Same Sex Marriage Case Heading To Court

December 7, 2015

Lawyer Mark Pettingill is preparing to take a case to allow two gay people to marry in Bermuda to court.

Mr Pettingill, a former Attorney-General, last week filed a notice of marriage to the Registrar General on behalf of Bermudian Ijumo Hayward, who lives in Atlanta and who wants to marry his American partner Clarence Williams on the Island.

Podcast with Mr Pettingill from last week speaking about the legal aspects of the application:

The Registrar had three days to advertise the notice in the Official Gazette, but nothing was published, meaning Mr Pettingill will take the case to court, arguing that the Human Rights Act trumps all marriage legislation and that the couple should be free to marry in Bermuda.

Mr Pettingill said he was “not surprised” that the notice had not been published and that he would now be preparing a Mandamus application to the Supreme Court which will seek to force the Registrar to publish the marriage notice.

The legal dictionary defines Mandamus as “A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.”

The couple’s notice which was filed, and not published, by the Registrar General

Notice of Intended Marriage Act Nov 2015 (1)

Following the application being filed, the Government said that the Minister of Home Affairs is “well aware of the application and is consulting with Chambers on the matter.”

The Government added that hearing is scheduled for today [Dec 7] 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.”

The Bermuda Bred judgment saw the Supreme Court rule that non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians, who are in committed relationships, are entitled to live and work in Bermuda, with the ruling saying as “same sex marriage was neither possible nor recognised under existing Bermudian law, the relevant statutory provisions discriminated against Bermudians in stable same-sex relationships in an indirect way.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (139)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. umok says:

    There are plenty of other smaller jurisdictions similar to Bermuda in the Caribbean that have decided to keep their morals, principles and values intact. There is nothing wrong with upholding the sanctity of marriage. There is no reason for Bermuda to all of sudden make a huge ruling in favor of an extremely small minority group.

    A small google Search will show that even our closet competitor Cayman introduced a constitutional ban of Gay Marriage in 2009.

    • Noncents says:

      @ umok

      just because others got it wrong doesn’t mean we should follow suit

      • Smells like BS says:

        All smoke and mirrors!!

        The OBA is afraid to take it to the House to vote on this. Afraid that they will upset the church vote and voters that frankly don’t agree with this movement.

        So what they do is get Mr. Penttingill to take it to Court. That way it saves them from explaining to their Voters why it did not pass or pass in the house.

        OBA grow some balls take the debate to the house and make a decision with all the other MPs.

        • Nasty European habits.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Ignorant bigot.

          • hmmm says:

            You have already been schooled on this … European Christianity tried to outlaw it in Africa. It was, is rife in many countries and cultures there long before Europeans got there.

          • Mr. Sparkle says:

            Wrong…. at least be accurate in your bigotry.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            Your idol Genie has already been debunked by… well everybody. Got it backwards, Europeans introduced homophobia, not homosexuality to Africa.

            • Come Correct says:

              He still thinks the Atlantic slave trade was the one and only, still thinks African slaves were stolen not traded, cut him some slack. It’s easier to break the shackles on your feet than the shackles on your mind. His rants are purely emotional, not logical.

        • Pete says:

          U seem to forget your ” NO BALLS PLP”

        • lowe says:

          The OBA will put up a fight for Gay Marriage but they don’t care about Bermudians. If they did, they would have created the 2,000 jobs like they promised. Instead we have gotten broken promises; they sold us the America’s cup dream which hasn’t brought us the economic benefit we need.

          We are in a deep struggle but Apparently Pentengill only cares about a small minority group.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            Imagine where we would be if people didn’t care about minority groups?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

            Nothing more than sad, desperate politicking.

            This is too important for your silly political games.

          • Come Correct says:

            Well Petengill is no longer the AG, governments don’t create jobs (unless it’s the PLP) they create an environment attracting business which then creates jobs and we’ve only seen a small part of the Americas cup so far with a lot more to come. So you’re basically wrong on everything except the fact they did promise to create jobs.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          That’s the thing, they won’t need to go to the House, the marriage/matrimony legislation is in violation to the primacy of the Human Rights Act.

    • blankman says:

      No idea what this has to do with “morals, principles and values”. After all, no-one is insisting that you enter into a same sex marriage. Fact is the only way that this could impact your marriage is if one of you is gay.

      But that aside, do you actually think that preventing people from getting married is going to change their sexual orientation?

    • Mike Hind says:

      There’s also absolutely no valid reason offered to oppose this marriage.
      Not one.

      Lots of false ones based on misinformation and outright lies, but no valid ones.

      If someone would like to offer one, I’m sure lots of people would love to hear it.

      I predict none will be offered. We’ll just get the usual “Throw out misinformation, then run away when asked to back it up.” Tactics, sprinkled with the occasional “it’s really US who are the victims here”.

      Mark my words.

      • hahawow says:

        I don’t agree with it so I’m entitled to my opinion to oppose it just as much as you’re entitled to be for it. Allow the people that disagree with it to disagree with it, their opinions aren’t necessarily wrong just not the same as yours.

        • SANDGROWNAN says:

          No, they’re actually wrong.

        • Mike Hind says:

          The difference is: your “opinion” is denying rights to our fellow citizens. Mine isn’t.

          Also, as mentioned, yours isn’t based on any sort of valid argument. This is important, as it effects other people in a very negative way.

