Gay Couple File Marriage Notice In Bermuda

December 2, 2015

[Updated] A gay couple have filed an official notice with the Registrar General that they want to get married in Bermuda, saying that “it would set a precedent, and we would be equal in the eyes of the law.”

Bermudian Ijumo Hayward, 46, and American Clarence Williams III, 40, have filed a Notice of Intended Marriage to the Registrar General.

Ijumo Hayward and Clarence Williams 151202

Mr Hayward told Bernews: “I grew up in Bermuda and I have Bermudian parents. I want to get married but my marriage would not be recognised in Bermuda and along with that come all the privileges that heterosexual couples have when they are married.

“My husband would not be able to come to Bermuda to work and we would have issues over things like property that might be left to me. There are a myriad of issues that would restrict my marriage from being equal to that of a heterosexual couple.”

He added: “Even if I was married here in the States, Bermuda would still not necessarily recognise my marriage. Coming back to Bermuda would just be like I was single.

“Allowing same sex marriage in Bermuda is part of our thinking as well. It would set a precedent and we would be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what certain religious factions may believe.

“To those who are against – why are you against it? Biblically speaking, those people who claim to be Christ-like, Christ said nothing about homosexuality.

“If you are going to be Christ-like then, just like Christ, you should have nothing to say about homosexuality, absolutely zero.”

The couple are being represented by former Attorney General Mark Pettingill who said you “you cannot withhold services on the basis of any form of discrimination.”

Bernews Podcast with Mark Pettingill Nov 15

Mr Pettingill told Bernews, “We take the position that, given the provisions in the Human Rights Act, the primacy of the Human Rights Act, which was touched on recently by the Chief Justice, I held the view for a long time that, as a result of the law that was changed with regard to discrimination on sexual orientation, that the provision of services – which is what occurs under the Marriage Act – it’s a service that’s provided by the Registrar to marry people or to give them a marriage license.

“The Act is clear that you cannot withhold services on the basis of any form of discrimination, and I don’t think that that is overly complicated.”

“We have covered that [application for marriage] with a letter to the Registrar to indicate that this is an application by a same sex couple and what our view is, and what the next steps should be.”

He said the application had to be put in the official notice book, it had to be posted in a conspicuous place in the Registrar’s Office and within three days of the notice being received, it has to be published in the Official Gazette.

If those steps are followed, said Mr Pettingill, it would open the door for Mr Hayward and Mr Williams to be married.

When asked if the Marriage Act specifies it must be between a man and a woman, Mr Pettingill said, “No, it doesn’t, and that’s the very significant point.”

12-minute podcast interview with Mark Pettingill.

The couple’s bid is being supported by Tony Brannon, who is campaigning in favour of same sex marriage.

“The reason why I have spent an incredible amount of time, energy and resources on same sex marriage is because I fundamentally believe that same sex marriage is a human right,” Mr Brannon told Bernews.

“Earlier this year a lesbian couple were denied the right to marry on a Bermuda registered cruise ship. This energized me to create a petition.

“The success of the petition has led to the OBA Government holding Information Sessions which were hugely successful and supported by a majority of those in favour of same sex marriage.

“The natural progression has been to find a same sex couple to apply to be married in Bermuda. This day has come.”

Bernews Podcast with Tony Brannon

He added: “The recent ruling last Friday by the Chief Justice for same sex couples to live, reside and work in Bermuda, plus the fact that I believe the Human Rights Act trumps any other legislation that is discriminatory, is the reason for the timing of this application for Bermuda’s first same sex couple to be married.“

“Now is the time to settle this matter once and for all and there is no better place than the courts to decide. In truth, it shouldn’t even need to go there. Today, is hopefully the dawn of a new day for human rights in Bermuda where love can be recognized no matter the combination of the partners.”

26-minute podcast with Tony Brannon:

The couple’s “Notice of Intended Marriage” as filed with the Registrar General

Notice of Intended Marriage Act Nov 2015 (1)


Bernews’ podcasts aim to provide an in-depth look at current affairs, and the text extracts above represent only a small portion of the full interviews.

You can also download the episode featuring Mark Pettingill in MP3 format here, download the episode featuring Tony Brannon in MP3 format here, and you can also subscribe via iTunes to download all our podcasts directly to your phone or tablet.

Update 3:30pm: In response to our queries, the Ministry of Home Affair said: “The Minister of Home Affairs is well aware of the application and is consulting with Chambers on the matter.

“A hearing is scheduled on Monday 7th December 2015 in respect of issues relating to the Bermuda Bred Company Ltd judgment last week which we believe will add clarity to the matter as a whole.”

click here banner Podcasts

Read More About

Category: All, News, Podcasts, Politics

Comments (292)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. San George says:

    Who hurt you? Let’s get to the root of the problem. All of you should come out and tell the world who hurt you – that way we understand and the perpetrators are exposed.

    • bobby13 says:

      Who hurt you?

    • I Don't Think So says:

      What on earth are you talking about?

    • @ San George, Don’t jump to conclusion, it does not always have to be about hurt in the sense of one being molested or raped, but I do agree on the hurt portion, in the sense of life and the trials that it brings can make one become into a place that the decisions that they make are far from the norm.

      These two men have come out openly, such as many have done all down through the years, the only difference now, it is more publicized in local media. They are not the first to come out publicly and they wont be the last, It is our position to love them regardless of the decisions they have made, and pray for them.

      I do not endorse any same sex marriage, but i am committed to look past the choices that they make, and respect them as a individual and a human being, being a father and a grandfather myself, I constantly am reminded that should any of my own decide to go this way, to you cut hem off, or do you try and be a part of their lives, the answer for me is simple. My children and grandchildren will always be mine regardless of the decisions they make in their lives, and I put this in here, because there are family members right now of these two young man who are embarrassed and ashamed of them, because they chose to go public in print media, and more so because they have filed publicly at a time that same sex marriage has not yet even passed by law in our country.

      For all the nay Sayers who think they have it altogether, leave these folk alone, let them live their life, and what will come to pass on these shore is something greater then same sex marriage, it is at that point I am more concerned about how we will deal with what is really up ahead. let the church be the church, because in my view we will all have to pass through death to stand in Judgement, not only for the deeds we have done to our selves, but the deeds that we have done unto others.

      Hurt comes in many forms and the out come of hurt takes on many forms, I wont subscribe to a person being born gay, and neither do I subscribe to everyone that is gay was molested or raped at some point of their life. they are people, and people will be people the world over, What are you and i doing to make this world a better place, in closing i will give you one fact that came out of the aids epidemic in Bermuda, when many drug users and also gay persons were afflicted and dying in this country, I personally stood beside over 125 victims to aids, the majority were homosexual, and the majority of them recognized their morality before death, and knew that their is something far greater beyond this life.

      The majority were raised on christian teachings, principles and values, and accepted The Lord Jesus Christ before they departed, now i can not say how Judgement met them at the throne room of God, but I will say, that is one appointment none of us will miss, make fun of it all you want, there will be a day of reckoning for us all. To the family, there is nothing more powerful then prayer, trust and believe, my mother prayed for me for 7 years to get out of this life style and today she is 84 and have seen 30 plus of my years were I never turned back.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No one is stopping the church being the church.

        And I thought you said you were fighting for equality for all! Has that changed?

        • The old timers use to quote for years, that in many cases education is like poison, some folk are so darn educated that they are dumb as hell, so let me try and take my high school drop out degree and assist you. If the U.S. sneezes, Bermuda catches the cold, so what ever we see happening there, eventually makes it’s way to our shores.

          During the Stubb’s bill no one from the gay community fought for marriage, and even went as far as making a public statement, that they had no intentions of seeking the right to marry, then or in the future, so based mostly on this the law was repealed.

          So now we see a bunch of folk that had retracted from that era, and want the right to marry, raise children and adopt, what comes next, well let me educate you.

          1). What happens if they are refused to be married by any of the local clergy.

          2). What happens if they want to go to a public place to rent, be it a house apt ect, and they are refused

          3). Suppose during their wedding arrangements they are refuse by the bakery to making their wedding cake

          4). How about the school curriculum and teaching what the Americans are trying to enforce, the alternative lifestyle and living.

          5). How about the transgender using the public restroom and it becoming a offence to the gender that has the real right to that particular rest room.

          That is just to name a few, and my thought is that when all this becomes a issue then you will want rights for that to, so as the rights are fought for and won, who then do you think will be discriminated against, also when the homosexual and lesbian community decide they want to take folk to court for refusal of any I have said above and more, then who will be discriminated against, let them live their lives, but I sure in hell am not going to let them stop me from being me, or living out my beliefs.

          So this came from high school drop out 101, to Mr. Hinds and any joker that thinks like him.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Um. I dropped out, too, Mr. Santucci (and look! I spelled your name correctly. Shame you didn’t have the respect to do the same for me.) This isn’t a badge of honour.

            First off, a bunch of questions isn’t “Educating” anyone.

            Secondly, let’s go through and answer. Not that you’re going to return to this. You’re more of a “Mic Drop” kinda guy, leaving your false arguments scattered around this site with nothing to back them up.

            1). What happens if they are refused to be married by any of the local clergy.

            Nothing. This isn’t happening anywhere. You’ve been asked repeatedly to show links or evidence of this happening and you haven’t. This is an invalid argument and the question is specious.

            2). What happens if they want to go to a public place to rent, be it a house apt ect, and they are refused

            They’re already covered in this. Any business that discriminates against them is… um… discriminating. This has nothing to do with Marriage Equality, as it’s already been done.
            Did you miss all that?

            3). Suppose during their wedding arrangements they are refuse by the bakery to making their wedding cake

            Same thing. A business is not allowed to discriminate. This has nothing to do with marriage equality. The Human Rights Act covers this.

            4). How about the school curriculum and teaching what the Americans are trying to enforce, the alternative lifestyle and living.

            And again. Covered by the Human Rights Act.

            5). How about the transgender using the public restroom and it becoming a offence to the gender that has the real right to that particular rest room.

            This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this subject, whatsoever. You’re ridiculous.

            But, as long as we’re on the subject…
            A) Your question is poorly written gibberish.
            B) You really need to stop focusing on what is in people’s pants. It’s none of your business.
            C) You are probably focused on transgender women, as most people who make this argument do, as they don’t what what they consider to be “men” in the Ladies Room.
            But, just to show how narrow-minded this thinking is… What about transgender men being forced to use the ladies room. Are you ok with a hairy, bearded man going into the ladies room, just because he doesn’t have the same equipment in his pants as you?
            D) What is this obsession with bathrooms anyway? They’re there for using the bathroom, not checking out other people or picking them up. Who cares what the plumbing is under their clothes as long as the plumbing in the room works?

