no.

            • Mike Hind says:

              When I get home and on my computer, I’ll get the link for you.

              And if the answer is no, then why bring it up?

            • Robert says:

              The law is the Bermuda Marriage Act 1944

              27 (1) No Marriage Officer shall be compellable —
              (a) to officiate in respect of a marriage between persons
              neither of whom is a member of the Christian body to
              which the Marriage Officer belongs or a Christian body
              in communion with that Christian body; or
              (b) to celebrate a marriage otherwise than in accordance
              with the rules and usages of the Christian body to which
              he belongs; or
              (c) to permit the use of any place of worship under his
              control for the publication of the banns or for the
              celebration of such a marriage as is referred to in
              paragraph (a) or for the celebration of a marriage in the
              manner referred to in paragraph (b).

            • Zevon says:

              So no one can “trample on the rights of the church”. All the bible thumpers can relax.
              Even Larry Marshall.

              So it turns out Mike Hind is right. No one force a church to marry amyone.

              Nobody is talking about weddings here. It’s marriage that is being discussed.

        • Cow Polly says:

          Oh yeah…. would love to see THAT wedding! That would make for such a memorable wedding video.

          There are religions aka churches who refuse to marry divorcees – are they forced to? No! Why? Because no one wants to be married by a sulking, petulant minister. Weddings are supposed to be happy occasions and for every bigoted minister there are plenty of others who would be thrilled to marry a committed couple in love.

        • Varied says:

          Doubt this. For example, if a non-Catholic and a Catholic wished to marry, the Catholic church insists upon pre-marriage sessions to determine if the non-Catholic is ‘suitable’ to be married by the priest.

          It would appear that churches have special privileges that allow them to indeed choose who to administer the rites of matrimony in a marriage ceremony…

          • Ed Case says:

            Which makes it all the more odd that they would oppose SSM. They will do as they please whatever. As long as you believe in fairies first.

      • hmmmmmmm says:

        Mike at this time no because it is not law. Once it is law there may not be any protection unless the Relegious Freedom act is also passed.

        Most Christians do not have an issue with homosexual, transgender etc. having the same rights as everyone else. i personaly believe that they should, but just like there are supposed to be restrictions on whom can be merried in the church these same restrictions need to be enforced across board, that goes for same sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.

        Everyones rights stop at the face of someone else rights. and everyone is shouting abour rights but failing to look at responsibilities.

        Mike you were taught just like me that with every right there is a responsibility. If you want to be married in the church than it is your responsibility to follow the ordances of that church. IMHO. it goes both ways.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, seriously, it is already law.

        • Mike Hind says:

          If people were forcing churches to marry them, you might have a point. But they’re not.

    • Rhonnie aka BlueFamiliar says:

      Something to think about on the whole marriage vs civil union thing.

      Marriages are not the domain of any church.
      This is simple, black and white fact.

      It is the government who issues marriage licences.
      Not any church.
      You have to go through the rules laid out by law in order to get one, not any rules of any church.

      I’m married.
      But I did not get married under God’s ‘law’.
      I got married under man’s law.
      I am, in fact, more married and have more rights, than any person who got married only under God’s ‘law’.
      Think about it.

      And yes, I can say with a straight fact that “I respect the churches to decide who can or cannot get married in a church” becasue I do believe that. Some churches would be quite willing to hold marriages if it were legal for them to do so.

      If someone wants to try to force a church to go against their values… well, that’s their own fight. Not one I have any intention of engaging in.

      • Common Sense says:

        Fully agree with Rhonnie on this one – and with good reason. My wife of over 40 years went to the Immigration Department to renew her passport armed with all of the necessary documentation, including her MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE issued by her church. She was promptly told that it was worthless. In order to prove that you are married in Bermuda you need to obtain a marriage licence from the Registrar’s Office which she did. In order words she had to prove that she was married under “man’s law” NOT God’s law!

      • mj says:

        ronnie check out the discussion of separation of church and state, rev. Tweed, minister Leah Scott, Bishop Dill, Wayne Furburt, and Chris furburt… THERE IS NO SEPARATION, STATE RULES FOUNDED ON BIBLE!!!!How can it be separate when religion was used to confuse and conquer then becoming mans law which HE said was ordained by G-d, but if you look for yourself at the scriptures you will find the truth for yourself..If a woman is pregnant the marriage has already taken place, the recognition for the child to be a part of both parents in public eye is about the certificate and NAME for child.. SIGH…..um done, ignorance is rampant!!!!