          It’s not about your opinion, it’s about the fact that you think it’s ok to deny rights and privileges to people for no real reason.

          That’s not fair and it’s not acceptable.

          If you were to say “I don’t believe in it and it’s against melt religion, but I don’t have a say in someone else’s relationship, so I’m going to look at it like divorce and oppose it personally, but not stop others from doing it”, then it’d be about your opinion, and I would back you up on your right to have that opinion.

          But that’s not the case here.

          Do you see where we’re coming from?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Against my… Not against melt…

          • Hi Mike, There are other people who would love to come to Bermuda, but our law does not allow it. Can’t we all fight to open Bermuda up to more people who just might love to live here? This issue is now bigger than same sex, it’s really about the un intended consequences. Mike, ” Do Bermudians have a right to come first in their own country ? ” Or is this discrimination too? Just asking.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Maybe if you described who you were talking about, I might be able to answer your question…
              What people aren’t allowed by law to come to Bermuda? Specifically, who are you talking about?

              And, what “un intended consequences” are there?

          • hahawow says:

            Why because you don’t agree with my sentiments? I’m entitled to my opinion and rightfully so. I truly believe, without all the religious connotation that marriage should be between a man and a woman (I’m not religious), especially in raising a child. They both have amazing things to offer, not that a woman and a woman or a man and a man would be less loving, etc. but a man and a woman both possess unique qualities that same sex couples would not be able to provide to their child, i.e. breastfeeding, discipline, etc, I could go on. Maybe it’s not fair but the world is not fair Mike and you should know that by now. I don’t think we should deny anybody rights I’m just entitled to my opinion to not agree with it at all.

            • Mike Hind says:

              So… Did you just not read what I wrote at all or what?

              Your opinion is not the issue. It’s about the denial of rights.
              If you want to keep the religious side of marriage the way it is, no one is stopping you.

              But you admit you agree that denying rights is wrong. So, why can’t you just look at it, as I said, like divorce? It’s against your religion, but doesn’t affect you, so you don’t stop others from doing it.

              Also, children aren’t a stipulation for marriage. Can we please stop that whole argument. It’s been debunked so many times, it’s getting silly to bring up.

              Do you get what I’m saying, though?

              You’re allowed your opinion. That’s not what we’re talking about.

              What’s wrong and unfair – and yes, the world is unfair, but isn’t it out job to try our best to make it a little bit less unfair whenever we can? – is when people think that their opinion should be forced onto others.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Wait… “discipline”?

              What?

        • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

          I’m curious.
          Have you ever been discriminated against?
          And if you have been, do you think that person/persons were entitled to discriminate against you?
          Because that’s what you’re saying.

          • hahawow says:

            No, it’s not. And no I haven’t because I don’t keep that type of person in my circle.

        • blankman says:

          hahawow, so you don’t agrree. That’s fine. but if you expect to be taken seriously it would help if you provided a valid reason.

          • hahawow says:

            Look above. Gee thanks!

            • Mike Hind says:

              No valid reason was given. Not one.

            • blankman says:

              hahawow, I did “look above” and you haven’t posted a single valid reason. For that matter I haven’t seen anyone post a single valid reason.

    • mike says:

      What does upholding the sanctity of marriage mean?

      Doesn’t divorce threaten the sanctity of marriage? What about fornication, and adultery? What about abusive spouses?

      Don’t worry, should Bermuda pass any sort of resolution/act/law I can assure you that the above mentioned will never be address as a threat to marriage.

    • SANDGROWNAN says:

      Why do you care?

    • Mike says:

      But that is changing. See Hansard (UK) below for Dec 3rd.

      James Duddridge: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for raising this issue. Progress has been made. He mentions the Cayman Islands, and only this week their premier reported to their parliament on their recognising equal marriage, which is a great step forward. Small territories have legislative constraints on time, and it may take them longer to get all the legislation through that they would want. However, this is a priority for a number of territories, and we will do all we can to support them in bringing forward modern legislation that we would like to see around the world so that everybody, regardless of their sexuality, is treated equally.

      3 Dec 2015 : Column 531

    • Bermie says:

      “morals, principles and values intact”?? Nobody is taking anything away from the sanctity of marriage. This is not a theological issue but a legal one. Everyone must have access to the same legal rights and protections.

      Churches can do what they like in terms of their own rules but every citizen should have the right to be married by the State. There is a huge difference between the two.

    • No says:

      Wow….

    • bdaboy says:

      “There are plenty of other smaller jurisdictions similar to Bermuda in the Caribbean that have decided to keep their morals, principles and values intact.”

      Like cold blooded murder of gay men and women, racism, sexism, corrupt governments, etc?
      You admire these ‘morals’?

      • MPP says:

        You know you’re not talking about the same thing, right?

    • Toodle-oo says:

      * A small google Search will show that even our closet competitor Cayman …*

      Now there’s a classic example of a Freudian slip if there ever was one .. lol

    • Daylilly says:

      SSM as a human right affects the smallest and most vulnerable humans.. children. SSM is legislatively creating families that make Dads & Moms optional. As much as some people have said that our thinking has evolved, human families are still made the old fashioned way. 1 male and 1 female at a time.

      We already have homes where dads are optional and children are being raised by two women, i.e. mom & grandmother. These dynamics can still offer love and support by are not the optimal predicament. Just ask any kid of a broken home, who cries for the missing parent.

      Why would we legislatively foster an environment that tells children your needs for a mom and a dad are unimportant.

