Video: Dr Ryan Anderson On Same Sex Marriage

December 3, 2015

American Dr. Ryan Anderson delivered two presentations on same sex marriage this week, having been brought to the island by the “Concerned Citizens of Bermuda” group, who said it was part of their “initiative to ensure that marriage in Bermuda remains defined.”

Dr Ryan Anderson Bermuda, December 2 2015 (1)

Hamilton Princess’ Decision

When asked about the decision by Hamilton Princess to decline the booking to host the forums, Dr. Anderson said, “I think everyone should be free to operate according to their sincere beliefs; so if it’s the sincere belief of Hamilton Princess that they are opposed to all the citizens who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that’s their prerogative.

“I just think it’s a shame, though, that they aren’t willing to host civil discussions on an issue of such public importance. Normally hotels, they rent out space for whatever group wants to rent it. It doesn’t mean they’re endorsing the speaker or the event; one week it might be the Democratic National Convention, the next week, the Republican National Convention. The hotel doesn’t take sides – they just make space available.

“On an issue this important, you would want to have both sides given a fair hearing in the public square, but if the owners felt they couldn’t do that, I don’t want to coerce anyone into violating their beliefs.

“I want to say that in the States, the baker, the florist, the photographer, people who have been coerced by Government into celebrating same sex weddings, they should have the same freedom.

Preserve Marriage Town Hall Bermuda, December 2 2015-1

Recent Changes In Bermuda

When asked about the recent Court ruling as well as the marriage application, Dr Anderson said: “I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a Bermudian lawyer, so I can’t speak directly to your constitutional challenges. I would just say in general that as a matter of human reason, there are good reasons why marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

“There are good reasons for the law of any society to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. It would be problematic if any judge was saying that it was irrational or, quote, ‘discrimination’ to treat the union of husband and wife differently than other relationships.

“Marriage is unique for a reason, and it’s reasonable for the law to treat it as a unique institution because it serves the public good. It serves the common good because it’s based on human nature, and it unites men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers.

The U.S. Legal Ruling

When asked about the legal ruling in the United States which same sex marriage legalized across all the states, Dr Anderson said,  ”Just this past summer in the United States, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4, so the slimmest of majorities possible, a 5 to 4 ruling forcing all 50 states to redefine marriage.

“There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that tells us what marriage is. Some people think marriage is the union of two consenting adults regardless of their sexes. Other people think it’s the union of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. The Constitution doesn’t tell us which of those two visions is correct, and that’s why judges shouldn’t be making marriage law; the people should.

“The people of the United States went to the ballot boxes. They voted on marriage. In the vast majority of the states, they defined it as the union of a man and a woman, and then un-elected judges threw their votes out and forced those states to redefine marriage.

“That’s not how a constitutional representative democracy should really work.”

Visit To Bermuda

When asked about his visit to Bermuda, Dr. Anderson said, “I’ve had a great visit. This has been a wonderful trip for me. Lots of good conversations with lots of different people. Last night’s event went really well. We had over an hour of Q&A after the initial presentation. I’m looking forward to tonight’s presentation.

“What’s been interesting is even people who have told me that they disagree with my position, have said they want to hear the arguments. That they want to hear what are the best arguments on the other side of the issue because it’s only if you hear the best arguments on both sides of an issue, can you then make an informed decision.

“I’ve liked the spirit that I’ve encountered in Bermuda of, ‘we want the conversation to take place.’ This is the beginning of a conversation, and let’s let it play out.

On Public Speaking

When asked about his public speaking in general, Dr Anderson said, “What I try to do is just help people who are probably inclined not to agree with me to at least understand where I’m coming from.

“I try to make an argument based on philosophy and social science and human reason about why every society, all across the globe, and all throughout human history up until 15 years ago, define marriage as the union of a male and a female.

“I try to help people understand that there are good reasons for that historical consensus and that those good reasons haven’t been overridden by new discoveries.