            So… any response to this?

            For the record, being taken to court for discriminating against gay folks isn’t – as you seem to be proposing – discrimination.
            You are wrong.

            • Mike Hind says:

              It’s odd that Ms. Santucci hasn’t responded to this, yet has gone on to post more misinformation elsewhere.

              I wonder why.

              So much for courage of convictions.

      • Yes says:

        Mr. Santucci,
        While I disgree with you on many points your remarks are most often well considered and expressed. In this matter I have to agree with you that attacking, insulting and rejecting people because of their ideas, beliefs, choices or what have you is destructive, uncaring and unhelpful. That goes for those who make negative remarks about gay people here and those who make negative remarks about the church.

        In this debate it is important to remember that as gay people fight for their rights we must not forget that religious believers have their rights which must not be taken away or abused.

        I am neither gay nor a churchgoer but I believe that our society must be based on mutual respect or we will not be able to progress.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No one is looking to take away rights from the church. No one has suggested it. At all.
          There isn’t equivalence.

        • @ Yes, Well said and I believe we are a better people because of people like you, I don’t think beating up on these people or the church is the answer, and while I don’t have all the answers, I am grateful to you and others like you, that always brings balance to the overall picture.

      • Shut it up! says:

        Ok Mr Santucci,
        You need to stop it. Everyone knows how you run your mouth and it comes out of both sides.

      • It is not a choice says:

        “I do not endorse any same sex marriage, but i am committed to look past the choices that they make, and respect them as a individual and a human being, being a father and a grandfather myself, I constantly am reminded that should any of my own decide to go this way,….”

        It is not a choice!!

        • @ It is not a choice, Trust me it is a choice, I have lived the life and have come into contact with litter ally hundreds around the world, who live this lifestyle, and none can prove that they were born this way, and as far as it being a choice or not were my children or grands are concern, it was a choice to be their father and that you won’t have the brains to comprehend.

          • Muhammad Goldberg says:

            You are ignoring real science and talking rot.
            Thankfully the facts about sexuality are known to a growing majority of educated persons, in particular lawmakers in developed countries with sophisticated legal systems and progressive human rights legislation. Because of this Bermuda will move forward too, albeit a bit behind the front runners, and history will expose people like yourself standing on the wrong side of a basic human rights issue. It is never too late to change your position. If you have the cognitive and technical ability to carry out online scientific research you could educate yourself on this issue.

          • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

            “None can prove that they were born this way.”

            Can you prove that you were born the way you are?
            And before you go and say ‘it’s different. The way I am is natural/normal’ don’t, there is as much proof that people are born heterosexual as there is that people are born gay, or asexual, or pansexual, or bisexual.

            It’s kind of like everything else about us humans. We come in lots of variations. From looks, to tastes, to blood types, etc.

          • If you have been attracted enough by the same sex to ‘live the life’ and then chosen to live with the opposite sex, you are, at worst/best, bi sexual. We do not chose who we are attracted to. We chose to act on it or not.
            Additionally, so what if it is a choice? This effects you how exactly?
            I’m glad for your offspring that you consider yourself so open minded that you would still consider them family. So many men don’t make the choice to be parents as evidenced by the number of women raising kids on their own, often from multiple males who all have other children by other single women, with no fathers fighting to be present. At least casual sex among gays doesn’t result in unwanted children who bear the brunt of irresponsible opposite sex parents. Maybe you need to expend your considerable energies on castigating those ungodly types who are doing far more damage to our communities than on gays who simply want to live their lives without fear.

          • firefly says:

            It is a choice if you’re bisexual I suppose. But then again you can argue that bisexuality isn’t a choice. And even then, whether you fall for someone of the same or opposite gender at any particular point, will again, not be a personal choice at all.

            It’s quite simple really. Ask yourself if you have ever fallen in love. How did that feel? And could you just ‘stop it’ if you wanted to? Likely not. Because rejection hurts. It hurts like hell.

            Now, that is what a person feels when they fall in love with someone of the same sex. It isn’t a choice. Their body tells them to fall in love with someone of the same sex. They have the same feeling, the same sadness, the same fears of rejection.

            And just like a heterosexual who falls in love, they can’t just switch if off.

            So the question is, what is wrong with feeling love? Mutual love of course. What is wrong with it? Who are we to judge others. Who are we to say their feelings aren’t real. Who are we to say their pain isn’t real. how insulting that must be to them. How hurtful

            choice is a rational decision. Falling in love isn’t and no one has any say over it. Ever.

            So no, it’s not a choice.

          • It is not a choice says:

            So when did you choose to be straight? Why would anyone choose to live a life where they are not accepted, treated equal or respected. I think you need a reality check and need to wake up. Common sense isn’t so common.

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

          ) Orientation is a choice

          Homosexuality is often depicted as a condition men and women are born into and they have no choice in the orientation and desires they express, in all actuality everything we do is a choice. The reality among anyone whether addicted to food, drugs, sex, pornography or masturbation is they are not addicted to the act itself but to the serotonin and dopamine response or flood of chemicals such actions and thoughts produce in our brain. In essence you are addicted to your own chemical response and not the act itself. Science has shown there are receptors in our brains that utilize these chemicals that regulate our moods, feelings, and states.

          Drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines and LSD etc, all utilize this system and mimic in a large part the natural chemicals of our brain and is why they are so addicting. What happens is thinking, or our internal dialog shapes neural pathways in our brain and the actions reinforce these pathways. Pathways that solidify as behavior is reinforced over the course of a lifetime.

          With addiction of any type it starts with our thoughts. Using a “Homosexual” as an example we can see how at a young age our society will expose a developing child to the concept of sex which is intriguing for a child who just discovered such a concept. As the brain plays with this new idea and the possibilities, it forms new neural pathways of knowledge, this is a normal response for a child upon learning of sex and curiosity ensues.

          The problem is society teaches alternative ideas about sex that contradict the natural state, this is why children via sex education programs are targeted at a young age in elementary and middle school. The social engineers know that the developing mind once exposed to information will quite literally obsess over it especially in these developing years. So they essentially create a feed back loop with in a child that is constantly checking whether they are normal and straight or gay. The mind will perform checks whether it likes that girl or likes that guy, and as child obsessives over the nature of sexuality, desire and orientation pathways begin to take shape that channel thinking in one direction. This constant checking trying to determine whether one is gay or straight is incredibly damaging on the developing psyche of a young adult, especially considering the obvious fact that a man and women produce a baby. Simple math 1 + 1 = 2 becomes very confusing for a child when authority figures are telling them that all the variables possible can equal 2 in the context of a sex ed class.

          A very real epidemic is that of pornography and masturbation, children are exposed to graphic material at a very young age and quite literally because of the habitual use of pornography and masturbation engage the neural programming process and many become trapped in it for their entire lives. READ THIS article about a secular community that is being honest about the ramifications of porn and masturbation on their lives and are trying to encourage one another to escape the vicious often demoralizing lifestyle pornography creates. This article serves as an example as to how sexuality has been exploited entrapping both men and women in destructive and dehumanizing lifestyles. Instead of rationalizing it, normalizing it, this community is finally being honest about it and working towards freeing themselves from a choice based destructive lifestyle.

          Another point that needs to be made is that feminizing agents are being injected into our water and food, like BPA and other estrogen mimicking chemicals. This causes boy’s to be hyper-feminized and women to develop breast cancer at astounding rates. More death and population control courteous of the global elite.

          • Mike Hind says:

            More completely false nonsense.

            Not a lick of evidence to back it up.

            Just more verbose, pseudo-intellectual gibberish trying to justify hate.

            It’s embarrassing and sad.

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

              Every one of your opinions that you so graciously flaunt here on this particular subject is just repetitive scripted hogwash…but the really sad part is that there are a lot more like you.

              • Mike Hind says:

                No, that’s you.

                The reason my posts are repetitive is because your side keeps posting the same lies and then running away when I ask simple questions about them.

                You do this all the time.

                Maybe if you would show a little integrity and courage of convictions and vpback up your ludicrous claims, you would be taken seriously. But you won’t. You’ll just keep posting the same false, fake, desperate nonsense and then attack anyone that questions you with more lies and nonsense.

                When you try honesty, you’ll be taken seriously.

                We’ll see if that happens.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yet another dishonest trope from the anti-equality side.

      Can we PLEASE try to show some integrity?

    • Onion Juice says:

      This is F!@#*** SICKNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Mike Hind says:

        So is your bigoted hate.

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

          Do we have to change laws to be a bigot..?
          Would it affect your life if I am a bigot..?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Now you’re just ranting incoherently.

            It won’t affect my life, but bigotry does affect people’s lives.
            You know this.

            Why are you freaking out?

      • I’m sure the pharmacy will have something for your poor little tum tum. Obviously, you’ve had to much koolaide.

  2. rudy says:

    Oh boy! Here we go-buckle, get the popcorn and mind your manners!

    • Strike fund says:

      Well I for one wish them all the best and a lifetime of happiness together.

  3. Bee says:

    God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

    • God says:

      Honestly, it was an accident. I was just fooling around with a singularity and it suddenly went BANG.

      What a mess.

    • serengeti says:

      First, the story about Adam and Eve is complete fiction.
      Second, even if you believe it, you have to believe that their children committed incest, and that all subsequent descendants were the product of incest. Frankly, the whole idea is disgusting.

    • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

      According to the Bible Adam and Eve created this whole mess we are in, and that’s who you’re looking up to as an example?

    • Rational Mind says:

      Adam and Eve have been scientifically proven to be mythological characters that did not exist. If that’s what you want to base your life principles upon, do so at your own risk. The world and people’s rights should not be run on that sort of idiotic, nonsensical drivel derived from that best-selling fiction novel known as “The Bible”.

      • Daylilly says:

        You seem pretty intellectual so I’m sure you can see that we complex human beings have some sort of intelligent design. I call the designer of that intelligence GOD.

        • Mike Hind says:

          How can anyone “see” this?

          There is absolutely no evidence or data to back this up.

          None whatsoever.

        • blankman says:

          lilly, every argument in favour of intelligent design has been thoroughly debunked.

          The “irreducible complexity” argument (which seems to be what you are referring to here) falls over if you have even a rudimentary knowledge of basic statistics. And if you’re referring to Paley’s watchmaker analogy that was shown to be false over a century ago.

    • hmmm says:

      God created everything and everyone.