      Modern society has given us designer everything from synthetic fabrics to synthetic food, so now are were building synthetic families? Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Here we go with the false arguments!

        Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. Straight couples that don’t want kids are allowed to get married.
        Using this argument to ban EVERY gay person from getting married – even ones that don’t want kids – is unfair and discriminatory.
        Your argument is invalid.

        Oh, and childless marriages are still families. You’re redefining what words mean. I thought you lot were against that…

        But let’s look at your argument anyway and see if there’s even a shred of honest thinking.

        “SSM is legislatively creating families that make Dads & Moms optional.”
        Well, you disagree with this yourself, with the next bit of “We already have homes where dads are optional and children are being raised by two women”.
        Dads and Moms are already “legislatively” optional. Marriage Equality will have absolutely no effect on that. So, that point is wrong.

        “Why would we legislatively foster an environment that tells children your needs for a mom and a dad are unimportant.”

        We already do. Divorce. Marriage Equality will not have any effect on this.

        If “the optimal predicament” were a stipulation for a marriage, no one would ever be allowed to get married.

        Now, let’s talk about the “optimal predicament”. You seem to think that the only thing that matters is the gender of the parents to create this “optimal predicament”.

        Would you not agree that having two parents that love and want to have a kid is just as important?
        By definition, a same sex couple can’t have kids (that’s one of the big arguments you guys use and was a precursor to this clever bit of goalpost moving you’re using now). Therefore, any kid they DO have will necessarily be wanted. People don’t go through the headache and possible heartbreak of surrogates, in vitro and adoption if they don’t want kids.
        Isn’t that as – if not MORE – important than the sex of the parents?
        Especially given the irrelevance of your position that we always, at all times, have to create the “optimal predicament” for child rearing?

        Oh, wait. You don’t respond to replies, do you?
        My bad. i forgot.

        • Reality Check says:

          Mike , you are wasting your time trying to educate such closed minded parrots .

          • Mike Hind says:

            I don’t do it for them.
            I do it for the people reading that might not know that their arguments are false and lies.
            I do it for the kid reading this who doesn’t know that he or she has allies out here, people that have their back against this hate.

            I know that this coward’s mind won’t be changed, but maybe someone else’s will be.

            • hilarious says:

              Mike, I for one truly appreciate your efforts. You are here tirelessly, always openminded, always ready to have a conversation. These narrow minded poeple wont change, but you are right about the youth, and as a parent i am thankful that people like you are out there answering these “opinions” and directing the conversation back to rights, which is what it is all about.

              many thanks! please let us know when you are playing again? i hope you have a winter schedule for us locals?

              x

        • MPP says:

          You’re the one with the false arguments, Mike.

          “Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. Straight couples that don’t want kids are allowed to get married.”

          Stop acting like there’s no link between government’s (and our) interest in marriage and the welfare of children. The existence of infertile, intentionally childless marriages don’t argue against that. We fare best as human beings when male-female marriages raise kids. Fact. SSM pretends that two-males and two females can do the same thing. They can love kids with genuine love, but can’t provide what we all know they need.

          “Using this argument to ban EVERY gay person from getting married – even ones that don’t want kids – is unfair and discriminatory.
          Your argument is invalid.”

          Gay persons aren’t banned from getting married. Marriage is freely available to everyone. Redefining marriage to be something it has never been is what’s on the table. Marriage is more than about adult love and desire.

          “Oh, and childless marriages are still families.” Agreed. Does nothing to the point.

          “Well, you disagree with this yourself, with the next bit of “We already have homes where dads are optional and children are being raised by two women”.
          Dads and Moms are already “legislatively” optional. Marriage Equality will have absolutely no effect on that. So, that point is wrong.”

          I’m stunned you aren’t following the point – I almost want to accuse you of the “dishonesty” the way you do to everyone else. Marriage is the ideal, best case scenario, and marriage rules/laws point us as a society in that direction. In that case, dads and moms aren’t legislatively optional since the legislation calls for the ideal family to begin with a marriage between a (potential) mom and a dad.

          And “Marriage Equality” is a misnomer. We’re talking about calling something a marriage that isn’t… not equating two “marriages”.

          [Deep breath]

        • MPP says:

          Part 2, Mike!

          —”Why would we legislatively foster an environment that tells children your needs for a mom and a dad are unimportant.”

          We already do. Divorce. Marriage Equality will not have any effect on this.—

          You see legal divorce as a legislative indication to children that their need for a mom and a dad is unimportant? Aside from how crazy that is, I like how you tacitly allow that “Marriage Equality” might do the same thing, but it’s no big deal since we already do it with divorce.

          You might want to consider legal divorce as concession that a marriage can deteriorate to the point where it’s no longer healthy for anyone… children included.

          —If “the optimal predicament” were a stipulation for a marriage, no one would ever be allowed to get married.— Nonsense.

          —Now, let’s talk about the “optimal predicament”. You seem to think that the only thing that matters is the gender of the parents to create this “optimal predicament”.—

          Wrong again. No one is saying that gender is the “only thing that matters.” People are just saying that it matters! You’re saying that gender gets so far overridden by other considerations that eventually it doesn’t matter at all. Unfortunately, common sense, biology, social science, and literally all of human history argues against you. I suppose the human agreement that children should be raised by moms and dads, across countries, times, faiths and social beliefs throughout history was all nothing but bigotry? (and cite historical same sex unions/marriages all you want, but same-sex couples raising kids is a new new new thing)

          —Would you not agree that having two parents that love and want to have a kid is just as important?—

          Yes. Just as important. But not so important that gender all of a sudden doesn’t matter anymore. The two are important TOGETHER.