        • Mike Hind says:

          Wow. You are right about that last three words!

          “If a woman is pregnant the marriage has already taken place”??
          That is… wow.

          Just so not correct at all!

        • Zevon says:

          You don’t understand the difference between the words “marriage” and ” wedding”.

  8. ron,b says:

    Until 1973 homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Originally listed as a “sociopathic personality disturbance” in the first edition of DSM in 1953, homosexuality was “upgraded” to a mere “sexual deviation” in 1968 with the release of DSM-II.
    In 1973, when homosexuality was removed from DSM-II, there was a great deal of controversy about that decision in the psychiatric community. Many psychiatrists and psychologists still believed that homosexuality was a psychopathology which must invariably cause impairment and distress.

    sick people are running our government

    • SANDGROWNAN says:

      From the mid-1800s until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy which prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church’s lay priesthood. This resulted in these members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances. Curse of Cain

      • ron,b says:

        i wouldn’t call it a curse . i would call that rascism

        • SANDGROWNAN says:

          Indeed it was, the point being that they were wrong and changed their minds (because it suited them admittedly).

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes. And until 1973, they had it wrong. And the folks that still think so have it wrong.
      That’s why it was changed.

      You’re wrong.

      • ron,b says:

        are you a psychologists?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Wow. You’re getting desperate.

          No, I’m not. But I don’t have to be to know that when, in science, the consensus changes, it’s because new data has shown that the old way of thinking was wrong.

          • ron,b says:

            or it was taken off the books for a more sinister reason?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Nope. The reasons are well documented. Your allegation has no basis in reality. At all.

    • Rhonnie aka BlueFamiliar says:

      And I believe in the 1800s you could be institutionalised for “religious enthusiasm”, nice how we become more enlightened as time goes by.

  9. Cow Polly says:

    “It is important to add that to disagree with same-sex marriage is not being hateful nor homophobic. It is simply our right to disagree in order to uphold the current definition of marriage in Bermuda.”

    Absolutely, totally agree – it is your right. But that right and your opinion doesn’t affect you personally does it? Is there a law that says, if you don’t believe in Same Sex marriage you will not be recognized as a next of kin and prevented from seeing your loved one in ICU? Or add your non-working spouse to your insurance? What if there was? Would you still voice that high and mighty judgmental opinion?

  10. Devonshire Devils Advocate says:

    Simply put:

    To disagree with same sex marriage because your religion disagrees with it is like me saying you can’t have a cookie because I’m on a diet.

    They don’t correlate.

    • Jonathan says:

      You could look at it this way…You can have your cookie…but the cholesterol is in your heart – not mine.

  11. clearasmud says:

    Given that this is such a divisive topic and Given that we are susposed to de a democratic society I believe that this issue should be put to a vote in a referendum. Take a vote and let the people decide. It would be then up to each group to convince enough people to support their views and then we let the chips fall where they may.

    • Jonathan says:

      They would lose – that is why subversive tactics need be introduced…let them have their way for all I care. Equilibrium has and always will be met…

    • Fairylands says:

      No. This is a simple human rights issue. And we should never put human rights to a vote/referendum. The rights of a minority should never be impacted by the will/wants of a majority.

  12. bermy bud says:

    Been waiting for gunja to be lagalized first this same sex marriage stuff needs to go in the back of the line first.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Completely different topic.

      But you’ll probably find a lot of support for the legalization… or lagalization… from supporters of marriage equality, if you look.

    • Rhonnie aka BlueFamiliar says:

      This is a flip response, but sometimes I think if it was legalised, some people’s minds would be a whole lot more enlightened than they presently are.

  13. obasellouts says:

    Could care less if gays want to be miserable like the 50% of us already married. lol

    But damn are you folk angry. lol

  14. Ann says:

    I wish the church would address the issue of women and men acting responsibly. in my day it was more than a sin to have a child out of wedlock, here in Bermuda some make a practice of seeing how many children they can have without getting married. I 100% believe in gay marriage, they take it seriously and value family, not sure a vast number of Men and Women in Bermuda have family values anymore, I believe gay folk could teach them a lesson or two!

  15. ron,b says:

    we have to be ever vigilant and willing to protect the minds and innocence of our children. The worst thing we can do as parents is to leave the education of our young in the hands of those who only wish to diminish and oppress us. They clearly have a specific agenda that they’ve been working into the education system under the radar. Most parents are not as engaged as they should be and as a result their decadence has led to our young being exposed to adult content at very early ages and having unnatural thoughts planted in their minds in hopes of shaping their perceptions. It’s happening… what are you gonna do to help stop it?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Raise your own kids. You don’t have to worry about anyone else’s.