      • Ya ya, Ya ya says:

        Then he created gay people too.

        • hmmm says:


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

          Is there really even such a thing as a ‘homosexual’?

          There is a carefully crafted confusion on the term ‘sex’ in our society, this we will find is purposeful. In fact the clouding of traditional uses of words and definitions is a tactic first introduced in George Orwell’s book 1984. Orwell called it ‘New Speak’, and it was defined as the narrowing of language to create new social norms.

          Essentially the trick of “New Speak” was framing the debate through the clever use and abuse of language to re-engineer the culture. This happened in a variety of ways but as new words and definitions are seeded as memes into society, social engineers are able to control and guide the debate around key issues.

          The word ‘homosexual’ is a classic example of this technique at work right now with in our society. The word ‘Homosexual’ is an invented one, it is a ‘straw-man’ word that really is an oxymoron or misnomer that has been injected into our culture. There simply is no such thing as a “homosexual”, “bi-sexual”, “a-sexual”, or for that matter things like “**** sex” or “**** sex” etc, etc. All of these words have nothing whatsoever to do with the word ‘sex’ by definition. Sex by definition is associated with gender identity, either female or male. Likewise the word ‘Sexual Intercourse’ also is associated with coitus between opposite genders exclusively.

          Take special note that sexual intercourse occurs when a “female and male copulate for the purpose of procreation”. This is a scientific term and is purposely applied to an act that perpetuates a species plain and simple. Scientifically speaking if it is an act outside of this definition then it simply can’t be termed ‘sex’ or any derivative thereof because no matter what it can’t perpetuate the species. So therefore the term ‘homosexual’ is a politically created term, that has attached the prefix ‘homo’ to the word ‘sex’ in attempt to validate itself as an equally correct term.

          In fact any act outside the traditional use of sex is all really just m******** for pleasure. Whether it is pleasure derived by male on male contact, female on female, or contact with anything for the sole purpose of pleasure is m******* at best.

          The word ‘homosexual’ is simply a glorified word for a pleasure seeker in the form of non-procreative sexual contact nothing more. Anybody using this word reveals that they have no concept of basic biology, and are caught up in the straw-man argument. Whether you are on the left or right of this debate hardly matters, by using the word “Homosexual” you are being manipulated by “New Speak” tactics and empowers the straw-man debate that creates massive division with in society as a result.

          Let’s face it any act that is solely for the purpose of self-pleasuring will never perpetuate the species, no matter what language used by gay rights advocates to justify or validate their lifestyles, it will never result in the perpetuation of our species or families into the future and should never be termed under any circumstances as being sex.

          • Mike Hind says:

            More complete nonsense, desperately trying to make homophobia more palatable.

            Nothing in here is real or true or based on any sort of evidence.

            It’s sheer gibberish.

      • blankman says:

        hmmmm, if you believe that God created everything and everyone you have to decide on a couple of things.

        Let’s start with “which god?” The original text of Genesis (written in Aramaic) translates literally as “In the beginning gods created …” and the plural is not a typo.

        Then we can go on to which creation myth you believe – there are two distinct (and contradictory) versions in Genesis alone. There is a third in the Books of Isaiah, Psalms and Job. In this version, the world is created in the aftermath of a great battle between God and what theologians say is a dragon in the waters called Rahab.

        But that entire discussion fails if you can’t prove that God (any god) exists.

        • Daylilly says:

          Even if one doesn’t believe in God, the universe is replete with indicators of intelligent design. It takes more faith to believe that the sun, moon, stars, planets, seeds and animals all evolved from a series of unfortunate events..

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nope. Not a single one.

            Not a shred of data. Not one bit of verifiable scientific evidence.

            “the universe is replete with indicators of intelligent design” is an outright lie.

          • blankman says:

            lilly, no idea why you’re stuck on the concept of ID (“ntelligent Design”). Not only does it make no sense but, if there were a designer, he/she/it is at best incompetent (that’s why ID really stands for “Incompetent Design”). It’s simply incomprehensible that a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being has got to be able to improve on the design of the human body – little things like appendices and poorly designed knee joints demonstrate that.

            But you haven’t answered the question – since you seem to think that the Bible is true, which creation story is the right one? They can’t all be true. So which one is it? [I'll give you a pass on the correct translation of the opening line of Genesis. At least for now.]

      • Jack Frost says:

        But God did not create marriage for 2 men or 2 women.
        God created marriage for man and woman’s

        • It is not a choice says:

          And did God tell you this directly? Interesting that you have this direct connection….

        • Mike Hind says:

          You can believe that all you want, with regards to your marriage.

          However, your religion should not be used to define anyone else’s.
          Your belief that God created marriage is exactly that… your belief.
          It should not be used to deny rights to anyone else.

        • Bloopbleepbloop says:

          I’m pretty sure governments created marriage

        • inkblot101 says:

          Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage. Pagans were doing it long before you lot.

        • bdaboy says:

          Why does the father ‘give away’ his daughter in a wedding? Why does the bride give up her last name?
          See if you can wrap your frozen little brain around that??

          • bluwater says:

            That process was an invention to preserve patriarchal property rights.

            • bdaboy says:

              So, it’s not for procreation, invented by god, for a man and a woman who ‘love’ each other, as many are suggesting here?

          • Mike Hind says:


            These are traditions… they’re not stipulations.

          • blankman says:

            Why does the father give his daughter away? Simple. Because historically women were property – the daughter belonged to the father (literally) and when she got married he gave her to her husband.

    • it says:

      Coulda been Adam and Yves

    • Solution says:

      God is fake and the bible is fictional…people who are not strong enough to stand up on their own fall back on these two things..kinda like how some people rely on alcohol and drugs.

      • Daylilly says:

        Oh I get it, religion is the opiate of the people. Soon you may have your law and disorder and my opiate today will be your salvation another day.

        • blankman says:

          “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

    • hilarious says:

      If you believe that, then you need to Adam and LEAVE. LOLZ!
      No seriously, Im delighted for these two, they make a lovely couple! Get with the times Bermuda! Congrats to the lovely couple!!!

  4. Noncents says:

    Over/Under 100 comments by lunchtime?

    Just let them get married. It’s going to be the law eventually, why drag it out.

    • Come Correct says:

      Who’s sending the e-mail to paradise games for the odds on that?

  5. the truth will set you free says:

    In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda

    Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
    …to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake–and one that would perhaps benefit all of society–is to transform the notion of family entirely.” “Its the final tool with which to dismantle all s***** statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.
    Click here to read the entire text of the Homosexual Manifesto by Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary”
    From Washington Times, 9/8/94, openly homosexual U.S. Patents and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehmen says it with force:
    When a diversity consultant in 1994 asked whether some employees might be reluctant to undergo sensitivity training on homosexuality, openly homosexual U.S. Patents and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehmen replied: Its got to be forced down their throats. If they want to be bigots, they can go work for someone else’s department.
    Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, in Overhauling of Straight America, advocate using the camel-in-the-tent approach:
    In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay-rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much a possible. First, let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!
    From responses in a 1994 survey on homosexual activity, published August 23, 1994 in The Advocate, national magazine for homosexuals, one gets a clear picture of this selfish and life threatening agenda (Note, study included 2500 homosexual men) By calling this a human rights issue this scripture is a perfect indication of the times in which we are living: Isaiah 5:20:Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. We are living in a time where people in position of power actually are trying to take God’s place on earth and dictate what is right and wrong, this is why the world is morally bankrupt today. Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Well done. A report from 21 years ago, and then some bible verse.

      No one is stopping you from believing in your religion. But can you PLEASE answer why you think the rest of us should have to follow the rules of your religion?

      • Solution says:

        Seriously….the truth will set you free sounds alot like ISIS. Dont push your beleifs on me

        • hmmm says:

          Ah I see, your post is aimed at the poster named:
          “the truth will set you free”

          Makes sense now.

    • Substitute mixed race marriage for same sex, or race for sex and maybe then you would understand this IS a human rights issue. The majority don’t have to approve of it to make it the right thing to do. The majority certainly didn’t accept inter-racial couples. They had to be forced to accept that it was none of their business. The same goes for this. If you don’t like ‘gay’ sex, don’t have ‘gay’ sex.
      The definition of family has already been redefined by single parents and divorce. Same sex marriage will simply expand it even further.
      Quoting the bible is irrelevent. It means nothing except to people who believe in it. Those of us who don’t have no obligation to abide by its tenets so people like you need to stop trying to force us to. No one is trying to make you live as a gay person so stop trying to make others live as religious ones.

    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      The writings of one person do not a movement make.

      Every single gay person I’ve ever talked to about it pretty much has the same agenda that every single straight and bi person I’ve talked to about it pretty much has.

      A happy life.
      With friends and family who love them.
      A life partner.
      A good paying job they enjoy.
      A home.
      A little travel.

      You know, all the typical stuff.

  6. paperboy says:

    This is an excellent piece of reporting – thank you. Well done Bernews and all involved in generating this article.

  7. Triangle Drifter says:

    Here we go. Get your bibles out & self righteously start waving them in the air.

    News flash! This does not have anything to do with the church. Any church.

    It is about the legal issue of marriage not the church ceremony of a wedding.

    • laRoot says:

      Triangle, please remind them of that when they attempt to bully the clergy (the church)into performing their ceremonies. (They will try, mark my words).

      • hilarious says:

        laRoot- they wont. mark my words. Nobody wants to be married in a chruch that doesnt want them there. Church folk should be ashamed of themselves and their behaviour towards other Bermudians.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Doesn’t happen, hasn’t happened.
        This is a lie used to falsely oppose marriage equality.

        If you’re going to oppose it, at least try using honesty to do so.

        It’s against your rules to bear false witness, too.

      • Triangle Drifter says:

        That is entirely up to the church. All the churches do is perform a ceremony which legally means nothing at all. They perform, get that PERFORM, a wedding ceremony.

        You step away from the alter to go do the legal marriage paperwork which the church does, acting as an agent for Governments Registrar.

        There really is no reason to go to a church. If the church does not want to do the ceremony, it is the loss of revenue for the church. Their choice.

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

          How does 1% of the population control the national debate?

          According to four population studies, there is roughly 1% – 3% of American adults that identify as either gay, lesbian or bisexual.

          3.8% of Americans are gay
          “The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011).” (
          1.8% of Americans are bisexual
          “The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.” (
          1% of American Households
          “The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households.” (
          3% – 8% are gay and lesbian
          The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.(
          “While the percentage of women and men aged 18-44 years who reported they were either heterosexual or homosexual was similar (94% of women and 96% of men said they were heterosexual while 1.1% of women and 1.7% of men said they were homosexual or gay), the percentage of women who reported they were bisexual was more than 3 times as high as men (3.5% of women vs. 1.1% of men).” (, p. 5.)