          —By definition, a same sex couple can’t have kids (that’s one of the big arguments you guys use and was a precursor to this clever bit of goalpost moving you’re using now). Therefore, any kid they DO have will necessarily be wanted. People don’t go through the headache and possible heartbreak of surrogates, in vitro and adoption if they don’t want kids.
          Isn’t that as – if not MORE – important than the sex of the parents?—

          Same sex couples *really wanting* kids and going over and above to get them still doesn’t argue against the point. This debate is only *partially* about what adults think will fulfill their lives. It’s ALSO about what kids need. Governments have to protect both.

          Love is important, but “love is all you need” when it comes to parenting is false.

          And this isn’t hate against people in same-gender love, who are our brothers and sisters whom we love, laugh with, learn from and cherish. But we need to do those things while telling the truth about marriage and family, because we pay a social cost, all of us together, when we mess that up.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Yep. Your entire argument is based on procreation being a stipulation for marriage.

            So, based on that, your entire position is incorrect.

            You have basically gone through my post and twisted my words to suit your discriminatory position.

            Nothing you’ve said in here is new, nothing you’ve said is true and it’s all been debunked many, many times.

            PLEASE try some honesty.

            You STILL haven’t given a valid reason – and one that hasn’t been shown to be wrong repeatedly – to ban same sex marriages.

            Care to do that? Or will you just continue to push the same false messages?

            • MPP says:

              This is hilarious.

              Your dismissive tone will fool some people.

              Many will see right through it.

              • Mike Hind says:

                And your ad hominem about my “tone” without addressing what I said may fool some, but the rest of us see through your defense of discrimination.

                Which isn’t hilarious or funny in the slightest. Using lies and misinformation to deny rights to Bermudians isn’t a laughing matter.

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        LOL somebody went to hear Ryan Anderson

      • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

        So, from this, I presume you’re a loud and proud speaker against people having children outside of wedlock and against men and women who have children with multiple partners. You speak up and volunteer your time to groups like Big Brothers Big Sisters helping children who don’t have a particular role model in their lives. And that you advocate against divorce if the couple has children.

        But, really, I doubt you do.

        The reality is, children come up just fine with one parent, or a family group that doesn’t involve the second parent, or with two parents of the same sex. They come up just fine because they are loved, and treated right, and taught right.

        Yes, it’s great for a child to have leadership from both sexes, but it doesn’t have to be a parent. There’s a reason that the phrase “it takes a village” exists.

      • Coffee says:

        @Daylily ….. Congratulations for speaking for the children who’ll have no voice . Thanks for articulating a point ignored by people who really deep down believe that SSM will have no damage to already confused children . Will we end up with a future generation of mostly asexual adults ? People can be extremely selfish .

        What’s more amusing is the people who supports this agenda with their mouth but will never actually consider SSM for themselves .

        • Mike Hind says:

          What gibberish are you spewing now?

          “… Will never consider SSM for themselves”?
          You’ve lost your mind!

          “A future generation of mostly asexual adults”?

          This is the ravings of a madman!

          Not a bit of this makes any sense at all!

      • Who Cares? says:

        By your logic, we should remove all children who have lost a parent from their home and place them in a home with a mother and father. The only disadvantage a child of homosexual parents has is discrimination from bigoted people like yourself.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

        • MPP says:

          How does that logically follow? Losing a parent is a tragedy precisely because of how critical each of the parents are. How is anyone suggesting that a child who has lost one parent should then be taken away from their remaining parent and given to other people?

          How does the existence of marriages and families hurt by tragedy an argument for same sex marriage?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Will you be showing an argument AGAINST it any time soon? A valid one that hasn’t been shown to be false many, many times?

      • blankman says:

        lilly, since I’m sure you’ve never read it researchers at the University of Melbourne recently released a study that showed that children raised by same sex parents actually did better than those raised by opposite sex parents. The only negative was the bullying and discrimination that these kids experienced because they had two mothers or two fathers. And that is the fault of the homophobes among us. Not of the parents.

      • theothersidebda says:

        Since when do you raise your child based on what the Government says is lawful? If you believe smoking is unacceptable (even for adults), you teach your children that. If you believe divorce and fornication is unacceptable (both lawful in Bermuda), then you teach your children that. No one changes the values they wish to instill in their children based on the signing of a bill or act. The two are mutually exclusive.

    • Bloopbleepbloop says:

      Frankly I’m sick and tired of people having Christian religion forced down their throats at every turn

      • MPP says:

        Go to societies where the Christian religion never was and, guess what, they agreed about moms and dads with their children. You get some departures and then then come right back.

        Hate Christians/Christianity all you like but deal with the human sociology. I haven’t seen the commenters who highlight that there might be some wisdom to male-female marriage bringing up their faith anyway.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Marriage isn’t a stipulation for procreation.

          This is a false argument against marriage equality.

          Do you have a valid one yet?

      • Wedr says:

        Just as sick and tired as I am trying to watch a quality tv show and every show has some gay man trying to aim his tongue down another dude’s throat.

        • hilarious says:

          this is a result of your latent problems. I suggest you seek help.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Not every show, at all.