“There’s still good reasons today to continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, a mom and a dad. Even if they come away disagreeing with me,

“I at least hope they understand where it is that we disagree, and this isn’t simply a matter of ignorance versus enlightenment or backwards superstition versus the forces of reason.

“There are good arguments on both sides of this debate,” added Dr Anderson.

testimonial-divider

The two forums follow after the decision by the Supreme Court as well as the recent filing of a marriage application by a same sex couple.

Last week the Supreme Court of Bermuda ruled 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.”

Following that, a gay couple 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 and American Clarence Williams III are being represented by lawyer Mark Pettingill, and Mr Hayward’s mother, Pastor Sylvia Hayward-Harris, has said she hopes to officiate at the couple’s wedding in Bermuda.

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Videos

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cow Polly says:

    Looking at the turnout, this matter of Great Importance, wasn’t that great for the majority of Bermudians. And that is how it should be because it doesn’t affect the majority of Bermudians. They can still go to Church if they so desire and they can still get married if they so desire regardless of what the Courts rule regarding same sex marriage

  2. sure. says:

    Just let the people of Bermuda vote already.

    I’m pretty sure there are unequal parts of the equation. Why should a percentage of people dictate as to what they feel is necessary for the country. PSA: I do not condone homosexuality.

    If it is/isnt’ voted acceptable that would be the choice of the vast majority.

    This will change things in Bermuda. Is it a change that most of us can cope with? So it should be a voting situation because things will have to change. The people of Bermuda, being the partial financial supply, should have a decision in this.

    • JD says:

      While it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.

      By your logic the Southern US would probably still be segregated. After all why should 12% of the population (the African American population at the time) as you so eloquently put it “dictate as to what they feel is necessary for the country”.

      You don’t put equal rights to a vote, they are inalienable.

      • Fresh Prince says:

        Isn’t that the rub: Your last sentence “You don’t put equal rights to a vote, they are inalienable”, assumes that the right to define marriage as something other than between a man and a woman is a “right”. Is that the case and, if so, whose right is it how should it be legitimately exercised?

      • Daylilly says:

        Being African American is not a behavior or a lifestyle and stop riding the backs of slaves for your cause. If the SSM argument has merit, win the argument on its merits not on the backs of slaves or their descendants.

        Some of the most discriminating comments regarding blacks, people from the Middle East, etc have been made on these blogs by people proclaiming that they are fighting for equality.

        Also, marriage is not a human right… All humans can not get married, which is why you need a license for it. Marriage is a privilege given within certain criteria such as age, etc.

        If marriage is a human right then children under the age of 18 should have that right too and those who are mentally disabled, etc.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You guys keep misrepresenting what people are saying.

          Equal rights means that one group is being denied the rights and privileges that others share, which is, in fact, the case here.

          There are hundreds and hundreds of rights and privilege that marriage provides to people that are currently being Denis to our fello citizens, for no good reason.

          This must change.

          And daylily, you really need to read up on consent. You’re showing your ignorance on the subject.

    • blankman says:

      Rights should never be subject to the will of the majority. That’s why they’re called rights.

      If the will of the majority had been the deciding factor slavery would never have been abolished. Women would never have been given the vote. Mixed race marriages would never have been allowed.

  3. um says:

    How do you correlate people who were “able” to attend with people supporting. Gotta come better than that. So everyone supposed to drop what they are doing, find babysitters, get out of bed(those bed ridden) and attend just to prove to you that it is important. Get outta here…lol

    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      Just because someone attended doesn’t mean that they agreed with what was being discussed. A fair number of people are quite interested in hearing the other side of the issue, even if in the end it doesn’t sway their opinion.

  4. Triangle Drifter says:

    Oh well, he got paid by somebody with deep pockets & by now is outta here on the first thing smokin.

  5. Daylilly says:

    The lack of turn out may have been because most people who want to preserve the definition of marriage already agree with both the philosophical and religious tenets and they were at prayer or bible study. Also, some people were afraid that their attendance at the meeting would label them as hateful and jeopardize them in some way.