      This is the problem. Y’all are so worried about what everyone else does when it’s none of your business.

      How you raise your kids is YOUR business, nobody else’s and, as such, should have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on how other people run their lives and is ABSOLUTELY not a reason to deny equal rights and privileges to someone.

  16. ron,b says:

    The year was 1755. The place was Lisbon, which was Portugal’s capital and the largest city in the area. It was known as one of the biggest ports on the Atlantic Ocean, and the city played a critical role in world trade. It was also a pious city of devout Christians. It was November 1, All Saints Day. Most people were gathered in their churches and synagogues. They were praying and worshiping. Suddenly, an earthquake that likely had a magnitude of 8.0, struck the area. Contemporary reports said it lasted between 3 – 6 minutes, causing fissures 5 meters (15 feet) in length to open in the city center. Roughly 85% of Lisbon’s buildings were destroyed, which includes nearly all of the churches whose structures tended to be among the tallest, and thus the most deadly when they collapsed on their occupants. The screams of terror must have been horrific. It would be later known as one of the deadliest earthquakes ever recorded.it was at this time that the athiest movement started, there is no god , at least not what you think it is

  17. Tony Brannon says:

    71% support SAME SEX MARRIAGE in last Bernews Poll
    http://bernews.com/2015/04/brannon-starts-petition-sex-marriage/

    • shutthemdown says:

      your are indeed silly if you believe that.

    • Varied says:

      Only problem is the online polls aren’t necessarily a true reflection of Bermuda’s residents, even on a news website.

  18. jt says:

    I find the focus on gay male couples curious. The “disgust” is always directed to them. Rarely a mention of lesbian couples. It’s irrelevant I suppose, but interesting.

  19. Barbara Cooper says:

    I have no objection to gay couples exchanging vows, but I strongly believe the ceremony should be labeled a Legal Union — not a marriage. Marriage should definitely between a male and female as is the traditional description of marriage.

    • Zevon says:

      Why?

    • Varied says:

      So you want something that has the same legal rights, and possibly the same kind of ceremony, as marriage… so why not call it marriage?

  20. We the People (1st!!) says:

    It looks like the European courts got it right.

    “The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and should be treated differently in law.”

    The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.

    • clearasmud says:

      @ we the people you are absolutely correct and for those interested that ruling was made in 2011 by the European Court of Human Rights. They also said with changing attitudes towards sexual relations that it should be up to individual countries whether they wish to embrace same sex marriage. They further suggested that for those member states that do not wish to embrace it they should at least consider an alternative like civil partnership laws which would give legal certainty to some issues.

    • Common Sense says:

      Looks like most of the countries in the European Union got it right. I believe that at last count same sex marriage is now legal in Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal Scotland, Spain, Sweden, and Wales. And contrary to what “We the People (1st)” says, most if not all of these countries protect the human rights of same sex couples.

  21. Liz says:

    God created woman and men to be companions and so we see this happening in animals as well. This is the normal way, changing it will lead to something grotesque, maybe some pedofile will want to make it legal to marry an under age or who knows…
    Common Bermuda, if foweners gays want to come visit they are welcome but we don’ t have to encourage this to be seen as ok cause next they’ ll be teaching our children in school that is ok

    • Varied says:

      The equation of gay people to pedophiles is flawed. Heck, many of the pedophiles in Bermuda identify as straight :(

    • Mike Hind says:

      It’s called consent.

      Paedophilia has no place in this conversation.

      As for it not being ok… It is.
      You don’t have to like it, but you don’t have the right to deny people rights and privileges afforded to us all.

      As for your “happening in animals as well” thing? This has been debunked many, many times.
      You can believe God created people, that’s your right. But forcing other people to believe what you believe and follow the rules of your religion – through this legislation denying people rights and privileges – is just plain wrong.

  22. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    I find it interesting that so called intelligent Human beings get confused with Human Rights ….and Animal rights…Animal Behavior ….and Human Behavior are two seperate Issues altogether.This Petition should be taken to the S’P'C.A.Animals do it all the time dogs and cats and other animals …..not Humans…Thats why the definition for Human Being is Homo-Sapien which mean Thinking Man or thinking Woman for that Application….. Animals function on a lower plane of existence.Take that Petition back and take it to the Animals.Rights Group….

    i

    • Mike Hind says:

      Sigh. The animal argument is ALWAYS in response to someone ignorantly saying that homosexuality is unnatural and doesn’t occur in nature. To denounce a response to a false argument and not the argument is not fair and dishonest.