          And tv shows aren’t denying you rights.

          There is a MASSIVE difference. You can turn off a tv.

        • What?? says:

          You may want to switch away from the gay porn channel if it bothers you.

        • bdaboy says:

          Wedr , What channel are you watching?

      • Christian Bermudian says:

        And I am tired of a bigoted few trying speak for us Christians who couldn’t care less about this matter as it has no bearing on how we choose to live our lives! Leave the law to the legislators, and faith to individuals and congregations. I think Pastor Hayward is very brave, and that God is on the side of love and tolerance. I for one will be praying that our courts rule on the side of tolerance and equality.

    • AgeBees says:

      Actually – The Cayman Reporter is covering the Cayman Premier’s move to make same-sex immigration more relaxed in favour of protecting and allowing for same-sex partners of Caymanians, which has been *bolstered* by Bermuda’s move. Their argument is to give the rights now, by legislative changes and don’t allow the courts the opportunity to find discrimination. Had Bermuda done this ages ago, we may not be in this mess?

      http://www.caymanreporter.com/2015/12/01/bermuda-court-ruling-strengthens-premiers-sex-immigration-changes/

  2. Coffee says:

    It’s all ’cause some bie wants to be the first person ever to marry another fella in Bermuda . That’s it and that all ! I hope Mark Pettigill charges him $3500 per hour to take this nonsense to court . That’s for wasting the courts time .

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yet again, you show your absolute inability to see the reality of the situation, so blinded by hate.

      • Coffee says:

        You need to stop throwing the word hate around so loosely . I absolutely disagree with you on the topic of gay marraige , but the adjective hate should be reserved for people who act out like San Bernadino , Sandy Hook , murdering cops … You get the idea .

        I totally see the reality of the situation , but with different eyes , different thoughts , different reactions , different attitude .
        But sadly all you see is hate .. Oh so juvenile . Grow up and accept that this situation as you call it will always have those who will support it and those who won’t .. Human nature made sure to see to that .

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, I used it intentionally and with full knowledge of the meaning of the word.

          I know it hurts to have it pointed out to you, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

          Your intentional misrepresentation of what’s going on here, in a weak attempt to denounce these men, the the petty “I hope he charges them” an exorbitant fee, billing this equal rights issue as “nonsense” and a waste of the courts time?

          Yeah. That’s hate.

          • Coffee says:

            My friend , if the intention is to hurt me with mere words , then you will always fall far short of the mark .

            Your strumming your banjo to the wrong person .

            • Mike Hind says:

              Not trying to hurt you. Just pointing out reality.

              • Coffee says:

                Hey guy , I’m taking you at YOUR word … It was absolutely your weak and pathetic attempt to ‘hurt’ a fellow poster who will never bend over or backdown to your way of thinking ! No puns intended .

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Now you’re just trolling.

                  Have a good day.

                  • Coffee says:

                    Now Mike is back to his old ways .. If you Don’t agree with any sick philosophy that he espouses then he resorts to trolling you like a small lap dog peeing up your leg . What a bizarre person .

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Sad. Yet another lie from a coward hiding behind a fake name, making personal attacks.

                      Par for the course.

                    • Come Correct says:

                      In all fairness Mike, “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. Oscar Wilde.” Also this is a small island fill with small minded and ignorant people, some may not want to put their opinions out there with their name for a number of reasons.

                      In regards to “coffee” they should probably change their name to “used filter”. They’re dirty and not much use to anyone.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      And again. I don’t mind people using fake names.
                      I DO mind when they hide behind them to make stupid, false personal attacks during a tantrum because someone dared point out that they’re wrong.

                      If they’re going to throw around lies about someone, they should at least show an ounce of integrity and courage of convictions and use their real name.

                • bdaboy says:

                  Coffee, you’ve done nothing but denigrate others. You’re nothing but a hate monger, yet you get upset when called on it.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  And now, you’re just trolling.

                  Sad.

                  Have a nice day.

        • Anbu says:

          It doesnt matter what u think mate. This will happen here then those like you will just have to suck it up. Get ready for alot more.

          • Come Correct says:

            “Then those like you will just have to suck it up”

            Lmao I think that’s what they’re afraid of.

    • Legalgal says:

      They need to be praised for their honest , brave stance. And if they need funds to cover their costs many would help.

    • AgeBees says:

      Agreed – such a waste of the court’s time. This should have been legislated for ages ago and this couple would not have to go through all this!!

  3. hilarious says:

    Cannot wait to celebrate with this lovely couple!

    And for the rest of you, watch this and consider:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7W0U65gh8

  4. clearasmud says:

    I have to question the motive of this couple because they could quite easily get married in ATL where it is legal and where they live but they have not. If they were married and were seeing to have it recognized in Bermuda then that would make sense to me but at the moment it looks like politricks by Mr. Pettingill and Mr. Brannon.

    • Mike Hind says:

      What’s to question?
      They want to get married down here and think they should be allowed to. Currently, the law discriminates against them and they think they have a case that could maybe change an unfair law.

      How is this difficult to understand?

    • Bloopbleepbloop says:

      Maybe they want to move down here but can’t because the non-Bermudian spouse won’t be able to find a job until they are legally married to the Bermudian (and get a spousal letter – which is not legally required to seek employment but you’ll be hard-pressed to find an employer who will hire you without one)

  5. No says:

    This island makes me so sick… How can people be so cruel, and hateful. We are an established country in the 21st century and somehow gay marriage is some sick problem for people here..? I want to leave this place so bad. I can’t stand to think I call a place filled with such hate ‘home’.