          Now ask how is it that such a minute fraction of the overall population can control such a massive part of the national debate in America?

          The fact that the average American is assaulted with opinions from mainstream media constantly about the gay marriage debate and the legitimizing of the gay lifestyle as a valid alternative lifestyle should register as being very suspicious considering it only represents such a minuscule slice of the actual population. Anytime we see such a small offbeat culture dominating the national spotlight we immediately need to ask who is funding this and for what purposes.

          Nothing as small as 1% should ever come to dominate more than 1% of the national attention. If it is able to leverage more than their 1% it is because there is a high-level agenda behind the scenes allowing and making it happen. 1% of the population controlling the spotlight like the homosexual agenda has been able to would be the equivalent of a sub-culture dominating the media, or maybe those who believe they are vampire/goths taking over the political stage.

          Radical, un-natural, fantasy based sub-cultures never are taken seriously by society, the only time counter-culture groups ever get a foothold is if someone opens the door and funds them from the outside.

          So why would someone fund, and elevate the objectives of radical groups with in society? Let’s take for example radical extremism or those who believe in an violent interpretation of the Koran. We know radical Islam only makes up a small % of Muslim society but the elite controllers of the world know if you provide money and power to radicalized elements in a society then they are able to leverage their small voice which in turn seeds massive division in a culture. It is the perfect way to bring about the collapse of a society. The empowering of fringe groups and fringe ideas disproportionally with in a society is a military tactic nothing more.

          This is exactly what is happening in America with the debate of ‘Gay Rights’, we are seeing outside players identifying a ‘fringe’ group and empowering them for the purpose of creating division with in society.

          The disproportional amount of actual gay life style adherents per the amount of time they get is a dead give away there is an ulterior motive at work behind the scenes embedded deep with in the ‘Gay Rights’ debate. Frankly the only people with enough power, money and connections to make 1% of the population a national issue is the 1%, or the very wealthy elite that run the world.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Baseless, irrelevant nonsense

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

              Typical run o the mill coalitionist meat puppet retort.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Maybe if you backed up your claims with ANY sort of evidence, people would take you seriously.

                Instead, it’s just blah blah blah nonsense.

          • blankman says:

            Keepin it, you’re numbers are seriously messed up.

            Sounds like you’re focused on Kinsey’s study. In addition to being seriously outdated, that study focused on the percentage of the population that is homosexual. Not the percentage that isn’t strictly hetero (i.e., fits the definition of LGBTQ). That’s quite a different animal.

            Last year the government released a study that said that 1.6% of Americans self-identified as gay, .7% self-identified as bi, and 1.1% said they were “something else”. Only 96.6% said they were hetero.

            First, it’s safe to say that self-reporting (especially when there are real or perceived negative consequences to admitting to something) will always under report. There are those who are in denial. And those who just don’t like labeling themselves. So you should probably tack on a couple of percentage points.

            And then there are the guys that are on the “downlow” – despite having sex with men they’ll tell you that they’re straight. Or the married guy that used to get wasted in college and do his frat brother and, despite the fact that this happened every weekend, still regards himself as straight. Or the “straight” guy that runs m2m ads on Craigslist.

            But that study also said that 6% of those who self-identified as straight admitted to having been intimate with someone of the same sex.

            My arithmetic tells me that [(1.6% gay) + (.7% bi) + (1.1% other) + (6% of 96.6%)] amounts to some ten percent of the population without making any allowance for under reporting. So it’s not really that small a percentage of the population after all.

            But if you’re still of the opinion that this small a percentage of the population shouldn’t be granted equal rights please tell us what the “threshold” should be. After all, blacks only constitute something like 12-13% of the US population. Are you saying that the majority should never have granted equal rights to blacks because they constitute too small a percentage of the population? Please enlighten us.

      • And if they try the churches will be defended by both sides. Certain episcopalian churches have welcomed gay couples I believe. If a church runs a public BUSINESS however, all bets are off.

        • blankman says:

          Pamela, exactly – and in that case the BUSINESS consists things like renting out their facilities for the reception. It does not include marrying anyone.

          BTW, the Marriage Act is very specific on that one – no church has to marry anyone if doing so would be in violation of their beliefs.

  8. Reality Check says:

    I congratulate these guys on making a formal application , and retaining high profile counsel to pursue it . Bermuda has paid lip service to equal civil rights long enough . As an OBA voter I call on our government to stand up and do the right thing . What’s right for one , really is right for all .

  9. Saay Whaat? says:

    This should be thrown out because the marriage act has not been amended. This is trying to FORCE this down the people’s throats. What happened to democracy? Let the people decide by vote/referendum. Civil unions can be given, but we don’t need to change the marriage act.

    • Non-prophet organization says:

      Easy solution, if your against same-sex marriage, don’t get one. As for those who want to marry someone they love, same-sex or not, they should be able to. How does it hurt you?

      Congratulations to this couple.

    • jt says:

      1) I think you’ve entirely missed the point of their application.
      2) Who is being forced to marry someone of the same sex?
      3) This will not affect any church’s right to refuse to marry same sex couples, meaning that, unless a church decides otherwise, these will be civil unions.

      • clearasmud says:

        You are wrong according to Mr. Petting his argument is based on the refusal of service. If successful that would apply to any service.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          His arguement is based on the law as relates to government processing their application, not the churches right to marry who they want. He even says so. What he is saying is that in the law, the government has certain obligations they have to follow in processing the application… deadlines for postings and issuing, should they fail to meet those deadlines, then there is a case for discrimination. They aren’t forcing any church to marry them, though I believe they already have one who will.

    • blankman says:

      Did you actually read the article? The Marriage Act does not specify that marriage must be between a man and a woman. To quote

      “When asked if the Marriage Act specifies it must be between a man and a woman, Mr Pettingill said, “No, it doesn’t, and that’s the very significant point.””

      • blankman says:

        Love the fact that someone actually disliked a factual statement. According to Mr Pettingigll the marriage act does not specify that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

        The Act is available on line – it’s a pretty easy read and there is no requirement that the participants be of opposite sexes.

        • Portia says:

          You are wrong and so is Pettingill.

          Section 15(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act states that the parties must be MAN and WOMAN.

          Apparently our former Attorney General does not know how to read. This couple should NOT rely on him for advice.

          • serengeti says:

            Try reading the Marriage Act 1944, as amended.

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, they specifically said “The Marriage Act”.

            It’s odd that you missed that and quoted from a different act.

            I wonder why that is.

            • bdaboy says:

              -doesn’t know how to read.
              - is named after a lesbian.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            The marriage and matrimonial acts are legislation, not constitution. The human rights act has recently been expanded to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which in effect can now be argued that the marriage and matrimonial acts are now below par, as they specificity discriminate against same sex unions, so now it is possible to contest them in court on that basis.

            • blankman says:

              Better Bda, strictly speaking the Marriage Act does not discriminate against same-sex couples since it doesn’t require the married couple to be man and woman. There are a couple of references to wife as well as the pronouns his and her but that’s as far as it goes.

              The matrimonial clauses act is an entirely separate piece of legislation and only has one reference to the sex of the individuals when it says that the marriage will be void if the couple aren’t a man and woman – that would seem to be the only thing that would have to change (more accurately all that would have to happen is for the Court to rule that one line is invalid – no need to change the law at all)

    • Mike Hind says:

      Equal rights are not granted. They are won.


        Correction, equal rights are neither granted or won, they must be taken!

    • It is not a choice says:

      Why should you have a say on who I marry? This has nothing to do with you! It is my life. It is doing the right thing to treat ALL people equally so I say let it pass.

    • Yup yup says:

      What happened to democracy?

      Well the first pillar of democracy, the elected Parliament of Bermuda, enacted a piece of legislation called the Human Rights Act which protects certain classes of people from discrimination. eg. race, colour, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

      Subsequently the second pillar of democracy, The Supreme Court of Bermuda, found that this legislation has primacy over other pieces of legislation which may be discriminatory. In other words, all laws must be written and interpreted in such a way so as not to descriminate against the protected classes.

      So what happened to democracy? Well, in this case, it worked. It worked really, really well.

    • If we did it your way we still wouldn’t have inter racial marriage, blacks would still be openly and legally bought and sold and women would be treated even more like the chattel some men still think we should be. Sometimes the only way to allow people their human rights is to have it enshrined in law by the courts, against the majoritys wishes.
      So the amendmants will be made and your life will go on, changed not one tiny bit as a result of it being ‘forced’ on you.
      Given your preoccupation with other peoples sex lives perhaps you should spend more time questioning all the irresponsible mothers and, often, absent fathers. They do far more damage to the social fabric of our society than a gay person will ever do. And those effects are forced on us every single day.

    • inkblot101 says:

      Actually, you do need to change the marriage act because a civil union doesn’t sort out things like next of kin, wills, insurance and tax breaks, etc.

      • blankman says:

        inkblot – no need to change the marriage act since it doesn’t define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That means that, once a couple is married (same sex or not) all of the duties and benefits that currently accrue to a married hetero couple will accrue to them. Problem solved.

        I’ll defer to the lawyers but the only thing I can see that needs to be changed is the one line in the Matrimonial Clauses Act that says that a marriage is void if the parties aren’t man and woman.

  10. Why says:

    Not surprised at this at all! They are definitely wrong about Christ not talking about homosexuality because he is very clear on its sinful nature and that he hates the sin, not the people.
    Well this is only the start Bermuda

    • blankman says:

      He says nothing about same-sex marriage.

      However, he does talk about divorce – if you want to say that Jesus says that same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry you shouldn’t allow divorced people to remarry either.

      • Mike Hind says:

        This is exactly it.
        Why can’t religious folks look at this like they look at divorce: they don’t believe in it, it’s against their religion, but it doesn’t affect them or their religion in any way at all, so they don’t speak out against it.

        Makes sense to me,

        • hilarious says:

          Dont even start on the hundreds of abortions carried out every year.. Their god says no, but they ignore this. hypocrisy at its finest!

          • MPP says:

            How do “they” ignore this with anti-abortion movements all over the place. Facts, please.

            • hilarious says:

              The “they” i referred to are religious folks in Bermuda. I have lived here all my life and never ever once saw any indication of any kind of a protest against abortion. In the US or Europe there are protests. Does this clarify my comment?