  23. youhooooo says:

    Churches seem to want to influence the government? Do churches pay taxes in BDA?????? HUH i cant hear you.
    If you dont pay tax STFU
    You have no right to demand any government attention

    • impressive. says:

      Ummm, yes churches pay payroll tax on the wages of its clergy and other workers/custodians/sextons/ musicians.. FYI..,

      • Believe says:

        Do the churches pay tax on income, land taxes etc or are they exempt ? Just curious.

  24. youhooooo says:

    Why is pedophilia in this discussion???
    If you are suggesting that gays are more likely to be pedophiles…..I suggest you consult the literature.You are WRONG

  25. Frustrated Supporter says:

    I for one have been deeply saddened by the comments and arguments throughout this debate.
    I have a parter and by all all tense and purposes are a lesbian couple, we live together, and live and work in Bermuda. I, at some point want to marry. I deserve the legal rights attributed to other couples (hospital, finance, immigration) and have no desire to force anyone who does not want to, to marry us. In fact this whole debate has changed my outlook. I no longer want to marry here in this beautiful country I call home because of the comments I am reading on here. I want my marriage to be about my Union and the person I love. I do not wish to be a spectacle, pointed at, or become a figure of this issue.

    Put simply, I simply wish to marry. For love.

    However, I do want my marriage to be recognized.

    Please think carefully about this. As bermudians you are isolating a whole cross section of your population, who just like me, are frustrated and disgusted by the opposition reactions and comments.

    • clearasmud says:

      @ frustrated supporter you might be interested that a ruling was made in 2011 by the European Court of Human Rights that same sex marriage is not a Human Right. They also said with changing attitudes towards sexual relations that it should be up to individual countries whether they wish to embrace same sex marriage. They further suggested that for those member states that do not wish to embrace it they should at least consider an alternative like civil partnership laws which would give legal certainty to some issues. Perhaps a more organised effort for legal civil unions might get this government off the fence and also mute the opposition to changing the way we look at marriage.

      • Common Sense says:

        @clearasmud – At latest count I believe the following European countries have legalised or are in the process of legalizing same sex marriage – Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal Scotland, Spain, Sweden, and Wales. And most if not all of these countries protect the human rights of same sex couples. The times they are a changing!

        However, it would be interesting to know if all of our churches, and all of the folks who have expressed often virulent views against same sex marriages would be willing to actively support same sex civil unions. I seriously doubt it.

    • youhooooo says:

      how quickly blacks forget. There was a time when their rights were non existent

  26. Henry Dowling says:

    I feel compelled to write this given all the recent comments I have read on this and other websites. I am a man of faith and also have completed my doctorate in higher learning. This gives me no more nor no less an ability to share my thoughts then those who do not share my beliefs or who have not reached my level of education. I, like many know many who have accepted the gay lifestyle, an have tried to treat them with the respect due to any who live within my country. I have attended one of the meetings that the government held, and listened to both sides speak on their positions regarding the possibility of the government changing the law to include same sex couples. I have tried to voice my opinion based upon the question being asked. That question is not whether homosexuals are born gay,it is not should we comment on the rightness or wrongness of the gay lifestyle, or whether churches should be more tolerant of homosexuals. The question being asked is, should the GOVERNMENT change the current definition of marriage from one man with one woman, to same sex couples as well. In light of that question only, I have voted no. There are many religious reasons that i can use, but in attempting to look at from the point of view of those who proclaim that the religious view is by nature bigoted, I have tried to look to other sources. I would ask all readers to research the dissenting opinions from the recent supreme court ruling in America which forced all states to accept the change in the definition. They pointed out that the governmental reasons for defining marriage as one man with one woman were more rooted in the biology of procreation, as well as the nature of child rearing. It has been established that those infants raised in intact homes with their biological parents had the best chances of not only survival, but thriving with shared resources of their parents. This is seen not only in human communities, but in mammals that have complex social structures, produce few offspring at one time, require long periods to gestate infants, and long periods for those newborns to fully mature. This formation of 2 coming together to do the above is biologically and historically been defined as marriage. Although there are those who have gotten married for other purposes, governments have long held to this definition to promote advancement of their societies in the form of encouraging intact biological groupings. There is no use of acknowledgement of individuals’ love, of which marriage is not required (every adult has the freedom to live with each other). All the challenges that historically have been made in reference to being married have been including people under the governments definition of marriage, not redefining the government’s definition. If a people who have years of history supporting this governmental definition request that this definition not be changed, why would this be considered hate propaganda. There is no data to suggest that a government that has maintained this stance creates a weak social structure. Those that ask for this change have touted the reason for this change is due mainly to gain certain benefits that are given to married couples. These benefits can change from one society to the next but there are many in common. But if the specific rights are the issue, there has been no initial directive to expand these rights (eg. insurance coverage for couples), just to change the definition. There have been those that have claimed that marriage is a HUMAN right, which means that by nature all humans should have the ability to get married, irregardless of their race, religion, age, or status. Yet we know that we do restrict marriage according to age, we restrict marriage according to mental status. Hence marriage licences are offered not as a human right, but as a social policy, agreed upon by its citizens. That being said, if the community has agreed on what its citizens are going to uphold for the common good, then the citizens should also agree to change that, understanding all the possible long term and short term consequences of those changes. In a democratic society that is done in the form of a vote, not by the few making decision for the many. One of the concerns brought up in the dissent was the possibility of those who feel just as convicted in giving current marital rights to those wanting to practice plural marriages. Why restrict marriage to 2 people if there are those who feel just as strong that they could love and be committed to multiple people in a legal marriage setting. Should they be awarded the same rights that the current same sex movement is asking for? This is where the slippery slope can come into play, and where a government has to decided what they are going to promote through change in policies.