  6. Daylilly says:

    Dr. Anderson laid out a clear philosophical argument regarding why marriage is reserved between a male and a female and why marriage matters. There was no hate speech or homophobia.

    • Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

      This may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is against equal rights for all people.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And yet, none of his arguments were valid at all and have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly, yet he continues to use these lies and misinformation to promote the denial of rights to consenting adults.

      That is both hate speech and homophobia.

      You are incorrect.

      • MPP says:

        Wrong Mike.

        It’s neither hate speech nor homophobia.

        But keep running your “thoroughly debunked” line. The fact of the matter is that the average person knows full well that marriages are the basis of the healthiest family arrangements, and that kids should be raised by a mom and dad.

        Keep acting like it’s crazy but common sense, biology and social science disagrees with you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          I keep saying “thoroughly debunked” because it’ strut.

          Unlike all the arguments you make.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, again, you are basing your argument on procreation being a stipulation for marriage.

          It isn’t, therefore your position is false and thus dismissible.

          Kids being raised by a mom and dad isn’t a stipulation for marriage.
          See that’s how easy it is to thoroughly debunk your position and your argument.
          Surely, if you were correct, you could show some sort of evidence…

          My position is based on people deserving the ability to share equal rights and privileges that the rest of us have.

          There hasn’t been an argument against that that hasn’t been – wait for it – thoroughly debunked.

          I’m still waiting for you – who seem to enjoy the view from your high horse – to provide one.
          You haven’t.

  7. Daylilly says:

    7178 people in Bermuda think the matter is of Great Importance. Bermuda has spoken. preservemarriage.bm

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not even a little bit true. That petition has been shown to be false.

      Also… even if it was, 7178 people isn’t the majority by ANY stretch of the imagination.

      • Have a Referendum.
        Ya you know why they wont,talk is cheap.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          Should we have had a referendum to have end segregation?? Equal right is equal rights, if you pick and choose who get them, then they aren’t equal.

          • You cant compare Slavery and Segregation with an abnormal psychological problem.

          • mj says:

            “ending segregation was not equal rights! there is no such equality, we must understand our differences first! Equal rights would be that all nations would have their own land!

      • Daylilly says:

        Ummm you keep seeing unwritten words… I never said the “majority” of Bermuda has spoken, I did say 7178 Bermudians have spoken .

        Furthermore, There is no proof to debunking the preserve marriage petition. I know that some people claimed to have done juvenile pranks and signed with false names but the adults in charge of the petition addressed that issue too.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, you said “Bermuda has spoken…” That implies a majority.

          Come on. If you can’t be honest about the words you write yourself, how can we believe a word you say?

      • MPP says:

        The petition has not been shown to be false. Where?

        You might not like that Tony Brannon got nowhere near as much support, but don’t go making up stuff.

        • Mike Hind says:

          I didn’t make stuff up… The folks signing the petition as Micky Mouse etc. did!

          You may not like that you don’t have an actual leg to stand on with regards to a defensible position to oppose same sex marriage, but don’t go accusing me of stuff that you do yourself!

    • blankman says:

      lilly, Do you actually believe that 7,000 people have actually signed that petition?

      But, if it’s of great importance please tell us how it will affect you?

      Is somebody insisting that you marry someone of the same sex? Or are you worried that it will impact your marriage (the only way it will do that is if one of you is gay)?

      • Daylilly says:

        You and I both know that this agenda goes far beyond what happens in your bedroom. If SSM was only about what happens in the privacy of ones bedroom we wouldn’t be having this debate because you don’t need a license to fool around.

        Quite frankly, it baffles me why people who loathe the heterosexual lifestyle are trying so hard to duplicate it.

        • Ed Case says:

          Oh wow, you are ignorant on this site too?

        • Mike Hind says:

          More misinformation.

          What, exactly, is “this agenda”? Hmm?