          • blankman says:

            hilarious, hate to burst your bubble but scripture does not say anything negative about abortion.

            According to Jewish Talmudic law )which is what the Bible is based on), until 40 days a fetus is “mere fluid” (water if you prefer). After that it becomes a “limb” of the mother, very much like a leg. It isn’t until birth (i.e., when it draws its first breath) that a baby is actually alive.

            Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

            “No other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body.

            When the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. Rabbical scholars do not raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.

    • Mike Hind says:

      You’re allowed to believe that and most of us will back you up on your right to do so.

      What ISN’T cool is when you start thinking that your personal choice of religion should be used to run other people’s lives and deny them rights and privileges.

  11. Why says:


    • hmmm says:

      Yep, pray for each human to not be discriminated against.

      Two people publicly announce their intentions today and the sun is shining brightly, the breeze is moderate and pleasant and the seas are calm.

      God has spoken. Will you listen or are you full of hate?

      • Just saying says:

        So some one says pray for our island, doesn’t say what exactly for, just pray and the only logical explanation is they are full hate.

        With that being said discrimination goes both ways. There is discrimination against people with a different sexual orientation and against people of faith.

        Lets watch throwing out the word “hate” lest we do it ourselves.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No. It’s not.

          This will have absolutely no effect on people of faith.

          • hmmm says:

            Correct Mr Hind !

          • Just saying says:

            In the previous comment I was making the point when some one said pray they shouldn’t automatically think its against same sex marriage. (not necessarily saying that’s what happened there)

            I’m not saying here in Bermuda it will but as for North America it has. It didn’t affect the four walls of the church directly but did for schools, and local/ family businesses (ie. bakeries, florists, wedding planners) that were led/owned by people of faith. In situations where these people tried to exercise their fundamental right to their faith. they were sued and most of which lost their business/ position.In places like Canada to mention the word mother and father is seen as discrimination.

            So at the moment it doesn’t have an affect on people of Faith, but this law getting passed might affect people of faith.

            Just sayin

            • Mike Hind says:

              They don’t have a fundamental right to discriminate. This is an incorrect assumption.

              If they run a business, they are not allowed to discriminate. That’s the end of it.
              Just like people aren’t allowed to discriminate based on religion.

              “In places like Canada to mention the word mother and father is seen as discrimination.”

              You’re going to have to back this one up with a link or something, ‘cuz that seems like a lie.

            • blankman says:

              just saying – actually no.

              The individuals were free to practice their faith. They are welcome to believe in whatever god or gods they want in whatever way they want. However the businesses have to obey the law.

              When the owners opened their businesses and applied for whatever licenses and permits they needed to operate they agreed to obey all of the relevant laws and regulations. All of them, not just the ones that they like. All of them.

              And if the owners aren’t willing to obey the laws for whatever reason they are free to close their doors and do something else.

              But it was their choice to open the business which means that they had to know they would be required to obey the law.

              BTW, the “religious freedom” argument (which is the one you just made) was also used to justify not allowing blacks to enter “white” restaurants – in fact, Maurice Bessinger used that argument when he refused to allow blacks entry to his chain of BBQ restaurants – that case actually made it to the US Supreme Court and, in a unanimous ruling, the justices declared it to be patent nonsense.

            • bdaboy says:

              “.In places like Canada to mention the word mother and father is seen as discrimination.”

              Did you pull that out of your *ss?
              You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, try not to lie so much, god hates that :)

      • Why says:

        What makes one full of hate if they simply say to pray for our island. I’ll pray for you too :)

    • GOD says:

      @ Why

      Don’t waste my time. I’ve got more important things to worry about.

      • hilarious says:

        God, I dont believe in you, but I appreciate your comments, and you’re right, if you really exist, there are muc bigger things to worry about other than consenting adults declaring their love for each other!

        How is Santa? Does he serve gays?

    • It is not a choice says:

      I pray every day for these small minded individuals that want to stop love!

  12. hulk_too says:

    this is an act not law ….. it does not have to be carried out …… n
    know your law Bermudians. …..

    • KitKat says:

      Except… Acts ARE laws. They absolutely have to be followed. What are you talking about?

  13. Truth says:

    These links speak for themselves in regards to Jesus and His views on homosexuality. If you truly care about this issue and the future of Bermuda, then these links are for you. Spread the Word!

    • blankman says:

      What does “Jesus views on homosexuality” have to do with Bermuda? And why should we care? After all, there is no reason that we should be bound by the precepts of your religion.

  14. Jus' Askin' says:

    The End of A Cycle :-(

    • hilarious says:

      Have your menstrual cycle ended?

      Dont worry, there’ll be another one next month.

      have a great day!

  15. Jesus Christ says:

    I wish you folks would stop making up things about me.

    Really, I was a thirty something single guy in a time when most guys were married before they were out of their teens. I hung around with an ex-hooker and twelve unemployed guys eating fish and drinking wine. (This kind of sounds like one of your own political parties in Bermuda doesn’t it?). Do you really think I have a problem with gays? Get a clue folks.

    Now stop with the silly stories.

    See you on Sunday.

    • stunned... says:

      jesus was gay, so what?


      I thought it was Saturday JC????

    • Just saying says:

      Exactly Jesus you never had a problem with gay people you didn’t have a problem with people at all. You love everyone so much that you died so that our sins (my sins too, God knows ) wouldn’t be counted against us. You saw sin in its many forms and knew how detrimental it was to us that you loved us so much that we love you in return and stop with our sin. Like how you forgave the woman at the well of her sins and told her to leave her life of sin and sin no more.

      See you promptly at 9 ;)
      Just Saying

  16. Happy Onion says:

    I wish the best for Mr. Hayward & Mr. Williams in becoming a married couple that has the same rites & rights as any other Bermudian heterosexual couple!

  17. Ya ya, Ya ya says:

    Someone please point me to where in the Marriage Act it states that the parties have to be of the opposite sex:

    • Robert says:

      It doesn’t. However the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 says that the marriage is void if not a man and a woman. So it seens you can get married you just can’t stay married.

      • laRoot says:

        Grounds on which a marriage is void:
        A marriage celebrated after 31 December 1974 shall be void on the following grounds only, that is to say—
        that it is not a valid marriage under the Marriage Act 1944 [
        title 27 item 1];
        that at the time of the marriage either party was already lawfully married;
        that the parties are not respectively male and female.

        • Family Man says:

          So as long as you don’t celebrate you should be fine …
          Keep the cork in the champagne boys.

          (I know, that’s not really what it means)

    • bobby13 says:

      Why so much reference to christianity in the marriage act? It’s irksome

  18. UK living says:

    Why is this news!! Who cares if they are gay? They are a couple in love!! **** off Bermuda!

  19. joe gibbons says:

    Excellent piece and congratulations guys! Mark is a great lawyer for this and I am sure the case will win. The Government can continue to ignore equal rights, but the courts will step in.

  20. Sarah. says:

    You all wanna take after the Europeans than thats on you. Obviously we’re not supposed to be gay because we can’t reproduce from it. BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. The fact that you all are falling for this crap. I mean I have nothing against gay people but keep marriage traditional between man and women why confuse things?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Couple of things…

      Firstly, procreation is not a stipulation for marriage, so that point is invalid.
      Secondly, if you think gay folks shouldn’t be allowed to get married, you do, in fact, have something against them.
      Thirdly, “why confuse things”? Because people are being denied rights and privileges that the rest of us share and that isn’t fair.
      What’s confusing about it, anyway? When this becomes law, and couples are allowed to share their lives together, how is it going to confuse anyone?

    • LiarLiar says:

      Keep on thinking it is solely some European culture thing. The only European tradition regarding gays and Africa is that the Europeans outlawed it in Africa during the days of colonialism and essentially brought about the rampant ant-gay mindset prevalent on the African continent today.

      Africa is a huge continent with literally 10s of thousands of different ethnicities and cultures. To state that population of the African countries are somehow monolithic in their views is quite ignorant and akin to the stereotyping that so many complain about.

      PS: There are literally hundreds of articles that study and highlight homosexuality practiced by Africans throughout the ages.

      • blankman says:

        LiarLiar, exactly. Contrary to some of the claims I’ve seen, Europeans did not export homosexuality to Africa. Instead they exported homophobia.

    • blankman says:

      Keep marriage traditional? Are you referring to the Biblical definition of marriage? You know the one that includes

      * one man – one woman
      * one man – many women
      * one man – one wife many concubines (Solomon had hundreds of both)
      * a soldier and his female prisoner(s) of war
      * a man and the sex slaves he purchased from foreigners
      * a rapist and his victim

    • Torian says:

      Bruh the world is overpopulated already. We will use the earth’s resources in the next thousand years. Stop multiplying please.

  21. Mike Hind says:

    And congratulations, Jumo and Clarence!
    I wish you all the best!

  22. west says:

    No gay marriage leads to less violence

    • Mike Hind says:

      What does this even mean?

      Is it a threat?

      Are you saying that we should be cowed by those that would threaten violence if they don’t get their way?

    • Just saying says:

      What the heck are you even talking about? I’m for the preservation of marriage as is but this makes no sense.

  23. Truth Prevails says:

    God is in control period. There is nothing new under the sun :) There is a story that I particularly like in the Bible.Job. He was a man that had so much wealth along with the favor of God. It starts like this.

    In the land of Uz there lived a man named Job; and he was blameless and upright, one who revered God and avoided evil. He had seven sons and three daughters. He owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred asses; and he had many servants, so that he was the richest man among all the peoples of the East.
    One day when the sons of God came before Jehovah, Satan came with them. Jehovah said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Satan answered, “From going back and forth on the earth, and walking up and down on it.” And Jehovah said to Satan, “Have you seen my servant Job? For there is no man like him on the ea rth, blameless and upright, who reveres God and avoids evil.” Satan answered, “But is it for nothing that Job reveres God? Have you not yourself made a hedge all about him, about his household, and about all that he has? You have blessed whatever he does, and his possessions have greatly increased. But just put out your hand now and take away all he has; he certainly will curse you to your face.” Then Jehovah said to Satan, “See, everything that he has is in your power; only do not lay hands on Job himself.” So Satan left the presence of Jehovah.

    One day, as Job’s sons and daughters were eating and drinking in the oldest brother’s house, a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were ploughing and the asses were grazing near them when Sabeans suddenly attacked and seized them; the servants were put to the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

    While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “Lightning has fallen from heaven and has completely burned up the sheep and the servants, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

    While this man was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans, attacking in three bands, raided the camels and drove them away; the servants were put to the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

    While this one was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking in their oldest brother’s house when a great wind came from across the wilderness, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men and killed them. I alone have escaped to tell you.”