    • Anbu says:

      Unfortunately you and alot of others including myself are in the same boat. We r just too damn small. 90 percent of the population are just too close minded. Wont even give em a chance. Bermudians everywhere ought to be ashamed of themselves

  6. Silence Do Good says:

    Let civil unions or any other type of religious ceremony between adults of consenting age be legal for the protection of rights offered similarly in Judeo-Christian marriages. If we haven’t learned anything yet is that you cannot force individual moral perspective down the throats of everyone no matter how small the minority. This is simply about facilitating people’s rights. Once we move forward on same sex unions then we will move forward on polygamy. My brother husbands should all be afford similar rights.

  7. the truth will set you free says:

    This abnormal/unnatural/behavior has already been prophesied, that these things will take place in the last days. Mankind will have a depraved mind and good will be seen as evil, evil will be seen as good, right will be wrong and wrong will be right. All they are doing is proving the word of God to be true, and there will be a judgment day for us all, and what a dreadful day it will be for those who have decided to follow the beast as stated in the Book of Revelation

    • Mike Hind says:

      This is all part of your religion and you are more than welcome to believe these things.
      However, it is unfair and discriminatory to use these beliefs and the rules of your religion to deny rights to other people.

      I know you won’t respond to this, as you never do, but…

      Do you think it would be fair for someone of another religion to use their rules and restrictions and prophecies to deny you equal rights and privileges?

    • hmmm says:

      To be fair, if it is the end of the world, won’t all the good churchgoing folk go to heaven??? Isn’t that the church goers aim.

      So why the problem?

    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      I guess we’ve been in the last days since the very beginning, which I find a pretty interesting view.

  8. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Same sex marriage is immoral,illegal,unscroupulus,indecene,worthless sickening and inhuman…..to try to defend it is being a party to all of this folly.

    • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

      OK…

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nope. It’s not.

    • mike says:

      According to the Bible so is Islam:

      Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

      Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

      that it is actually written in the Ten commandments:

      Thou shalt have no other gods before me

      I don’t actually believe any of this… but my point is if it were up to these Bible thumpers Islam would not be a choice.

    • Laura says:

      Did you seriously write that?

    • Bloopbleepbloop says:

      Congratulations on the new thesaurus

    • hmmm says:

      Takbir please explain fully your personal position, throwing out adjectives without explaining them in context does not appear guided by Allah.

    • bdaboy says:

      “Same sex marriage is immoral,illegal,unscroupulus,indecene,worthless sickening and inhuman…..to try to defend it is being a party to all of this folly.”

      LOL, what a goof.

    • Common Sense says:

      Takbir, What are your thoughts about serial adulterers (men who spend their lives chasing women who are not their wives); about men who father children outside of their marriages, about women who have children out of wedlock? Do you define any of these behavious as immoral, uncrupulous, worthless, sickening etc. It is sometimes dangerous to throw stones!

  9. smh says:

    lofl

  10. Not Sleeping says:

    I love the way OBA work they don’t want to come out and say they agree with same sex marriage for fear of losing votes, so they draft a plan to go to court and force the powers that be without it looking like they had anything to do with it…tricky OBA

    • bluwater says:

      The PLP is working the same way. They could simply come out and support equal rights as well. They could propose a private member’s bill. They could collaborate with the OBA to show their good intent. But they won’t.

      • Wake up Bie says:

        Stop making excuses the OBA has the numbers. You must be blind as a bat. Stop using radar to write and think before you write.

        • bluwater says:

          You’re just trying to make this a political wedge. The PLP don’t have guts to come out for or against it, either. They just like working you up on the blogs and distracting you from their current epic meltdown.

          The law is clear. Discrimination based on Sexual orientation is against the law. Both sides should be for equality.

    • jt says:

      If true very clever. Well done I’d say.

  11. God fearing says:

    God does not approve point blank nothing to do with any religion its against what god has for us human beings plain and simple

  12. Father have mercy says:

    What human right do you have to impose your choice of life on me?

    Why should I have to accept that you want to be married to a man or woman if that is not what I choose to do?

    The argument has been raised that they want to have a say and be entitled to what their ‘partner’ has should they die, well write a will.

    What you choose to do with your life is your business, but do not attempt to force others to agree with you.

    No one forced you to choose your lifestyle so stop attempting to get people to agree with you.

    Anything reason that you will try to come up with is not good enough.

    When you are comfortable in your own skin and with who you are, you do not need anyone’s approval, but the truth in you do not.

    You are fighting because you know very well that what you are doing is not pleasing to yourself or others.

    No matter how hard you try if you choose to have children you will always need the help of the opposite sex as 2 women will never be able to produce a child and 2 men will never be able to produce a child.

    You take a good look at yourself and you ask yourself some simple questions:

    Who am I?
    Do I love me?
    What do I want to do with my life?
    What legacy will I leave behind for my CHILDREN?
    How will the choices I make today, effect my children tomorrow?

    Recently in the USA, a husband and wife killed 14 people and left a 6 month baby girl behind, when that child grows up, she will be always be known for the deeds of her parents, did she ask for that stigma to be placed on her?

    Call this a rant if you choose, but accept responsibility for your actions and choices and stop trying to convince others to join you. Just do you, end of!