          You throw out these conspiracies, yet never actually give specifics.
          Could it be that you are doing nothing more than desperate fearmongering because you know you have no actual real reason to oppose this?

          I think so.

          It’s sad, how low you have to sink to defend your argument.

          Surely, if it was valid, it’d be easy to honestly defend.

          No?

  8. Lalalala says:

    Same sex marriage will never go to a popular vote. This will be decided in the courts. That is the way both political parties would like it. That way neither gat blamed. I personally think it we should have allows same sex marriages years ago… Besides being the right thing it would have helped with our tourism problems

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

    Why is the destruction and demonization of traditional families so important

    In a very telling interview, a “lesbian” women by the name of Masha Gessen, says the agenda behind the gay rights/gay marriage debate is the outright destruction of the traditional definition of marriage and the family.

    Here is an excerpt from an article in the Blaze along with a radio interview in which she stated the below points.

    “She shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

    “Gay marriage is a lie.”

    “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”

    “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
    As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:

    “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

    This is not an uncommon perspective amoung ‘gay rights’ proponents, they don’t see the family as a universal norm, they instead see traditional marriage as a constant reminder of their abnormality and thus the rabid hate.

    Sexual malfunction like “homosexuality” in the face of such obviously universal laws such as opposite gender sexual attraction, marriage and the provision for the resulting offspring should be treated as a disease with in society. This used to be the prevalent opinion only 30 years ago, but not anymore because of the social engineering agenda behind the disruption and destruction of the family that has taken root in society. Society crumbles without the healthy family, training up moral, well educated, principled individuals.

    As society becomes more and more degenerate and corrupted away from it’s natural state, families fail and thus society spirals down into the toilet faster and faster each generation. We have men and women in positions of power that live deviant, amoral lifestyles as a result of the destruction of their own family and they through their ignorance and corruptibility by outside influences are destroying society.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Who does this demonize “traditional families”?

      And Masha Gessen is wrong.

      And The Blaze is a horrific, right wing outlet that has been shown to lie and lie easily many many times.
      Look into it. You should be disgusted with yourself for using it as a source,

  10. The Power of Words says:

    “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible” ~ George Washington

    “The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man’s reason.” ~ Martin Luther

    “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.” ~ Daniel Webster

    “The fear of the Lord (Reverence) is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” Proverbs 9: 10.

    Jehovah M’Kaddesh (The Lord who sanctifies)OUR Heavenly Father

    Maranatha Bermuda

    • Ed Case says:

      Is this the same bible that supports slavery, stoning and such. Sounds very much like Isis. Perhaps this bible thing should be banned.

      • mj says:

        you are some case Ed, obviously espousing on a book you haven’t attempted to read so that you understand the things that took place or why and with what kind of people are which nations. God does actually discriminate because He has a chosen people, maybe try reading before giving an opinion, most Christians have NOT read the bible but call themselves after tradition and ritual of attending church, because if most read the Bible they would be objecting to more than just “gay” marriage. Calling it a bible thing shows your adolescence..Not all laws pertain to the same people in the Bible, and you must understand the time period as well.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And none of the laws in the bible should pertain to those that dont follow it.

          Or are you guys saying that people should have to follow the laws of your bible, even if not part of your group?

          • Ayana says:

            If u don’t believe in the laws of the bible why wouls you want to be get married. Marriage is union between a men and women. If you dont believe words which was introduced out of bible u should make up you own official recognition for your same sex union.

  11. Some Beach says:

    Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than standing in a car park does make you a car….pious only suggests pioty…..I have seen church react on heresay and deliberately at that…..they have made serious and life altering decisions that had no basis for their actions before…

  12. Baldwin says:

    I honestly am pretty grossed out by the whole idea of a man/man relationship and think these guys are mainly fooling themselves – but if it is their thing, then they should be allowed to go for it every bit as much as the rest of us. Strangely, I find myself more tolerant of woman/woman relationships to the point that I think of myself as a spiritual lesbian.