    Then Job rose, tore his robe, shaved his head, threw himself on the ground and worshipped, saying:

    “Jehovah gave, Jehovah has taken away;
    Blessed be the name of Jehovah!”

    In all this Job did not sin nor blame God.
    On another day when the sons of God came before Jehovah, Satan came with them. And Jehovah said to Satan, “From where do you come?”

    Satan answered, “From going back and forth on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” Jehovah said to Satan, “Have you seen my servant Job? For there is no man like him on the earth, blameless and upright, one who reveres God and avoids evil; he still is faithful, although you led me to ruin him without ca use.” Satan answered Jehovah, “Skin for skin, yes, a man will give all that he has for his life. But just put out your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he certainly will curse you to your face.” Jehovah said to Satan, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”

    So Satan left the presence of Jehovah, and afflicted Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head with leprosy so terrible that Job took a piece of broken pottery with which to scrape himself.

    As he sat among the ashes, his wife said to him, “Are you still holding to your piety? Curse God and die.” But he said to her, “You speak like a senseless woman. We accept prosperity from God, shall we not also accept misfortune?” In all this Job said nothing that was wrong.

    And as the story goes on it tells how Job began to even question God because God was SILENT. But here’s the part I like the most. God answers Job after all he had been through.
    38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

    2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

    3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

    4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

    5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

    6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

    7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

    9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

    10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

    11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

    12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

    13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

    14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

    15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

    16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

    17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

    18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

    19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,



    • Who cares? says:

      God is indeed in control and he agrees everyone is entitled to basic rights

    • Ally says:

      Uh, that’s nice?
      But seriously, tl;dr, where are you going with this?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes. And you are absolutely allowed to believe that.

      But your personal choice of religion shouldn’t be used to deny other people rights and privileges. That is unfair and that is what this is all about.

  24. Lois Frederick says:

    I like that this issue is being handled by the courts. The law is being challenged and we will see the outcome. This a good thing. All people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

  25. laRoot says:

    You espouse hate when you call me a bigot simply because I do not agree with you based on my belief system. You call me a homophobe. (Phobia means – an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something – in this case homosexuality) I am not afraid of you and the way you choose to live your lives. I guess we can agree to disagree on everything else but this right? ‘Your-way-or-the-highway’ mentality. I have friends who are gay. They know where I stand but I do not lord it over them, but yet I still love and care and joke and tease and encourage them, and they reciprocate the same. Our relationship is not lifestyle based, it’s love-style base. I choose to love them. God’s Word commands me to love. 1 Corinthians 9:23 – “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

    • Mike Hind says:

      No. You seem to be missing the point.
      It’s not that you disagree based on your belief system.
      You’re allowed to disagree and you’re welcome to your belief system. No one is looking to stop you believing in whatever you want.

      Where the problem comes is when folks think that their belief system should be applied to ANYONE else.
      Using the rules of that belief system to deny people rights and privileges is the problem and that is why people push back. It’s simply not fair to do this.

      When you say you choose to love them, does that mean that you love them enough to support them if they were to try to gain equal rights under the law?

      • laRoot says:

        Equal rights under the law is inevitable. It is no surprise because the Bible says that in these last days these things will happen. How we as Christians respond to it, or I should say, how this Christian chooses to respond is with love. What does that love look like? Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the widows and children, the broken, downtrodden, – both heterosexual & homosexual. I see no distinction in that.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And denying them rights and privileges the rest of us share? Are you cool with that or against it?

  26. Cow Polly says:

    Congratulations Ijumo and Clarence, on your courage and your love. In years to come you will be referred to as pioneers of equality and heroes who broke down the barriers of oppression. In a few more years we’ll be celebrating you on Hero’s Day and who knows, you might even get your own statue in Hamilton. However, for now, very many congratulations and I will certainly be outside the building you get married in (hopefully a church) waving my rainbow flag

  27. Straight up says:

    Now that the ball is rolling full speed on this Same Sex Marriage issue, what’s next – Marriage to Animals? I don’t think there are any passages in the Divine Scriptures focusing on this – but is it and will it soon be acceptable? SMDH

    • It is not a choice says:

      Really??? You are a bit “SPECHAL”

      • Straight up says:

        Sorry to offend you if your already looking at your pet with deep love in your eyes! You need to wake the heck up. Pushing for martial relationships with animals/pets have already started.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Where? When? Links?

          Back this up with evidence, please, or else we can dismiss it as a ridiculous lie.

          Because, again… and I feel I have to use all caps at this point…


          You’re talking nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense and you should be disgusted with yourself.

          • Straight up says:

            Simply Google it or check Wikipedia. There are plenty of stories where people have married an animal.
            Apparantly it’s no stopping this! SMH

            • Mike Hind says:

              Nope. Burden of proof is on you.

              And again, animals can’t sign legal contracts nor give consent, therefore, you are lying. Nobody has married an animal.

    • Cow Polly says:

      As long as the animal can verbalize it’s consent, why should you worry?

      • Straight up says:

        If someone steals from someone else, why should anyone else worry?
        Because the Creator says it’s wrong!

        • Mike Hind says:

          Theft has victims.

          Marriage equality doesn’t.

          Invalid argument.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes, because animals can sign legal documents.

      Do you think before you write these things, or just type whatever hateful nonsense that pops into your head?

  28. i wonder says:

    I wonder if the muslim community(if it were possible) took the stance that the Christian community takes on marriage would everyone be spitting the same venom. Nope, highly doubt it. Because the Christians have to accept everything, but cant disagree according to the worlds view. Its funny I dont see fanatical Christians on here telling you all you will burn in hell, but majority of the time when you(those pro) write people who believe in God you not only mock them but insult them for what? Just because we dont agree with your lifestyle? We are not beating up gay people, bashing their cars and setting their homes on fire, and calling you ***** or other derogatory sayings, but you would think so. Just because we do not agree, which we are entitled to do, all of a sudden we are stupid, weak, people who believe in myths? We live in a world were everyone wants to do what they want. Do what you wish, say what you want, but believers have rights to. The right not to agree.

    • Mike Hind says:

      No. You’re not doing any of this. You’re just trying to continue to allow them to share the same rights and privileges that the rest of us have.

      No one is taking away ANY rights from you. Not at all.
      You can continue to disagree. No one will stop you from doing that.

      The ONLY thing Marriage Equality will do is allow for couples to get married. That’s it.

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      Maybe not specifically on this forum, but there are several out there where people claiming to be Christian, throw the ‘burn in hell’ lines and major threats non-stop.

    • Daylilly says:

      Your are correct. People are saying no one is stopping those who wish to speak their mind on marriage, but the Hamilton Princess just stopped it. Doors closed, minds closed and no room at the inn.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Another misrepresentation of the truth.
        Why is it so hard for you to be honest?

        The Hamilton Princess didn’t stop anyone speaking their mind. That is anothe lie.

  29. Dose of Reality says:

    If the world is ran by homosexuals and the media is ran by the most perverted people on the planet this will be the norm. We have entered into the final phase of the moral decay of “society”. Prepare yourselves accordingly for what is to follow.

    • Mike Hind says:

      More baseless scaremongering.
      You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • hilarious says:

      oh crap. The final phase of moral decay? im totes not prepared. what do i need?! Lets see:

      -•Water, one gallon of water per person per day for at least three days, for drinking and sanitation
      •Food, at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food
      •Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both
      •Flashlight and extra batteries
      •First aid kit
      •Whistle to signal for help
      •Dust mask to help filter contaminated air and plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place
      •Moist towelettes, garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation
      •Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities
      •Manual can opener for food
      •Local maps
      •Cell phone with chargers, inverter or solar charger

      Have I forgotten something?! Please help!!!

    • bdaboy says:

      it’s ‘run’ not ‘ran’.
      The media is run by Jews, why do you hate Jews?

  30. 235 says:

    Many of us have become so biblically illiterate in recent years.

    Some are claiming that the Bible is silent on certain matters when there is clear guidance, others are saying the Bible says thus and such when it doesn’t. Whether or not you believe it personally has little to do with the facts.

    Read it for yourselves so you can speak with some authority – rightly dividing the word of truth.

    • Mike Hind says:

      The bible has absolutely no say in this.
      You are allowed to believe in your bible and your personal choice of religions.

      This is about allowing a group of people to share in the same rights and privileges the rest of us have.
      That’s it.

      If there is a valid reason to oppose this, I’d love to see it.

      I haven’t yet.

      • The Bible has plenty say in the Matter… It is the foundation of which our Marriage law is based around… Please check the act. Not only that all our officials are sworn in using a bible. Even the Governor, heads of state and our political leaders. Including Lawyers. When you give witness in a court of law. you Swear on the bible to tell the truth. it is what governs the sanctification of our Marriage and death rituals to those that are Christians and even those that are not.

        • Mike Hind says:


          The fact that people swear on the Bible doesn’t mean they have to.
          I haven’t had to yet, but, should the opportunity arise, I won’t be swearing on a bible.
          That’s not my religion.
          The bible should have ABSOLUTELY no effect on ANYONE who doesn’t believe in it. And doesn’t. That’s what Freedom of Religion is. How did you miss that?

          I can’t even begin to wrap my head around how to explain how wrong you are in this.

          the last line is the worst! The bible is ABSOLUTELY not “what governs the sanctification of our marriage and death rituals to… those that are not [Christian]“, by DEFINITION!

          You HAVE to see that this is grasping at straws to rationalize discrimination.
          You just have to. I can’t believe a sane person couldn’t see it.

          • Yes you are right it has no bearing to those that don’t believe in god. I guess that’s why we have so many corrupt politicians and lawyers etc, etc.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Nope. Many corrupt lawyers and politicians identify as Christian.
              Atheism or believing in another religion aren’t necessarily a stipulation for corruption, nor is Christianity an exemption.

              Not believing in God doesn’t make you corrupt. This is another false, invalid argument.

            • Walk in their shoes says:

              I’d wager many of the corrupt politicians and lawyers around the place have claimed to be Christian as opposed to atheist, to be frank.

              Either way this country isn’t a theocracy. And one doesn’t need the Bible to uphold morals and be a good person.

          • You say that I am grasping at straws to rationalize discrimination. You are wrong in that statement. A person does not have to try and change God’s law to suit his own desires. In trying to change the definition of Marriage you are also infringing on others beliefs. Would you have achieved your objective if the Marriage definition stays the same, but you are afforded all the benefits that come with being legally unified?