    • Mike Hind says:

      “What human right do you have to impose your choice of life on me?”

      No one is forcing anything on you.

      “Why should I have to accept that you want to be married to a man or woman if that is not what I choose to do?”

      You don’t have to accept it, you just shouldn’t have a say in anyone else’s relationship.
      I’m sure you wouldn’t want other people having a say in yours!

      “The argument has been raised that they want to have a say and be entitled to what their ‘partner’ has should they die, well write a will.”

      Couple of problems. Wills can be contested, and there’s already a way to do this: Marriage.

      “What you choose to do with your life is your business, but do not attempt to force others to agree with you.”

      They’re not. They’re just trying to get on with their lives. No one is forcing anyone to agree with anyone. They’re just saying that other folks shouldn’t get a say as to whether or not they get married.

      “No one forced you to choose your lifestyle so stop attempting to get people to agree with you.”

      Again. This isn’t happening.

      “Anything reason that you will try to come up with is not good enough.”

      No, that’s your side. No one has come up with a good enough reason to deny people equal rights and privileges. They usually post misrepresentations of the situation, much like you’re doing here.

      “When you are comfortable in your own skin and with who you are, you do not need anyone’s approval, but the truth in you do not.”

      This is ridiculous. It’s not about approval, it’s about equal rights and privileges under the law.

      “You are fighting because you know very well that what you are doing is not pleasing to yourself or others.”

      No, they – and we, their allies – are fighting because they just want to be able to have a life with the person they love, just like everyone else. Whether it’s pleasing to anyone else is not part of it.

      “No matter how hard you try if you choose to have children you will always need the help of the opposite sex as 2 women will never be able to produce a child and 2 men will never be able to produce a child.”

      Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage. This has been addressed many, many times. This is NOT a valid reason to oppose marriage equality.

      “You take a good look at yourself and you ask yourself some simple questions:

      Who am I?
      Do I love me?
      What do I want to do with my life?
      What legacy will I leave behind for my CHILDREN?”

      Most folks do this already. And their answers are much the same as anyone else’s, gay or straight.

      “How will the choices I make today, effect my children tomorrow?”

      Well, hopefully, the choice to fight for this will mean that their children will, you know, have a family.

      Also… you do get that you’re arguing “You can’t have kids, so you have to think about your kids”, right?

      “Recently in the USA, a husband and wife killed 14 people and left a 6 month baby girl behind, when that child grows up, she will be always be known for the deeds of her parents, did she ask for that stigma to be placed on her?”

      That’s more about the people judging her for her parents actions than anything she did.
      Isn’t the problem with the people judging? Isn’t that what we should be working on fixing?
      (I’m assuming this was brought up as an example of how people can be cruel when people have “different” families. Again, isn’t this about the people that are being cruel?)

      “Call this a rant if you choose, but accept responsibility for your actions and choices and stop trying to convince others to join you. Just do you, end of!”

      That’s EXACTLY what they’re trying to do. They’re just trying to get on with their lives.
      No one is asking anyone to do anything except stop discriminating.
      I don’t think that’s a bad thing to ask for.

      Do you?

    • AgeBees says:

      @Father have mercy

      I am so happy to have a differing opinion from other people – it is important that we are able to think through problems and situations and make up our own minds. When it comes to my ‘lifestyle’ – I didn’t choose it and I certainly don’t want you force you to agree. I don’t know you at all, but I am fairly certain that we won’t agree on everything…there are very few people who agree on everything.

      Just to pick up on one very specific issue that you raised – if the problems that my husband and I face were as easy to deal with by writing a will…then we would have done so. But the facts and actual reality are that a will cannot deal with all the issues that we face. It’s not that simple.

      I have always accepted responsibility for ‘me’ and ‘mine’and any choices I have made. To correct you – I did not choose to be gay (I promise, cross my heart and swear to die lol):

      To answer your questions –

      Who am I? – there are lots of labels that society puts on me, Christian, Bermudian, Husband, Father, Professional, Homosexual – but it’s all a nice mix up of everything that makes me, ‘me’.

      Do I love me? – I do love me, yes.

      What do I want to do with my life?
      I want to work hard, be a committed and supportive husband, to be charitable and to raise my son to be a compassionate and honourable man. I want to enjoy the splendour that is our world and appreciate what I believe God has given to us. I want to be happy and content.

      What legacy will I leave behind for my CHILDREN?
      I want to leave a world that is more caring, more compassionate – a world that is on the way to being a better steward of our planet and its resources, to promote God’s teachings more, to recognise our differences (race, nationality, sex etc.) and be ok with them and to not think that war/violence is the right path and that being different is what makes us so special.

      How will the choices I make today, effect my children tomorrow? – They will get to live in a world that is better than when I joined it. I am fairly certain my son will be extremely proud of the parents we were and what we stood up for.

      We’re good with that and our God is good with that too.

    • Christian Bermudian says:

      There is a flaw in your argument. How does this force anyone to do anything? I’m a man who will soon be marrying a woman; I’ll still do so if same sex marriage becomes legal. Nobody will ‘force’ me to marry a man, so what’s wrong with giving other men the option of doing so? I really don’t get where you are coming from.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      So many false perceptions, so let’s start with the notion that you are being forced to accept and change your mind… nobody is doing that, you have the freedom and right to believe what you want, but you do not have the right to enforce that belief on others. All the same sex marriage arguement is doing is removing the barriers to equal right for those who wish to marry to be able to do so, just like all who are currently allowed to. No religion is being forced to marry those they already refuse to based off their belief, it is not forcing individuals to marry someone of the same sex, it in no way infringes on individuals rights to live their lives so long as those individuals don’t infringe on others rights to live their lives. It is the e of the fundamental freedoms of democracy, freedom of religion… which also means freedom from religous persecution.

      Now, as for the whole procreation arguement, at this point, it is completely ludicrous, and the notion that it is something from God is pretty much an arguement against God. First, God is supposedly omnipotent, knows all, sees all. Second, overpopulation is the greatest threat to our species existence at this time, we are rapidly breeding ourselves to extinction as eventually the the environment will no longer be able to sustain us, both resource wise, but also as our number increase, they negatively impact the environment. So, if God was indeed all knowing and all seeing, they he have known that too many humans would eventually end humanity, so he would not have told us to go forth and be fruitful and multiply. No, it is most likely something that goes way back to the beginning of social engineering, when the tribal shaman/priest/spiritual leader knew that the only way for his belief to continue over the neighbouring tribal shaman/priest/spiritual leader’s, was through conquest, and that meant that they needed numbers, warriors… and as tribes turned to towns, to Kingdoms, to empires, to civilizations, that notion simply expanded.
      Fast forward to today, there are enough studies out there that debunk the notion that it takes a man and a woman to raise a successful child, but that the critically important factor is a strong family structure. Supportive and nurturing. We do not need couples producing more children, we need families that are willing to take on the already huge number of children that are without family, that are wallowing in an overburdened orphanage and foster care system.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Do you see what has happened to America as a result of them passing same sex marriage? Things just got worse for them.
    And which God you ask? Well the one that woke you up this morning and still has you alive right now. And just to educate you that spirituality and religion are two different things. God deals with spirituality.
    Also, being against same sex marriage is not discrimination. Same sex couples have just used that as there advantage, because nobody likes to be looked at as being someone who discriminate.
    Oh and for all those people who say that the church singles same sex marriage out, then I would say to you that same sex is a sin, right along with liars, fornicators, murders, thieves and all the rest. But you don’t see the murders or thieves asking for their right to not be punished for their acts.
    So just leave things they way it is and leave same sex marriage illegal

    • bdaboy says:

      “Do you see what has happened to America as a result of them passing same sex marriage? Things just got worse for them.”

      You really think it has anything to do with same sex marriage? Educate yourself, learn about basic spelling and grammar and maybe someone will take you seriously for a change.

      “Also, being against same sex marriage is not discrimination.”

      In the same vein that being against interracial marriage is not discrimination.

      “Oh and for all those people who say that the church singles same sex marriage out, then I would say to you that same sex is a sin, right along with liars, fornicators, murders, thieves and all the rest.”

      I noticed you didn’t mention divorce.
      Are your parents married?

  14. smth says:

    stay out there and get married, bring that down here

  15. God fearing says:

    Exactly the god that wakes us all up every day and if u continue to disrespect him and speak as he doesnt exist he will reveal himself to you and let u know he is and always will be the one and only creator of all things

    • Cup Of Tea Anyone? says:

      my alarm clock wakes me up in the morning.

      then i have a cup of tea before work

      toodles!

  16. Mike Hind says:

    Welp… there we have it.

    Not a single argument against it that has an ounce of validity.

    Just more of the same hit and run posts, talking the same nonsense, intentionally or unintentionally missing the point, defending discrimination, then denying they’re discriminating.

    Par for the course.

    I would love for, just once, someone to actually try to have an honest conversation about this.

  17. cup of tea anyone? says:

    haha someone is refreshing their IP address and hitting dislike on Mike’s posts. bunch of babies! hahaha

    • Mike Hind says:

      Awesome! What’s the record? :D

    • The Truth says:

      Nope – - there is that number of people out there that actually disagree with his post – that’s all.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nonsense. Not even you can believe that!

        And what’s to disagree with? What did I say that was incorrect.

        Oh, wait, it’s “The Truth”. You don’t back up your claims or respond at all, do you?

        Thanks for proving my point.

        • The Truth says:

          @Mike Hind:

          Please be assured that I was speaking to the point that there are people who disagree with you – - nothing about the what or why they disagree – get that straight.

          My post was not an attack – just a reminder.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I don’t think you understands hat words mean.

            So silly.

          • Come Correct says:

            All that aside, I was going to say compare the likes vs dislikes to his comments, all of them. The likes vs dislikes on the comment in question has now changed, drastically. Basically someone disagreed and did exactly what “cup of tea anyone?” Said they did. Someone else saw this and did the same in agreement. Anything to do with a computer, if you are savy, is easy to manipulate. Look at all the comments, 130 plus later I don’t think one has reached close to 100 like/dislikes, but that one comment of his right at the end of the thread has? It’s obvious what people are doing and exactly why I don’t care about them. Now the fact your comment, at the very end of a thread has done just that, is suspicious.

      • bdaboy says:

        LOL, because everything you see on the internet is “The truth”

        • The Truth says:

          Never said that bdaboy – - the truth is what you perceive it to be

  18. aceboy says:

    ” the truth is what you perceive it to be”

    Uh, no….perhaps you need a dictionary.

    • Come Correct says:

      I think he meant perception is reality. How an individual perceives something is their reality. Which is true.