  27. Mike Hind says:

    With all due respect, there is so much wrong with this post, I don’t know where to start!

    First off, procreation is in no way a stipulation for marriage. A couple’s ability to have children has no bearing on their ability to get married. At all. It simply doesn’t. This is a completely incorrect point. To imply that marriage is “rooted in the biology of procreation” is, plain and simple, wrong. It’s incorrect. I don’t know how to make that clearer. Infertile couples are allowed to marry. Post menopausal women are allowed to marry. To base opposition to marriage equality on the ability to procreate is misguided and misinformed.
    “This formation of 2 coming together to do the above is biologically and historically been defined as marriage.” is an incorrect statement. Marriage is about rights and property. The ability to procreate has NOT “historically been defined as marriage”.

    You say “…every adult has the freedom to live with each other…”, which is another bit of false information. Gay couples from different countries do NOT have that freedom. Your premise is incorrect.

    “All the challenges that historically have been made in reference to being married have been including people under the governments definition of marriage, not redefining the government’s definition.”
    At one point, in some places, the government’s definition of marriage included restrictions based on race. This definition was changed. The challenges that historically have been made in reference to being married DID, in fact, happen because the government redefined it.
    In addition to this, all we are asking is for people to be included under the definition. That’s it.
    I’m sorry, but to imply that we shouldn’t change the government’s definition of marriage because we shouldn’t change the definition of marriage is a circular argument based on false information. The definition HAS been changed in the past. To say it hasn’t is incorrect.

    “If a people who have years of history supporting this governmental definition request that this definition not be changed, why would this be considered hate propaganda.”
    Because it’s hate. It’s the denial of rights and privileges to a group of people based on either someone’s personal choice of religions or based on false, dishonest arguments and logical fallacies.

    “But if the specific rights are the issue, there has been no initial directive to expand these rights (eg. insurance coverage for couples), just to change the definition.”
    Are you serious with this? That’s what this is all about! Expanding the rights is EXACTLY what we’re talking about. The ones changing the argument to “changing the definition” and “procreation” and all sorts of other nonsense are the ones fighting against it! Come on. This is a completely dishonest argument.

    “Yet we know that we do restrict marriage according to age, we restrict marriage according to mental status.”
    Yes. And these are based on consent. Children and mentally incapable people CANNOT offer consent.
    This is not true of two adults. No one is suggesting changing anything to involve lack of consent. This is a moot point.

    “In a democratic society that is done in the form of a vote, not by the few making decision for the many.”
    No, in a democracy, it is the government’s duty to protect the minority from the majority.

    And, finally, polygamy is an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with marriage equality.
    No one has started a movement to support polygamy. No one is seriously attaching polygamy to the marriage equality movement. This argument is a distraction from the real issue.
    The “slippery slope” argument has been debunked many, many times.

    Sorry, but nothing in this post is a real reason to deny someone equal rights and privileges. At all.