            • Mike Hind says:

              “A person does not have to try and change God’s law to suit his own desires.”

              No one is trying to change God’s law. They’re trying to get married.

              “In trying to change the definition of Marriage you are also infringing on others beliefs.”

              How is changing the definition of Marriage, legally, infringing on others[sic] beliefs?
              Please explain that. Because I don’t think it is. I don’t understand how anyone that ISN’T grasping at straws to rationalize discrimination could think that.

              How is marriage equality going to affect anyone besides the folks that will be allowed to get married?

            • hmmm says:

              You have a right to your religious beliefs.

              Will those religious beliefs change for you if these gentlemen get married in Bermuda?

              I didn’t think so.

              • To Hmmm, Please read. I said others beliefs. Changing the Marriage definition would have an impact on many religious bodies especially if someone from the LGBT wanted to have a church wedding and claim that is their right too. It would put the church in an awkward position. I could go on and on, however as I mentioned before “would it be acceptable to those in question to be afforded the same benefits as a legally married couple without changing the definition of Marriage?” What people do in their own homes or what orientation they are does not have anything to do with me. They don’t have to answer to me. They have to answer to their creator.

                • Walk in their shoes says:

                  Churches already have the ability to choose if a couple can get married by their officials, that won’t change one bit if gay people were allowed to marry.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Another false argument that has been debunked many, many times.

        • hilarious says:

          Ive been asked to swear on a bibel exactly twice in my life.

          Once, in my non religious marriage ceremony in Govt offices. I refused. No big deal, they just took a few minutes to find the non religious oath.

          Second time, during my divorce. I refused. My ex and I laughed our asses off there and then. The lawyers panicked and had to download an oath. Again, no big deal. I wasnt born into any form of god, god had nothing to do with my marriage (which, afetr 10 years sadly ended, but my ex remains my best friend) and no god has anything to do with my life, my children, my death. please respect my right to not believe the tales you do, and to not be ruled by a book that frankly, if it were published now, wouldnt even reach the New york Times best sellers top 100 list.

          • To: hilarious sorry that your marriage ended. Not every marriage last, although I wonder if God was the center of it maybe it could have, but your right No big deal right? but that’s just my personal opinion. If it ended maybe it was supposed to. no matter what you believe or don’t believe there is a reason for everything. Anyway I do respect your right to not to believe as I hope you respect my right to believe in my faith and God and not tales. believe it or not the bible is one of the most published books ever in many different languages. Have a blessed day.

    • bdaboy says:

      “Many of us have become so illiterate in recent years.”

      Fixed that for you

  31. Truth says:

    A quote from Jesus from one of the links below:

    “Today, My faithful lambs, I tell you that humanity teeters on the brink of My Justice. Never before has society sunk to such moral degeneration as to legally approve same sex marriage. This would have been unthinkable a generation ago, but today this grave sin is flaunted as a freedom–a right.”

    Read for yourselves:

  32. Truth says:

    Jesus again:

    “If you support a leader who favors abortion or same-sex marriage, you are supporting evil. This evil will only change through lack of public support. As Christians, you must oppose such evils and oppose those who support them.”

    Read for yourselves:

    • Mike Hind says:

      None of those links go anywhere.

      And I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t say that.

      And I know for a fact that it doesn’t matter, because no one is obliged to follow the rules of your personal choice of religion.

      Do you have an argument against these two being married that doesn’t involve that?

      • hilarious says:

        Jesus said 404!

      • Truth says:

        lol Mike, you have to copy and paste the link. If you do not know something as simple as that, how could you be “pretty sure” you know what Jesus did or did not say? Either you do or you don’t know…all is recorded in the Gospels and Jesus even continues to appear to people around the world. You choose not to follow Jesus, therefore you do not know what he does or doesn’t say. Otherwise you would recognize Truth when you hear it; however, you don’t have that ability. St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians tells us that before some people were born God had already made their ears closed and their eyes blind to the Truth. That no matter who or what presented them with the Truth, they would NEVER believe it. Just because you are loud on a website and respond to a lot of comments, doesn’t mean you know the Truth or speak it. Look up Proverbs 18: 6-7 when you have a chance. I would give you the link, but wouldn’t want you to have trouble getting it to work.

        • Mike Hind says:

          I did. They’re all dead.

          And, again, you can believe ALL of that. But no one else has to if they don’t want to.

        • Zevon says:

          Jesus didn’t say that stupid quote you made up. You should change your name to “lies”.

  33. Truth says:

    This message is from Mary, Jesus’ mother:

    “I have come, once again, out of concern for the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. God created man and woman to be joined in marriage and procreate life. Sex is not just for pleasure, but a means of co-operating with God’s Plan. Since this issue is basic to the moral foundation of your country, I am asking each one to offer one rosary a day towards the defeat of this issue.”

    Read for yourselves:

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      This seems like spam.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Wait… Do you seriously think that Jesus, Mary and Archangel Michael are posting on a message board?

  34. Truth says:

    This is from St. Michael the Archangel

    “These days it is true that sin has been made legal, making it seem justifiable, and in many cases, demanding it be tolerated. I am speaking of abortion, same sex marriage and legal rights towards homosexuality. These carry a great burden towards God’s Justice in the future. These are an abomination.”

    Read for yourselves:

  35. Pastor Syl says:

    Congratulations, Mo and CeeDub! So proud of you for stepping up and out (I’d say out and up, but you have both been out of the closet for years). I look forward to the day when I, as a very proud mother, will get to officiate at your marriage right here at home!

  36. True Believer says:

    The Bible doesn’t speak of homosexuality very often. But when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let’s take a look.

    Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1
    Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
    Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
    Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines God’s created order when He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out His command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28).

    • Mike Hind says:


      The bible is for your personal choice of religion and should in no way affect anyone else that doesn’t wish to follow it.

      Or should it? Would you be ok with someone forcing you to obey the rules of their religion?

    • CB2 says:

      1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

      So everyone who is gay, a drunk, a thief, swindlers or cheats on their partner is in the same boat.

      Glasses houses guys come on!

  37. What would be just as surprising is who will officiate said marriage? given the fact that it has to be a Marriage Officer and is define in the act as the following;

    “Marriage Officer” has the meaning assigned to it by section 3; “minister” means a person —
    (i) (ii)
    who is a clergyman, priest or minister of a Christian body; or
    who, in the case of a Christian body which by reason of its tenets has no clergyman, priest or minister, is an officer, elder or member of that Christian body.

    Isn’t this contradictory to their beliefs? If they don’t believe in Christianity.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I believe they have someone that will happily – and I mean HAPPILY! – officiate.

      Not every Christian believes that Marriage Equality is wrong.
      Not every Christian believes in the Levitical laws… heck, most of them don’t believe in most of them anyway!

      Not everyone believes the same thing. That’s the crux of the whole “The Bible says it’s wrong” argument and exactly why that argument isn’t valid.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Psst! Look up one post for your answer!

    • Ally says:

      There are several Christian denominations who will conduct SSMs as a matter of course (I’ll let you google that list) and other denominations which leave the decision to allow or not up to the individual congregation. I highly doubt that every church on the island will be opposed to SSM.
      Also, the JPs at the Registrar’s office will be able to officiate, if they chose to have a non-religious ceremony – not everyone is Christian, and not everyone wants to be married in a church – hard to imagine I know!

  38. Leviticus 18:22
    “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yep. And you are allowed to believe that. No one is stopping you.

      What is not fair is demanding that everyone else believe it and, thus, deny rights and privileges to your fellow citizens because of it.

      Got it?

    • hmmm says:

      so the bible says you can tell lies to a woman, but do not lie to your fellow man.

      Sexism at its most rife.

  39. Leviticus 18:26
    “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:”


      This is true, but its only a revelation onto the person whom it applies not onto you or others who do not walk in their shoes.

      Also, when you go before you father after you die, you must answer for the things you’ve done. You can’t go before him saying well he/she did this or that.

  40. Proverbs 8:7
    “For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.”

  41. jahkai says:

    smh how can you be attracked to another man! this gay marriage is all a joke and for population control.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Links to evidence of “population control”?
      And, how, exactly, would that work?

      (And, for the record, you not understanding how it works is not a valid reason to deny other people equal rights and privileges.)

    • Anbu says:

      Go lay down bie. U obviously watch too much tv. This IS going to happen. Sooner the better.

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      Pretty sure that most fellas aren’t going to join in on this ‘population control’ bandwagon that you suggest is the end game of the gay rights movement, nothing to fear.

  42. Concerned Family Man says:

    There are some misunderstandings around marriage and about sexual orientation, that should not confuse or legal positions. One is the bases of marriage. While being in love is a wonderful thing, it is not the main reason to marry. For thousands of years it was understood that marriage is to complete one gender with the qualities the other gender has to offer. It also provided economic and other kinds of security. For many years people married to work together for a living, combine family estates, and raise the next generation. Not everybody who is in love is allowed to marry as well. That is not discrimination, as the law is the same for everybody: a man, who is legally free to marry is allowed to marry a woman, who is legally free to marry unless they are closely related. It does not matter whether one or both are homosexual or heterosexual in their orientation. I know homosexuals who are married to heterosexuals for several reasons, including a feeling of love for each other, though no sexual attraction. They both fully knew about each others orientation. I also know married people who are actually in love with a different person than their official spouse (you don’t have to be a Mormon to want polygamy), but the law does not allow them to marry unless they get divorce first, and if caught out before the divorce, their genuine love may even be held against them in the courts. However, they may not want a divorce for several reasons. Husband and wife may even have an understanding about this. There are also known relationships between brothers and sisters, or first cousins, who are madly in love with each other, who understand they should not have children with each other and took care of that medically, but are still not allowed to be married in most jurisdictions. That is not discriminatory by the law. The law stipulates that a man and a woman can marry under certain circumstances; sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, ethnicity are no reason for a man and a woman not to marry, however, relationship, other marriages, same sex, and age may be reasons to forbid a marriage. The law does no say that anybody who is in love with each other can marry. In the case above, the American man could marry a Bermuda woman, and move here. Judge Kawaley clarified anyway, that long term partners should have immigration rights like married people.
    What is needed is not gay marriage, but a registered civil union that is giving financial and immigration rights and duties (in case of separation for example) like marriage. If they want to change their last name, so be it. This can be done by the Registrar General. However, while what two adult people consent to do in their own house is to a degree their affair (however, a lot of things are not permitted even in your own home as the law extends to there) what society views as a full marriage is more than just personal preferences.

    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      Forget history.
      Forget religion.

      Government issues marriage licences.
      Right now the only reason same-sex couples can’t get a marriage licence is the definition of marriage under the law.

      That definition is discriminatory and needs to be removed.

      • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

        Though, in reading over things a couple more times, maybe that definition doesn’t exist.


    • Mike Hind says:

      Why does it have to be different? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to call it a marriage.
      I appreciate your recognition that people deserve equal rights, but I don’t understand the reticence to call it a marriage.

      • Mike Which matters to you most..the benefits of a legal union or that it’s called a marriage? After all that is the argument of these gentleman. Most natural societies are built around a family structure of man and wife etc. If it’s benefits you are fighting for I can agree, however if it’s to change the natural definition of Marriage between a man and woman I do not.

        • Mike Hind says:

          The natural definition?

          What do you mean by this phrase?

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

            An idiot can ask more questions than a genius can answer.

            • Mike Hind says:

              This isn’t a think. Just yet another pointless ad hominem.

              Please try honesty instead of personal attacks… Especially if you’re going to keep using that name!

            • Zevon says:

              I see you can cut and paste. What a genius you are.

  43. Confused says:

    I just hope Mr. Santucci is invited!

  44. Go away says:

    MIKE HIND, do you really have nothing else to do but argue with people online all day. Just an observation…

    • Mike Hind says:

      On an issue this important? Not really.
      I believe in equality and, at the moment, have the opportunity to stand up for honesty and integrity and equal rights, asking, and occasionally demanding, that people present honest arguments and not spread lies and misinformation.

      Question for you: Why not join the conversation instead of taking potshots?
      The time it took to write this post could easily have been used to offer a valid reason against marriage equality – if you have one – or support for it.
      Surely YOUR time is better spent doing something other than taking a shot at me… No?

    • Anbu says:

      Upset because he actually makes valid points? Or are u mad cause he puts people who think like you in their places? Sorry i shouldnt assume u think like that but your comment makes me lean toward that view.

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      wow Mike’s sure made an impression, 77 likes and counting for the comments from one individual?

      • Mike Hind says:

        The thing that amazes me is that they always run away from simple questions, then complain that I always have the last word.

        It’s shocking, the level of dishonesty.

  45. it says:

    Out: Throwing rice

    In: Throwing Skittles

  46. 235 says:

    Mike Hind – you are partially correct when you say that “The bible should have ABSOLUTELY no effect on ANYONE who doesn’t believe in it.”

    The Bible, (which I believe to be God’s Word) makes clear that the God of the Universe sent Jesus to fix the problem we humans have with our inability to keep all those Levitical laws. It is my understanding that those “rules for living” were given to provide mankind a guide for right (righteous) living in harmony with our creator. Jesus was part of the plan before the world was created and God knew of our inability to keep all of these laws and be “righteous”. We have ALL sinned and come short of God’s intent for our lives. Not solely focused on the LGBT lifestyle – we ALL have broken his laws. Belief in Jesus however is the ultimate blood sacrifice/solution/redemption for the sin problem.

    Again, you are correct – for those that don’t believe, it reads like nonsense but to those of us that do, it is the power of God unto Salvation. The impact for non-believers based on the Bible is that there is no “path” for them to be forgiven of their sins(breaches of the LAW) and they will not be forgiven by the judge of the world because of this same rejection. We will all kneel before him – says the Bible

    Just the mailman delivering the mail. Doesn’t matter my opinion on the matter – just telling you what’s in the Bible.
    You are wrongly targeting the “church” and those professing to be Christians. Your fight is against God and his Word.

    • Mike Hind says:

      No, it’s really not. It’s not even against Christians! It’s, very simply, against people who, for whatever invalid reason, think that we should deny equal rights and privileges to our fellow citizens with regards to marriage.
      I haven’t targeted the church at all, other than to ask why other people have to obey the rules of their personal choice of religion, and that is in response to them doing exactly that.

      My fight is no more against your God than it is against Lex Luthor.

  47. Dennis Williams says:

    Just a question. If there is no GOD and the Bible is fiction, why do we have the state of Israel?

    • Mike Hind says:

      What? How does… If that… How can…

      I don’t get it.

    • hmmm says:

      second world war agreement wasn’t it?

    • just the tip says:

      Cause the US and the ‘Western Powers’ at the end of WW2 want to make sure they had foot hold into the middle east.

      • Dennis Williams says:

        But what did they base the state of Israel on? They certainly didn’t have a historical context did they?

        • just the tip says:

          Actually they did, but more to the point what does this have to do with topic of the article??

  48. Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

    Oh… and to the two gentlemen…

    Best wishes!!!

  49. The Question is???? says:

    The real question is if you don’t believe what GOD says about homosexuality. Then why would you want to follow HIS command about marriage which clearly states in our BIBLE that it should be between a MAN & WOMAN?


    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      Soooo…. no mixed fibre fabrics? No pork or goat meat. And lots of stonings?

      I mean… if his word doesn’t change…

    • Mike Hind says:

      Huh? How are you missing the point?
      This isn’t about religion, it’s about equal rights.

    • bdaboy says:

      there is no god, the bible is fiction. you have no point.

  50. clearasmud says:

    I am sure that Mr. Pettingill is aware of the ruling of the European Court of Justice and he is just grandstanding with this couple which is a real shame. Marriage is a different issue from sexual orientation and it really does not matter what Mr. Pettingill thinks.

  51. Legalgal says:

    Congratulations! Finally the correct route for this is being followed. Good luck. You could be making history! And to those who are against gay people marrying- just don’t marry a gay person. Simples!

    • Daylilly says:

      People opposing SSM just not marrying a gay person is an over-simplistic and inaccurate perception. These proceedings will effect us all. Our children will be force fed the SSM lie and mantra, which might be ok if they were also allowed to continue prayer and reading the bible.

      If society/education has no place for God then why should it have a place for any other agenda.

      • Mike Hind says:

        How? How will it Affect anyone else?
        Where are children NOT “allowed to continue prayer and reading the bible”?

        You can’t just throw these things out and not back them up!

  52. hulk_too says:

    What is the Simplified Difference between Laws and Act?

    To make it simple and easier to understand, laws exist so that citizens of the public are protected whereas acts exist so that an idea of the government is made mandatory for the public. Before an act is a law, an act is technically called a bill. In order for an act to officially become law a legislature must vote on a bill. If the bill is voted in the bill then becomes an act, thus, becoming a law.

  53. Christ-Centered says:

    I don’t understand how in the article one of the men said “No where in the Bible does God talk about homosexuality so why should Christians be talking about it”?

    The Bible is very clear on this topic and here are a few verses:

    Leviticus 18:22

    James 4:12

    Romans 1:26-28

    Jude 1:7

    Ephesians 4: 18-19

    Everyone makes their own choices how they want, when they want be said of our sin. If you don’t fear God or believe him or pay him any attention now, well, one day you will!

    Why can the LGBT people be so vocal about what they want, but when Christians or just anyone who has an opposing view to theirs we are considered haters?

    Christ sent his son to die for our sins because we loves us that much. He doesn’t want any to perish to their own lusts and passions.

    When we speak up we are considered haters. But we are Christs hands and feet and we lmstrive to love all people, but we cannot love the sin that abides.

    I heard a quote from an atheist (Penn Gillete) who was searching for the truth and he said “How much do you have to hate someone to not share the truth of what Christ has done for them?”

    I believe our love for others is being looked at as hatred and intolerance for others because truth is not an absolute anymore and no one wants to hear it.

    But we will continue to be the hands and feet of Christ and we are no judges. But there is an ultimate judge who will judge this earth and his people one day!

    • Mike Hind says:

      It’s not the belief, it’s the denial of rights to fellow citizens that is the problem.

      This has been explained many times.

    • Rockfish#2 says:

      Just curious. Are the bible thumpers prepared to accept and obey everything in Leviticus,and some other passages in the bible? Why do they cherry pick certains ones and ignore others?

      • Daylilly says:

        It looks to like you didn’t read the entire book, but you are commenting as if you know the whole story… Man failed and Christ came to be the propitiation for our sins, his life was the sacrifice that ended the need for many of the sacrifices discussed in Leviticus.

        Also, many of the old testament laws were for health and practical purposes suited to the times. In the New Testament, Christ re-iterated God’s position on homosexuality and spoke on marriage many times, all of which were relating to male and female and woman and man and mother and father.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Not that it matters, as the Bible is a personal thing and shouldn’t be forced on anyone else, but, out of curiosity…

          Where, exactly, did Jesus speak about homosexuality?

        • Ijumo Hayward says:

          Actually Jesus said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY…. What he did speak about was divorce

  54. No says:

    I’ll tell you what. After reading some of the hateful comments on here, I can firmly day I am not any proud of this country.

  55. Christ-Centered says:

    Well, it does have to do with a belief system because a good portion of the island are Bible believing people. And the people who are speaking out are of faith, so that’s where the denial of right from fellow citizens is coming from.

    It’s not our standard or our rules or our law that were saying no to same sex marriage. It’s God’s standard, and He is the ultimate judge.

    But let me ask you this, can you define marriage for me?

    • Mike Hind says:

      So, you’re ok with people being denied equal rights based on YOUR religion?
      You think it’s ok to impose the rules of your personal faith onto others?

  56. Daylilly says:

    There is a lot of debate regarding the act of homosexuality. The issue is MARRIAGE.

    …. and at the risk of being off topic myself. It looks like they both woke up looked in the mirror and literally decided to marry themselves. They look like twins or that they are at least related.

    • Mike Hind says:

      What does that have to do with anything?

      And… Really? They don’t look anything alike! This is insane.

  57. Daylilly says:

    Lots of persnickety comments and trivializing the bible. People are so smart but not so wise. Wisdom will win in the end.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I agree that trivializing the bible isn’t a respectful way to have this conversation.

      However, it should be noted that the bible should only apply to those who choose to believe in it and should NOT be expected to effect the lives of ANYONE else.

      Would you agree with that?

  58. Christ-Centered says:

    Ok so let’s set aside religion and the Bible because I know not everyone believes in it.

    So why would a marriage work between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, with no religious answer attached.

    How would you define marriage in your own words?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Why would it work?

      Because… It would work. I don’t understand the question.

      How could it not work? Two people, coming together, sharing in rights that the rest of us have.
      I don’t get how you don’t see it.

  59. bdaboy says:

    “So why would a marriage work between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, with no religious answer attached.”

    Why would it work between a man and a woman?

Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters