Preserve Marriage: “Growing Public Concern”

January 25, 2016

According to Preserve Marriage — the group behind the petition opposing same sex marriage — there is “growing public concern about the new stipulations that Hamilton Princess is placing on those who support traditional marriage both locally and overseas.”

In November of last year, the group released a statement saying they would be hosting two public forums at the Hamilton Princess, and the hotel subsequently said they will not be accepting the booking as the hotel’s policy is “to celebrate diversity in all its forms.”

The forums were then moved to the New Testament Church of God on Dundonald Street, and last week the group released a statement critical of the hotel’s decision.

In a statement today, Preserve Marriage said, “United for Change, a group representing over 70 pastors in the Island, was looking to have renown speaker and author, Dr. Tony Evans speak at Hamilton Princess on January 27 who arrives on the Island this week.

“Mr. Federer’s response was ‘Why can’t you have it at your church?’ to which the representatives stated because we would like to have it at your Hotel. Mr. Federer was informed that he would be speaking on Kingdom Family and strengthening traditional marriages in Bermuda for the churches Island-wide.”

“When asked if they would accept a booking for Dr. Evans, they were told by the General Manager that they would need to submit in writing exactly what he is speaking on in detail before a decision could be made.”

The group added it is “the request of Preserve Marriage, United for Change and Heart to Heart Ministries” that Hamilton Princess Hotel and Beach Club “stop and reconsider their new policy and treatment of those who support traditional marriage.”

In response to this latest statement from the group, Hamilton Princess General Manager Allan Federer told Bernews, “Our previous statement still stands. We don’t allow bookings that promote discrimination of any kind.

“To avoid this, any group will be asked to provide written details of their proposed event, which is a standard industry practice. Due to customer confidentiality we are unable to discuss the specifics of the events outlined in the Preserve Marriage press release.”

The full statement from the group is below:

There is growing public concern about the new stipulations that Hamilton Princess is placing on those who support traditional marriage both locally and overseas. In November 2015 the Hamilton Princess & Beach Club accepted a booking under Preserve Marriage in which Dr. Ryan Anderson was due to speak on What is Marriage and Why It Matters?”

The PhD graduate from University of Notre Dame speaks at major universities such as Yale, Harvard, and even the United States Supreme Court, but was quickly banned from speaking at the Hamilton Princess and Beach Resort by Allan Federer, the hotel’s General Manager.

The General Manager stated the reason for the denial was because the Hamilton Princess upholds diversity. However, Medical Doctor, Dr. Henry Dowling, a Director on the Preserve Marriage Board stated, “It is our understanding that The Hamilton Princess & Beach Club celebrates diversity in all its many forms, unfortunately, the Hotel’s decision to refuse our booking, thereby refusing goods and services, appears to us to fly directly in the face of the true value of diversity.

Diversity is defined as “the quality or state of having many different forms, types, and ideas.” I personally moderated the event with Dr. Ryan Anderson and can personally confirm along with others present that there was no form of hate speech or a promotion of a lack of diversity. It was a scholarly presentation.”

Since the ban of Dr. Anderson, representatives of Preserve Marriage met with the General Manager of the Hamilton Princess to discuss moving forward. Due to Dr. Anderson’s speech was absent from any form of hate speech, Mr. Federer was asked if he would consider having Dr. Anderson at the Hamilton Princess in the future, to which he responded, “Absolutely not.” This was requested because Hamilton Princess is the one of the few venues within the city of Hamilton that can hold over 750 people. Once again this was denied.

Mr. Allan and Mildred Hunt, founders of Heart to Heart, Bermuda’s the well established 20-year-old marriage ministry, have used the Hamilton Princess for their annual marriage events for the International Marriage Week. This is an annual event that is celebrated in 75 nations world-wide, in which Bermuda is one them.

When Mr. Hunt who also serves as a Director on the Preserve Marriage Action Committee, saw the Banquet Event Order booking made in the name of Preserve Marriage and how the management of the Hamilton Princess later banned Dr. Anderson’s presentation that supported traditional marriage, he asked if he was fine to continue having his event at the hotel. He was appalled by the response. “I was promptly told by the hotel employee that I would need to write a letter giving details of what would be said and done at the event. I was most surprised of this and have never been asked of such a requirement in 20 years of hosting marriage events in Bermuda and overseas.”

In addition, United for Change, a group representing over 70 pastors in the Island, was looking to have renown speaker and author, Dr. Tony Evans speak at Hamilton Princess on January 27 who arrives on the Island this week. Mr. Federer’s response was “Why can’t you have it at your church?” to which the representatives stated because we would like to have it at your Hotel. Mr. Federer was informed that he would be speaking on Kingdom Family and strengthening traditional marriages in Bermuda for the churches Island-wide.

When asked if they would accept a booking for Dr. Evans, they were told by the General Manager that they would need to submit in writing exactly what he is speaking on in detail before a decision could be made. Bishop Stephen Jones, a Director on the United for Change Board stated, “I am amazed that a renown speaker, author and pastor such as Dr. Tony Evans would now have to provide a detailed outline of his message although he has spoken at the hotel several times in the past.

He is on over 1,000 radio outlets including Bermuda every day. His dynamic messages reach over 130 countries and he has served as former chaplain for the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and for three decades as the 2011 NBA Champions Dallas Mavericks, the longest standing NBA chaplaincy on record.

Overseas guests should not be treated like this. This is unprecedented for any hotel in Bermuda and I believe this is going to harm their reputation not only in the faith based community, but the general local community who benefit from these programs and the international organizations that these well known and favored people represent. I can tell you there is a groundswell of many in faith-based community that are feeling unwelcomed by the Hamilton Princess.” The event will be held at the Heritage Hall Worship Center this Wednesday at 7 pm.

These three issues are leading to a growing concern among members of the community in which more and more are deciding among themselves to discontinue their business with Hamilton Princess. This is due to the precedence they are setting to the faith-based community and their represented international organizations that have done business with the hotel for many years.

Back when Preserve Marriage was denied good and services, lawyer Tim Marshall, of Marshall Diel & Myers, told The Royal Gazette on November 27 that he believed Hamilton Princess was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1981 for refusing to host the free public forums featuring Dr. Anderson.

Mr. Marshall said: “In my opinion, any hotel in Bermuda that refuses to permit a booking because of a customer’s religious or political opinions would be in breach of section five of the Human Rights Act.” The legislation bans discrimination in the supply of any goods, facilities or services because of religion, belief or politics, among other things. Mr. Marshall said he believed the hotel made a mistake and should have allowed Dr. Anderson, a member of the conservative American think-tank the Heritage Foundation, to speak on the premises. “Because a hotel is a public place you shouldn’t prevent, as a hotel owner, the free expression of ideas for those people who wish to book a meeting room,” said Mr. Marshall.

“Obviously, we are not going to let the white Aryan Nation make a discussion but if you are having a discussion on a opic relevant to the public at large, I don’t think it’s right for the hotel to make a decision and say ‘No, we are not going to allow that discussion to take place because we personally believe the position should be in favour of the broader perspective of marriage’.” Another lawyer with human rights expertise, who asked not to be named, agreed.

“I do think the Princess has got a problem. What you ask yourself is whether opposing same-sex marriage is a political opinion. As far as I am concerned, any fool can see that [it is].” Since which, another law firm also agreed that this is a clear violation against the Act.

It is now the request of Preserve Marriage, United for Change and Heart to Heart Ministries that the renown Hamilton Princess Hotel and Beach Club will stop and reconsider their “new policy” and treatment of those who support traditional marriage.

There are many that support traditional marriage which not only includes these entities, but local and overseas guest speakers and the international organizations they represent, along with the almost 8,000 people in the community that signed the petition to maintain traditional marriage, the over 70 pastors in the Island that are supporting Preserve Marriage and the now over 400 active Preserve Marriage Committee of volunteers that have going public with their stand.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (385)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bloopbleepbloop says:

    Traditional marriage: I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means

    …unless you think it means being able to buy and sell women like property

    • hmmm says:

      What happens if a husband cheats is abusive and beats his wife…what is preserve marriage stance on this?

      • Daylilly says:

        Go to the preserve marriage website. There are contact details. There are numerous counseling agencies for the abused and the abuser. If anyone really is in need, there are services & organizations available to help. The woman may also seek help from the Woman’s Reaource Center.

        If her life is being threatened stop commenting about it and call the police. Spousal abuse is a serious issue and should not be made light of regardless of your position on SSM.

        • Hmmm says:

          Would preserve marriage advise divorce or stay in the marriage?

          • Dr Ernest Peets Jr says:

            Where and whenever possible, couples should consider reconciliation. There is help available for couples going through difficulty. Not every situation is the same, and sometimes reconciliation is not possible or advisable. We do have a resource on island that can help individuals and couples who are on the brink of divorce, its called DivorceCare. Its a free service.

          • Just the thought of two men engaging in an act that was CREATED for Male and Female, just F!@#ing Nasty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • Mike Hind says:

              Then don’t think about it. And don’t push your religious views onto others.

              No one is forcing you to have sex with anyone you don’t want to.

              And your opinion of what they do in their bedroom is none of your business.

              • Anbu says:

                Mike dude dont even feed that troll onion juice. Deff not the brightest bulb in the box. It will serve no purpose to even acknowledge his existance. D guys juat a racist homophobe. Both u and i know that at the end of the day these folk will be allowed to get married like the rest of us do. Its all good man. The grapes will be extra sour lol

            • Come Correct says:

              But you still think about it…

              • How can you not when you see and hear about the promotion of it.
                Just F!@#ing Nasty.

                • Not that Stephanie H says:

                  I’m pretty sure a lot of heterosexual couples enjoy the some of the same sex acts as homosexual couples.

                • Edward Case says:

                  Again, you should take up a hobby or see a doctor about these constant thoughts regarding people doing stuff in their bedrooms. It is not healthy. Join a youth club or get a girlfriend. Concentrate on your school work.

                • Mercy says:

                  Come on now Onion juice- theirs got to be a way you can make this topic about race! Think!!

            • Onion says:

              I guess if you think like that, your world is very basic. When love is involved the sharing of bodies is a wonderful thing. That does not mean that you have to comprehend it.

      • Connor says:

        Preserve Marriage is not addressing that issue but in theory they should be against all forms of domestic abuse

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      I’m just stuck on the irony that they call themselves United for Change… when they are organizing functions to preach against change. I mean, if they are so set on preserving marriage, why haven’t they petitioned to have divorce banned, adultry banned… These are groups trying to fight the growing tide of progressive change in the ongoing social evolution for unbiased equality; hiding behind group names of self righteous designating that doesn’t cover their poorly veiled bigoted intentions in the slightest.

      • Dr Ernest Peets Jr says:

        Changing the definition of marriage won’t do anything about the escalating problems associated with divorce or adultery. Adultery and no fault divorces are a significant part of the massive problem we have in society. If you create a petition requesting a change in law making adultery illegal, or mandating couples seek counseling prior to applying for a divorce, I’ll gladly support it. In the meantime lets do what we can to support marriage.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          I do support marriage, any couple who wish to commit their lives together should have the right to… all the legal rights that go along with that commitment. I would also support the creation of a common law status if there isn’t already one on the books.

      • Daylilly says:

        Looks like whether people are uniting for change or preserving what already exists they will be criticized.

        Does the “ongoing social evolution for unbiased equality” include the right to beliefs, free speech, and religion?

        How would this “ongoing social evolution for unbiased equality” look, what other “changes” would you like to see?

        What is your idea of “poorly veiled bigoted intentions”?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Here’s the thinly veiled “slippery slope” argument.

    • Daylilly says:

      All over the world, the fundamental requirement for the definition of marriage is that you are able to consummate the marriage. That requires a male and a female. This is the ideal and only relationship that produces offspring and provides children with the unique & necessary differences that only a mom & dad can give.

      We are not defining people we are defining marriage. Just as a heterosexual relationships are not SSC, SS relationships are not marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:


        And, again, you are incorrect!

        There is absolutely no requirement to consummate a marriage. There is no requirement that the people involved be able to produce offspring.

        This entire post is completely wrong.

        And the last paragraph is simply gibberish. Outright insane gibberish.

        • Daylilly says:


          Historically, and still in the UK, non-consummation is grounds for annulment.

          Once the intimate marriage act called consummation is complete, the marriage is considered binding. After consummating the marriage you can get a divorce not an annulment.

          See….. Annual a marriage at the website

          “2. Your marriage is defective – ‘voidable’ marriages

          You can annul a marriage if:
          it wasn’t consummated – you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)”

          Is the UK being homophobic?

          Mike you keep saying I’m incorrect and you keep being proven wrong.

          • serengeti says:

            Oh, can we bring any law from anywhere in the world into the discussion now?

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, it’s still not a restriction.

            You haven’t proven me wrong.

            I know you’re getting desperate, but trying to pretend that the UK, who allow SSM, is homophobic because of some fabrication on your part is ridiculous, even for you.

            Consummation is absolutely not a requirement for marriages, even if it is grounds for annulment.

            You are, as always, wrong.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            1sr, historically speaking, people (particularly women in general) were stoned or burned or crucified for any number of violations that are now acknowledged. Statistically speaking, there would be a few within PM and UfC that are probably guilty of some of those old offenses.
            Now for your notion of annulment, your whole argument is predicated on your assertion that sex is an act that can only be done between a man and a women, a pint of view that only you and the few share. Even in legal grounds, it is and has long been recognized that two people of the same gender can engage in the act of sex. And since you have also acknowledged that the act of consummation need not necessarily produce a child, then it is perfectly reasonable to state that Same Sex couples can consummate their marriage, under what is probably an archaic legal standing that hasn’t been seen to be addressed.

      • Hmmm says:

        Are you talking about weddings again? That churchy thing. Marriage is a civil process.

        Why do members of this hate group not comprehend simple things?

        • aceboy says:

          “Why do members of this hate group not comprehend simple things?”

          Religious people who use the church to justify their hatred, tend not to be very intelligent, hence their inability to understand simple concepts like this.

        • Daylilly says:

          Consummation of any marriage, civil or otherwise can only take place between a man and a woman.

          The legal system put the cart before the horse by calling SS relationships a marriage because now they are having to redefine what is adultery and grounds for divorce, etc.

          This is all a well intended social experiment gone terribly wrong.

          The courts need to accept that marriage already has a definition and use their legal intellect to give appropriate rights without misusing the purpose of marriage.

          • Mike Hind says:

            This is your most desperate attempt yet!

            Nothing you’re saying is even remotely true. You’re just desperately lashing out, throwing things against the wall to see if it’ll stick.

            It won’t of course, but that won’t stop you from posting these lies.

            Consummation is not a requirement for marriage.

            Stop it.

            Do better.

          • serengeti says:

            so some of the time you want to rely on legal definitions (your view of consummation) but the rest of the time you want to ignore legalities (“they put the cart before the horse”).

            This selective reading is a bit like how you lot treat the bible isn’t it.

          • hmmm says:

            Well intended Social experiment gone wrong !!!!!?????

            You are disgusting.

            • Daylily says:

              Hmmm… The adult children of SSC think it’s disgusting that they legislatively have been denied a legacy, heritage, & lineage & no mom & dad. They feel like they were commodities at the disposal of adult whims.

              See Heather Barwick’s and Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez’s story on the resource section of the preserve marriage site. Many say that they had love and their SSC parents were good people but children should have the right to a mother and a father.

              • Mike Hind says:

                we’ve already discussed and explained the problems with these stories you’re trying to push. Why do you continue to push this misinformation?
                Why don’t you just be honest and say that you think that your personal choice of religion’s rules should apply to everyone? That is, according to the things you post, what your point really is, isn’t it? You post lies and misinformation and logical fallacies in a desperate attempt to rationalize your opposition to SSM in a weak attempt to hide the fact that yours is a religious argument. The only time you’ve actually been honest is when you put forth your religious opposition to it. You only hide it because you know that this argument is invalid and unfair and, were it to be done to you, you would fight, tooth and nail, against it.

              • Nightlilly says:

                As an adult child of a same sex couple I can enthusiastically and wholeheartedly say you are wrong and a liar.

          • Common Sense says:

            While it is true that a marriage partner could seek an annulment if their marriage was not consummated, this is not in any way a requirement for marriage. I know of elderly persons who have married with NO expectation of so-called consummation, or of procreating but rather the expectation is to enter into a loving affectionate lifelong relationship.

            Yes, it may be necessary to redefine what adultery is, although it is quite a popular pastime here in Bermuda – and is not, of course, against the law in any way.

            But who on earth is Daylily to say that SSM is a social experiment that has “gone terribly wrong”. That is purely an opinion – and I totally disagree.

        • allinlove says:

          Nowhere in this group’s agenda will you find feelings of intense dislike for people or hostile actions motivated by such intense dislike which is the actual definition of hate. Preserve Marriage is standing up for what is Bermuda law pertaining to the definition of marriage, not people. Marriage not people. Do you only see hate because you are not aware of this group’s actual intentions?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Denying people equal rights and privileges for absolutely no reason is pretty hostile.

            • I cant believe that civilzed??? people are having a debate about a moral common sense topic.
              Obviously something mentally is wrong and going to a shrink wont hurt.

              • Edward Case says:

                You are obviously obsessed with constant thoughts regarding bedroom activities. You should find a hobby – or see a doctor.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Your ignorance is showing… As usual.

      • I am a robot says:

        I can consummate the heck out of a marriage without conceiving a baby.

        Fertility is not a requirement of marriage. The desire to have children is not a requirement of marriage. If this were so then all infertile people, post-menopausal women, and those who do not wish to have children would be banned from marriage.

        • Daylilly says:

          I am a robot… The fertility question has been asked and answered repeatedly. The marriage laws were based on the rule not the exceptions to the rule. All male/female marriages bring unique and necessary differences to marriage. In marriages that choose to have children, these distinct differences will foster a child in ways that only a mom & dad can.

          See Heather Barwick’s story on preservemarriage. See the stories of Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez and Dawn Stefanowicz and the 50 children her book represents.

          These children aren’t saying that their same gender parents were bad people, they are saying that moms can’t be dads and dads can’t be moms.

          Of course we already have single parents or no parent, but until now we weren’t trying to enshrine absentee fathers and absentee mothers into law, nor was it celebrated.

          • Nightlilly says:

            Heather Barwick – A woman who lived in a home with unwed parents speaks out about marriage….OOOKKKKKKKKKAAAYYYYY

            Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez – Claims “The Gay Movement is an International War on Black People” and regularly compares same sex parenting to SLAVERY so clearly he has a strong grip on reality. And his doctorate is in ENGLISH so although doing a doctorate is an impressive amount of work his kind of doctorate doesn’t really give him any heft for any argument where there is logic, science, statistics, societal or psychological implications.

            Dawn Stefanowicz – a women who grew up with a single parent. Sure, her father may have been a bad parent: ” Daddy doesn’t have time for you or Daddy is too busy to play a game with you.” but CLEARLY she is an authority on all types of parenting.

            • Mike Hind says:

              What’s insane is that these three, in daylily’s mind, are – even WITH all the flaws in their arguments – more valid than the hundreds of other kids of same sex couples who don’t have a problem with it.
              I guess it’s true what they say…
              We have to be right every single time.
              They only have to be right once.

              It’s completely bizarre.

      • Verly says:

        Daylilly, so what happens in a case like mine? Married thirty years, and due to age, health issues, etc. things don’t quite “work” as they once did? Are my husband and I “less” married in your eyes because we don’t get it on like we once did?
        Marriage isn’t just about sexual intercourse!!!

        • Daylilly says:

          Verly, your absolutely right, marriage isn’t just about the the intercourse, but men and woman are unique and distinct emotionally, physically, physiologically, biologically, intimately (which does not require sex) and in every other way. Some people call this sexual complementarity. These unique differences compliment each other and complement each other.

          Congratulations on keeping your covenant for 30 years! It looks like you and your husband could teach the rest of us something about for better or worse & in sickness & in health.

          • Mike Hind says:

            And NONE of this is a requirement for marriage.

            And it’s all REALLY sexist.

        • allinlove says:

          I think Daylilly is referring to the initial consummation of marriage since the actual consummation of a relationship is a one time thing, after that it’s simply being physically intimate with your spouse. In no way is a marriage less of a marriage based on one’s sex life.

          • Mike Hind says:

            The “initial consummation” is not a legal requirement.

            Therefore, the entire argument is moot.

      • Hannibal the Cannibal says:

        ok, so in that case, are you against old people marrying? or infertile people marrying?? Or is the ability to produce children only an issue when it comes to gay marriage? This argument is ridiculous.

    • Not that Stephanie H says:

      I got married at 6 months pregnant (so I certainly was no virgin). I’m pretty sure the bible bans premarital sex (Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 6:13, 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3).

      Thank goodness Bermuda isn’t a theocracy which has laws that require some sort of virginity test before issuing marriage certificates.

      So why should other bible verses dictate who gets to marry whom if other bible verses had no bearing on my marriageability? Clearly I was in violation of A LOT of biblical rules and yet I was allowed to get married? Strange.

      Strange indeed.

    • Crossway says:

      For decades, marriage has been weakened by our culture of convenience. This demotes marriage to little more than emotional intensity or legal privileges. We should all remember that marriage is about the needs of children rather than merely the misguided desires of adults.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No. It’s not. You’ve been shown to be wrong about this many, many times.

        Marriage is not about the needs of children.

        Here’s how this works. If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
        Like this:

        I made the claim that marriage is not about the needs of children.
        The evidence of this is:

        a. Having children is not a requirement of marriage. Therefore marriage doesn’t have to be about children.
        b. Having a child does not require marriage.
        c. Marriage gives many, many other rights that have absolutely nothing to do with children.

        Marriage CAN help children, but your premise, that “marriage is about the needs of children” is factually incorrect. As you have been shown repeatedly.

        And yet, you keep pushing this misinformation.

        If your position, that same sex couples should be denied equal rights and privileges afforded the rest of us, is so strong, why do you need to rely on misinformation to make your point?

        Why not just offer a valid, reality-based argument that can be defended?
        Surely you have one…

        • Daylilly says:

          Hey Mike, …. Oh I see, Nothing is a requirement of marriage. Marriage is about friends with benefits. We can have girl friends, boy friends, 2 friends or 4 friends, as many consenting adults as are willing to sign on the dotted line.

          Doesn’t sound like much of a definition of anything.

          Let’s give away the benefits and keep/preserve the definition of marriage.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nothing in this post has anything to do with anything I said.

            I have to ask again…

            If your position, that same sex couples should be denied equal rights and privileges afforded the rest of us, is so strong, why do you need to rely on misinformation to make your point?

            Why not just offer a valid, reality-based argument that can be defended?
            Surely you have one…

          • Lets get this straight says:

            The requirements for getting married in Bermuda:

            1) Completing a notice of intent to marry
            2) Choosing a wedding location (Civil Ceremony in the Registry General’s Marriage Room or a Religious Ceremony held anywhere else)
            3) Ensuring you have two witnesses
            4) Paying $354
            5) Being over 18 and freely able to marry (so not currently married and you have to provide divorce or death certificate for previous spouse)
            6) TWO Different gendered people entering into the marriage (although I’m not sure what our definition of gender is when it comes to people who have undergone gender reassignment therapy and have legally had their gender changed)

            THE ABILITY/DESIRE TO HAVE CHILDREN IS NOT A REQUIREMENT – so that argument is moot


            Only TWO people enter into a marriage. Sure, right now it says that those two people should be of different genders but that’s the part we want to change. NOT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.

            I personally do not have a problem with polygamy but I know that polygamy is too complicated a concept for our legal system to handle with things like spousal support, divorce settlements, child custody, and estate agreements. So I would not advocate to change the number of spouses a person can have (at the same time). I really don’t think I’ve seen a single person argue for that point except the bigots who are against Marriage Equality – but this is a common technique when you have no real argument: to shout down the other side with outlandish statements and muddy the waters of debate.

      • Daylilly says:

        Not that Stephanie H., That’s a great point but pre-marital sex is just that a “marital act” done before marriage. SSM Proponents want to redefine what the “marital act” is… and consequently “The Marriage Act”.

        Being free from sin is not a stipulation for marriage, being a man and a woman is. Among other things, marriage is designed to be an environment in which the two people required to make a baby will also be involved in raising the baby.

        Biblical restrictions are there to enable best outcomes. Data shows that best sociological outcomes parallel Biblical truths on morality.

        Jesus sacrifice removed the penalty of sin for ALL of those willing to accept it. John 3:16.

        • Not that Stephanie H says:

          Daylilly, I was under the impression that Christians are meant to murder those who have premarital sex (but lets face it just women because the bible is sexist) Deuteronomy 22:20-21 “But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

          But then again it’s hard to keep things straight when your bible goes back and forth on a lot of issues and then defends a lot of things which I find absolutely abhorrent.

          Also, I never said my husband was the father.


          Data shows that marriage and a healthy home environment is the best for society. Data also shows that Lesbian relationships are the most equal when splitting housework (when both spouses work out of the home). Data also shows that when a child is wanted that this child will do much better than an unexpected or accidental child. Who better to have wanted children than couples who are unable to get pregnant accidentally?


          I don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t believe your book is more special than any other book in the library. So why should it have any bearing on my life? Why is your religion more special and important than Buddhism or Native American spirituality or Atheism?

          If I told you that my imaginary friend Jessica is super cool and if you accept her into your heart then you won’t have to worry about independent thinking or personal morality, would you care? Would you be insulted? That’s how that feels.

          • Daylilly says:

            Hi Not that Stephani H….You obviously have some very strong opinions and beliefs. I won’t attack your personal beliefs you are very entitled to them. I wish you happiness and peace.

            In terms of children, sometimes the unexpected gift is the best one. All children, expected and unexpected are gifts and none are accidental, although some are unintentional. We all have a purpose.

            You may not believe in Jesus, but He certainly believes in you…. (not meant as an insult).

            • Not that Stephanie H says:

              You didn’t really address any of the points I made though

        • Mike Hind says:

          nope. Wrong. Again.

          “Not that Stephanie H., That’s a great point but pre-marital sex is just that a “marital act” done before marriage. SSM Proponents want to redefine what the “marital act” is… and consequently “The Marriage Act”.”

          Not true. The only thing that would need to change is 15c of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
          The Marriage Act wouldn’t be touched.

          And pre-marital sex is, by definition, not actually a marital act. You are misrepresenting what words mean now. Please stop.

          “Being free from sin is not a stipulation for marriage, being a man and a woman is. Among other things, marriage is designed to be an environment in which the two people required to make a baby will also be involved in raising the baby.”

          Incorrect. This has been explained to you many times. You ignore the truth and push these lies. Making and raising babies is NOT a requirement for marriage. You are spreading lies.
          This is NOT a restriction from getting married and, as such, is NOT an argument against same sex couples getting married.
          And the stipulation of being a man and a woman is exactly the crux of it.
          This stipulation is NOT reasonable, it’s not fair and there is absolutely no valid reason, based on the other stipulations, for it to be on the books. It is discriminatory and needs to be removed for that reason.
          I’m BEGGING you to offer a valid reason that it should stay.

          “Biblical restrictions are there to enable best outcomes. Data shows that best sociological outcomes parallel Biblical truths on morality.”

          Nonsense. This is purely a fabrication on your part.
          Why is it so hard for you to be honest?

          “Jesus sacrifice removed the penalty of sin for ALL of those willing to accept it. John 3:16.”

          This is a religious argument. You’re allowed to believe whatever you want.
          But the beliefs of your personal choice of religions have nothing to do with anyone else that doesn’t follow that choice. Thus, this has no place in this conversation.

          I’m begging you. Please stop spreading lies.
          It’s not good for Bermuda.

  2. I am a robot says:

    I really, truly believe in preserving marriage.

    That is why I will sign any and all petitions that ban divorce.

    • Daylilly says:

      I am a robot……That sounds like a great idea! You should ask Bernews to do a poll & start your own petition….Wouldn’t that be great…No divorce!

      Hmmm… perhaps people could start using some of the counselling services offered for free by many pastors. And maybe husbands and wives could learn to forgive one another. Hopefully your no divorce idea catches on.

      • I am a robot says:

        If you love my no divorce idea you’ll love my no religion idea!

        • Daylilly says:

          Robot… Well, except that religion establishes the premise for your no divorce idea.

          • I am a robot says:

            Except it doesn’t.

            The concept of a contract between two or more people/families/tribes and the ability to end said contract is a concept that predates Abrahamic religions

          • I am a robot says:

            That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

            Memes aside.

            Nope. Religion is not a perquisite of marriage and certainly not allowing people to exit a contract (which is all a marriage is) is not a new or unique thing. People who sign non-disclosure agreements are not allowed to break that contract.

            But really what is a contract but an agreement between two or more people/families/tribes/companies/countries etc

  3. Edward Case says:

    The growing concern is really that religious these folks aren’t able to get their own way through their perceived religious entitlement.

  4. Edward Case says:

    These religious folks aren’t able to get their own way.

    • Daylilly says:

      Ed, Preserve Marriage has religious people in the group, but the entire group is not religious. That’s like assuming that all people for SSM are gay.

      “These people” that you refer to are your neighbors and friends. Just as you are their neighbors and friends. We may not choose to like each other’s beliefs or lifestyles but we are all entitled to have them.

      Advocating for tolerance under the Human Rights Act would include advocating for the right to speech, beliefs and religion.

      • I am a robot says:

        The right to hold a belief does not entitle you to wield your belief over those who do not hold the same belief.

        I am an athiest. I do not care about what one person’s holy book says over another’s. I have friends of many different religious backgrounds from Christian to Jewish to Unarius to Zoroastrian to Hindu and yet I do not require them to all belief the same as me nor to I require my government to legislate that I am right and they are wrong nanny nanny boo boo.

        • Daylilly says:

          I am a robot… We are not requiring anyone to share the same religious beliefs. We are acknowledging the universal definition of marriage. This definition spans the entire globe from communist societies like Russia/China to polytheistic societies… 4200 religions, 500 gods 1 core definition of marriage. Isn’t that remarkable! Marriage is the 1 thing the whole world agreed on, looks like God got it right after all.

          Is the whole world a Christian hate group?

          Marriage is not a belief it is a definition. People may not believe in the sun and may call it another name but all over the world its benefits and attributes are described the same way.

          Marriage existed, then it was named. Not the other way around.

          • Mike Hind says:

            None of this is true.

            I mean, seriously. You can’t believe this nonsense, can you?

            1 core definition of marriage?

            Heck, the BIBLE has several different definitions of marriage, including multiple partners (who, legally, are in the marriage along with the other spouses… so… yeah… you’re wrong. Again.)

            An ad populum argument is not a valid argument. It’s a logical fallacy.

            Do you have an actual, valid, defensible, based in facts and reality, real, honest, legitimate argument for not removing 15c from the books?

            I keep asking. You keep refusing to answer.

            • Daylilly says:

              There are about 31,000 verses in the Bible and not 1 condoning SSM.

              • Mike Hind says:

                And not one of them apply to the life and relationship of anyone that doesn’t choose to follow that choice of religion.

                This is not an argument.

                Do you have one? Or will you continue to post easily debunked nonsense like you have been?

              • I am a robot says:

                There are 7 Harry Potter books and not 1 says that Jesus is real

              • Juice says:

                I particularly like the verses Ephesians 5:22-24…
                Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything
                Oh, and I Corinthians 14:34-35…
                Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church
                Or this one from I Corinthians 11:8-9
                For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man

                Know your roles women, know your roles!


              • lurch says:

                Means nothing. There’s not 1 verse in the bible condoning the ownership of motor vehicles, but we still do it.

                This is the level your common sense Pathetic.

                And, by the way, the bible is a work of complete fiction. It is not necessary to ever look at a bible in order to have a moral, upstanding life. The bible is irrelevant.

          • I am a robot says:

            I don’t really understand where you’re going other than marriage was a contract between two or more people/families/tribes to secure resources or alliances with many different rules regarding their length of time, ability to divorce, and amount of extramarital sex they could engage in.

            Marriage has never had the same definition across all time and all cultures. That is factually untrue.

            Homosexual marriage was practiced in the middle ages in Europe.

            “Marriage” has been practiced for “just one night” in some cultures it was a socially acceptable way for people to engage in premarital sex with someone who is probably not the best match for them in the long run – meaning they don’t have enough status/land/dowry.

            Polygamy has been practiced by MANY cultures (and yes, I’m talking about polygyny and polyandry)

        • allinlove says:

          Nobody in this group is trying to force their religion onto anyone. Like Daylilly said, there are non religious members of this group. Preserve Marriage is simply standing up for upholding the definition of marriage as defined in Bermuda law. The reality is that SSM advocates are pushing their lifestyle on a country that holds a majority of people who disagree with changing the law to redefine marriage.

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, not a single viable, reasonable, reality-based, defensible reason has been given for “upholding the definition of marriage as defined in Bermuda law”.
            Plenty have been given for changing it, equal rights being the biggie, but none for not changing it.

            You say people are “pushing their lifestyle on a country”…
            This is simply not true. The folks pushing THEIR lifestyle on the country are the folks trying to deny equal rights to others, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

            What SSM advocates are pushing for won’t affect anyone else’s relationship in any negative way.
            What you and your side are pushing for does. In very negative ways.

          • Common Sense says:

            I’m all for preserving marriage i.e. encouraging young women who are having babies to marry so they have an equal partner to help them raise their children. I’m also all for encouraging our married couples not to be adulterous and to make every effort to work through problems in their marriage. I mention being adulterous because I see it as a major issue in Bermuda that is having a negative impact on our society. Of course it is not illegal despite being one of the ultimate sins according to my bible, so quoting the bible to oppose SSM is hypocritical to say the least!

            I fully support SSM because the end result is that we would actually be “preserving marriage” by allowing loving couples to enjoy exactly the same human rights as we heterosexual couples. Allowing SSM will have absolutely no negative impact on my own marriage and I greatly resent the suggestion that amending the law to allow SSM in a registrar’s office would have any negative effect on “preserving marriage”. It has been now been enacted in many enlightened countries and the sky has not fallen down.

            • Nightlilly says:

              Unfortunately marriage does not mean an equal partner. Feminism does.

  5. Flattsboy says:

    Hamilton Princess GM Allan Federer told Bernews, “Our previous statement still stands. We don’t allow bookings that promote discrimination of any kind.To avoid this, any group will be asked to provide written details of their proposed event, which is a standard industry practice. ”

    That sounds fair to me, it almost sounds like they are treating everyone fairly unlike the members of ‘Preserve marriage’.

    • allinlove says:

      The overarching concern here is that written documentation was never required in the past. Faith based groups such as Heart to Heart have held their events at the Hamilton Princess for 20 years without this “standard insustry practice” that has suddenly appeared. Not to say that this practice isn’t something that should happen but if it is standard then it should also be included that it is a practice that has not been upheld until recently.

      • Zevon says:

        This religion thing causes a lot of hate doesn’t it.

        • Daylilly says:

          Zevon, there are just as many hateful people who don’t believe in religion. People choose their own tools for love or hate. There are hateful people everywhere, in and outside of church.

        • allinlove says:

          Religion doesn’t cause hate, people do. Just like guns don’t kill people, people do.

          • I am a robot says:

            I’d have a really hard time killing people if I was just throwing bullets at them

      • Verly says:

        @allinlove. Of course this wasn’t standard practice before, perhaps because SSM wasn’t on the radar before. Hamilton Princess has to change their stance to go with the changing tide. I’m able to go places that my grandparents weren’t allowed to, because the establishment’s policies changed due to the times we are in.

        • allinlove says:

          My point is if they say it is standard practice then it should have always been in play even before SSM was “on the radar”. SSM has been on the radar for at least 2 decades.

  6. Mike Hind says:

    And, after all of this, not one of these folks will put forth a valid argument – and then actually defend it! – against changing the law to allow same sex couples to share in the same rights that the rest of us have.

    • MoreBermuda says:

      Mike Hind, while i don’t appreciate your often inappropriate and aggressive approach, i think i understand your frustration. You keep trying to make marriage something that it isn’t (purposefully inclusive of only a man and a woman) and then deflect, ignore the facts, etc. While i respect and appreciate your heart for fighting others, you continuously fail to realize that you are trying to make marriage something it is purposefully not. How can that not result in anything but frustration? Dismantling marriage into a free for all immensely harms one of the core components of marriage directly affecting many of the important qualities derived from it. No matter how well intended you may be, that harm should not be allowed to happen.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And here we have another misrepresentation of my posts… and reality.

        I am not aggressive nor am I inappropriate. I simply ask questions and point out flaws in people’s arguments.
        And your post shows that you don’t actually understand my frustration.

        My frustration stems from people never actually offering a single valid reason to continue denying rights to same sex couples and their refusal to engage in any meaningful, honest way about the subject. Instead, they do as you do here and misrepresent what I have said, post complete untruths… for example: accusing me of deflection and ignoring the facts. No one has actually posted facts. They haven’t posted anything remotely resembling facts. They’ve posted opinion presented as facts, sure. But no actual facts.

        You liken SSM to “dismantling marriage into a free-for-all”, which… huh? How?
        It doesn’t. It simply doesn’t do that. It doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage. Allowing same sex couples to get married won’t have any effect whatsoever on anyone else’s marriage.

        And what “core component” of marriage – I notice you pointedly don’t mention what that is… odd that – will be harmed by allowing same sex couples to get married?
        Which “important qualities derived from” marriage will be “directly affected”?

        I’ve made my position very clear. It’s a shame you won’t.

        • I am a robot says:

          They don’t like facts. I pointed out that when the United States changed the law to allow interracial marriage it only had a 20% approval rate and forty years late it only had an 80% approval rate to show that maybe we shouldn’t let the majority dictate the rights of the minority…no body wants to hear that Everyone is here to find their own personal echo chamber.

          • Just saying says:

            You can’t liken an interracial couple comparison to a same sex couple comparison both relationships are fundamentally different.

            No matter your color a man and woman of any combination of race can have sex and produce offspring. It is discriminatory to say they can’t get married because its the same thing being treated differently.

            Now same sex couples are fundamentally different because they cannot do the same thing as heterosexual couples without medical help. Which is child bearing.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Producing offspring isn’t a requirement for marriage.

              This is not a valid argument.

            • I am a robot says:

              I know a heterosexual couple that got married and are unable to produce children – but thank goodness they were still issued a marriage license.

              If they did want children (which they do not) then they would probably need medical assistance. That medical assistance could either be a sperm donor (which means the husband would not be the dad) or an egg donor/surrogate (which means the wife would not be the mother) – this is really no different than a homosexual couple using either an egg/sperm donor or a surrogate to have children. IF THEY EVEN WANT CHILDREN WHICH NOT EVERYONE DOES.

              But THANK GOODNESS the ability/desire to have children and IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE.

              Even in countries which require a medical examination to issue a marriage license – they still don’t require the couple to have children after they are married.

            • bloopbleepbloop says:

              Comparing and interracial couple is exactly the same as comparing a homosexual couple in the fight for marriage equality because they are consenting adults who are being denied a fundamental human right by bigots.

            • Common Sense says:

              Many thanks to “I am a robot” for pointing out the attitudes of people in the U.S. when the law was changed to allow interracial marriage. That bigotry was no doubt ingrained in society at that time, and no doubt supported by many church groups. It’s the same with SSM. Tour caomparison is right on.

          • Daylilly says:

            Oh no, not the race card again.

            • Mike Hind says:

              You really have nothing of value to add to this conversation, do you?

            • I am a robot says:

              I could play the gender card and show that the bible was also used to support the anti-suffrage movement

              Genesis 3:16 – Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

              1 Corinthians 11:3 – But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

              1 Corinthians 14:34-36 – Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

              Ephesians 5:22-24 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

              Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

              1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

              Titus 2:4-5 – Teach the young women to be … obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

              1 Peter 3:1 – Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

        • MoreBermuda says:

          Here’s the fact again that you keep missing: marriage is purposefully defined as between a man and a woman and no amount of misinformation or aggression will change that. I keep thinking about what i can write to further explain that but that simple fact is already quite clear so my hope is that those that support SSM will eventually understand that vs. trying to make marriage what they want it to be.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Yeah. That’s what we’re trying to change, because it’s wrong and discriminatory and denies rights and privileges to citizens of our country for no good reason.

            You do realize that this post is saying “we shouldn’t get rid of this restrictive definition because that’s how it’s defined” right? It’s not an actual argument. You say “purposefully defined” but don’t say what the purpose is.

            And I’m begging… Please don’t say the purpose is to have children. I’m getting sick of pointing out that procreation isn’t a requirement for marriage.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I note that you didn’t respond to any of my questions…

            • allinlove says:

              Mike, are you aware that one does not receive notifications to see if someone commented on their comment? This person may be busy at work. Please be a little more considerate in allowing someone time to respond to you.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Huh? I was referring to his response to my post. Which was full of questions for him.
                He had already responded?

                Look, I know you’re desperate to paint me as the bad guy here, because you don’t like the questions I’m asking, but at least TRY to use a bit of honesty.
                Come on.

          • bloopbleepbloop says:

            Anti-Miscegnation laws meant that marriage was once defined as only able to take place between people of the same races – or really only whites and whites and POC could usually marry other POC but sometimes blacks were banned from marrying anyone but other blacks.

            And guess what? We changed the law and redefined marriage! YAY

      • HW says:

        Well said.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, it wasn’t. You know it wasn’t.
          He just agrees with you.

          Funny how you have time to post this here, but not to answer simple questions or give even the beginning of a real, valid, rational argument against removing 15c from the books and allowing same sex couples to get married.

  7. BLIND SHEEP says:

    another shining example of how religion turn people into blind and using the bible to only suit their views and total disregard of the rest of it. If you want to throw a bible to you view then you better condemn divorce…oh I’m sorry it will go against keeping you happy when shit goes south in three months.

    • HW says:

      As the article shows, work has been going on for many years to preserve and uphold marriage. There are a whole host of bad things that result when marriage is not taken seriously. Divorce is an example of that. However I don’t believe anybody is campaigning to say that divorce is a good thing that should be celebrated or equated to the ideal.

      • Mike Hind says:

        The “ideal” isn’t a stipulation for marriage.

        Divorce is legal.

        This is not an argument.

        • HW says:

          No, it’s what marriage itself IS. It upholds the ideal for the betterment of society. Not everybody abides or honors it in that manner but that’s it’s purpose for society.

          • Mike Hind says:

            No. It’s not. We’ve discussed this. Well, I have… And then you ran away, as usual.

            You keep pushing this “ideal situation” trope, as though it is a restriction against same sex couples getting married, without once backing it up with any story of evidence or data or facts.

            Marriage isn’t about the betterment of society. It is something that is between two people and, outside if those two people and those that they choose to be part of their circle, has nothing to do with anyone else.

            You’re desperate for reasons to deny people rights. This isn’t one of them.

      • serengeti says:

        This isn’t “preserving marriage” though is it. This is preventing marriage.

    • I am a robot says:

      The bible was also used to defend slavery

      • Purple says:

        Examples please?

        • I am a robot says:

          “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

          “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9). Different Bible so translated differently but: “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them” (Titus 2:9)

          “As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.” (Psalm 123:2)

          “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” (Ephesians 6:9)

          “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)

          “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (Peter 2:18)

          • Daylilly says:

            Wow. I see your true colors shining through.

            Um… You know the Bible was written before the Transatlantic slave trade.

            …and God also delivered slaves and many Christian missionaries fought and died because of verses from that very same book.

            • Mike Hind says:

              You do realize that the transatlantic slave trade wasn’t the only slavery to ever exist, right?

            • I am a robot says:

              My true colours being that when someone asked for examples of bible quotes which were used to defend slavery (both before, during, and after the trans-atlantic slave trade) I provided them

              Also, elsewhere on this thread I provided examples of bible quotes which were used to defend the anti-suffrage movement.

              The problem with the Bible is that it’s been translated and edited many times – there are many versions and on top of that the stories and quotes (like any written word) are open to interpretation and can and will be used to support whatever views you want.

            • Nightlilly says:

              Providing evidence that shows the actual Bible quotes that people used to defend slavery is not racist – it’s historical fact.

          • HW says:

            You have shown a lack of understanding. The punishment for kidnapping a person was death, so how could it condone slavery? ‘Slavery’ as we understand it through the perspective of the Atlantic slave trade or other forms of slavery, is clearly not what is being mentioned in those verses when speaking of ‘slaves’. The more appropriate term would be servants. People paid off their debts in this manner and it bears no resemblance to the slavery you’re attempting to say the Bible justifies.

            It does no such thing.

            • Mike Hind says:


            • I am a robot says:

              If the intended word was infact servant then one of the more recent versions of the bible must have translated it as such.

              My point is that the bible has many quotes which can be used to defend pretty much anything and has historically been used to do such.

              Regardless of how you are currently interpreting the bible doesn’t change the fact that in the past the bible was used to defend slavery and the anti-suffrage movement.

              People are currently saying that Leviticus has been mistranslated and that “abomination” should actually say something more like “not our custom”. So maybe the next version of the bible you read will say that homosexual relations aren’t (weren’t) part of the Jewish custom 6,000 years ago but it’s ok now – just like eating shellfish.

  8. I heart 441 says:

    The general manager makes no sense. He doesn’t allow the group to have their conference there but yet he says he welcomes diversity at the hotel is odd because he contradicts himself about wanting the hotel to have diverse conferences.

    • Family Man says:

      Do you not understand the meaning of diversity?

      Hosting conferences by the KKK and the Nation of Islam is not diversity. They’re just two competing hate groups. Likewise, hosting a lecture by your “Preserve Marriage” is just a bigoted talk group promoting discrimination.

      • anydeeng says:

        The NOI is not a hate group… how dare you put that with the kkk in any way.

      • Johnny says:

        First off, you have not described diversity in any way.

        Second, I have not heard more hate filled talk, than the talk I have read from the the proponents of safe sex marriage, they are hell bent to get what they want and will call anybody who doesn’t agree with them the most vicious names. To say that someone is like the KKK is one of the worst things you can say about a person.

        Third, If a person is not for gay marriage you automatically associate them with hate? Are you saying that just because a person does not agree with the gay lifestyle they are like the KKK? If someone believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, somehow they are like the KKK? The KKK is the biggest hate group around and have many gay members, and have been murdering people in the name of hate for hundreds of years.

        You want discrimination, how about people being put in jail and can’t leave the island for growing a plant? But you probably could care less about those people.

        • Family Man says:

          I’m all for safe sex, whether within marriage or not and I’ve never heard any talk promoting safe sex practices that can be referred to as hateful.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Yes. Because calling someone names is worse than denying people equal rights and privileges.

          And supporting SSM of COURSE means that you are anti-legalization of pot.
          Amazing. This is just lashing out. There’s no substance here.

          • I am a robot says:

            Yeah these anti-SSM groups are worse than the KKK. The KKK no longer (openly) holds any power yet you see these homophobic bigots proudly waving their bibles in the air

    • Mike Hind says:

      People supporting and promoting baseless discrimination and the continued denial of equal rights, as this group is doing and does, is the antithesis to diversity.

      • drd says:

        We are not talking about the people who oppose SSM. We are talking about Hamilton Princess. If they believe in diversity, then they must express that belief in the form of the definition of diversity ( Dictionary def: quality or state of having many DIFFERENT forms, types, ideas, etc.) This means allowing people who do not share the same view to express that view. We can not come up with our own definition of diversity to suite our agendas. This is the same as continually using the term HATE speech when it is not appropriate to the situation (UK law def:A person who uses threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, or abusive).

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’d say the denial of rights to citizens of Bermuda for absolutely no reason whatsoever was pretty abusive. Therefore… yeah.

          And, as I said, this group’s promotion of baseless discrimination is, in fact, the antithesis of diversity. The hotel has absolutely no responsibility to offer a venue to people spreading rationalization for discrimination.

          • Thinkforamoment says:

            Mind Hind…you constantly are on here discriminating Preserve Marriage people based on their stance and yet you seem to not realize that what you are actually doing is DISCRIMINATION. You say people who believe in preserving marriage are discriminators yet you are denying their right to freedom of speech. You are denying their right to stand for what they believe in. you and a lot of other people only look at the ‘religious aspect’ whereas in actual fact you all are forgetting that not just Christians believe in marriage between a man and woman. You can go to plenty of countries and look at their laws. Muslims Jews Hindus etc all believe in the same principle on which Preserve Marriage stands. People are making it a Christian battle whereas its a principle battle. To sit here and spew hatred and modern day terrorism because that is what it actually is (Look up the word terror) is ludacris. If Muslims started this organizations would people have the same reaction ? If Hindus would people have the same reaction? It’s ok to call Chrsitians Biggots Hypocrites and every other name under the sun basically degrading all that they are yet it’s not ok for them or all person to react ? This argument from day one has been bias because people have not stopped to really get a glance on everyone’s perspective. Every time something has to do with religion or anything of that nature people get on the defensive side. Homosexuals want a voice granted but their voice is not the only voice that should be heard. Yet unfortunately this is what this debate has become. It isn’t about freedom or equal rights cause if it was, EVERYONE would be entitled to their opinion. It is about siding with one group and if you don’t …you’re against them and everyone will bash who you are and your character without even knowing you. I encourage everyone to have a long look at themselves in the mirror and think about what they are saying and doing..

            • Mike Hind says:

              Here we go again.

              “Mind Hind…you constantly are on here discriminating Preserve Marriage people based on their stance and yet you seem to not realize that what you are actually doing is DISCRIMINATION. You say people who believe in preserving marriage are discriminators yet you are denying their right to freedom of speech. You are denying their right to stand for what they believe in.”

              I am NOT denying anyone their right to free speech. No one has been denied this right. Everyone is still allowed to exercise their right to free speech.
              The right to free speech is regarding the Government, not individuals.
              I’m not stopping anyone from speaking or expressing their views or “denying their right to stand for what they believe in”.
              The ONLY rights that are being denied are the rights denied to same sex couples. This denial is supported by Preserve Marriage. That is discrimination.
              Saying that this discrimination is wrong and asking for a single valid reason for it is NOT “denying their right to freedom of speech” in any way.
              You are misrepresenting the truth.

              “you and a lot of other people only look at the ‘religious aspect’ whereas in actual fact you all are forgetting that not just Christians believe in marriage between a man and woman. You can go to plenty of countries and look at their laws. Muslims Jews Hindus etc all believe in the same principle on which Preserve Marriage stands. People are making it a Christian battle whereas its a principle battle.”

              Do you want to re-read this and rethink what you’re saying?
              First off, I don’t “look at the ‘religious aspect’. I dismiss it. I’ve said repeatedly that someone’s personal choice of religion shouldn’t have any affect on anyone else’s life. Therefore, the first part of the first sentence is incorrect.
              Secondly, you refer to the “religious aspect”, which some do focus on… and then go and list other religions. “only look[ing] at the ‘religious aspect’ isn’t making it a “Christian battle”… the second part of this makes no sense.

              “To sit here and spew hatred and modern day terrorism because that is what it actually is (Look up the word terror) is ludacris.”

              Wait. Asking people for a valid reason to deny rights to Bermudians is “spewing hatred and modern day terrorism”? Seriously? Come on.

              “If Muslims started this organizations would people have the same reaction ? If Hindus would people have the same reaction?”

              Probably. It’s the position that people should be denied rights because of someone else’s choice of religion that is the problem, not the religion itself.
              Not sure how to make that clearer.

              “It’s ok to call Chrsitians Biggots Hypocrites and every other name under the sun basically degrading all that they are yet it’s not ok for them or all person to react ?”

              It’s only ok to do this when they are, in fact, being bigots and hypocrites.
              Like when they support denying rights to people for absolutely no valid reasons.
              Or when they demand that other people follow a list of rules that they don’t actually follow.
              And it’s perfectly fine for them to react. But freedom of speech does not preclude freedom from repercussions from that speech. People CAN oppose them. People can point out hypocrisy. People CAN respond to lies and misinformation.
              Freedom of speech is a two way street.

              “This argument from day one has been bias because people have not stopped to really get a glance on everyone’s perspective.”

              I keep trying to! I keep asking people to offer reasons why we should continue to deny rights to Bermudians and they never offer valid ones, based in reality. They never even defend the reasons they DO post. I have no problem with denying rights to people for valid reasons. Criminals give up their right to free movement around the country when imprisoned. Children are denied marriage rights because they cannot give consent. These are valid reasons.
              No one has offered a valid, defensible reason to deny same sex couples equal rights and privileges. Not once.

              “Every time something has to do with religion or anything of that nature people get on the defensive side.”

              Only when people demand that others should have to follow the rules of their personal choice of religions. Other than that, folks can believe whatever they want.

              “Homosexuals want a voice granted but their voice is not the only voice that should be heard. Yet unfortunately this is what this debate has become. It isn’t about freedom or equal rights cause if it was, EVERYONE would be entitled to their opinion.”

              Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. What they’re NOT entitled to is having that opinion affect anyone else’s life. They can believe that gay folks are sinners that are going to burn in hell all they want. Where the problem lies is when that belief starts affecting other people in a negative way.

              “It is about siding with one group and if you don’t …you’re against them and everyone will bash who you are and your character without even knowing you. I encourage everyone to have a long look at themselves in the mirror and think about what they are saying and doing..”

              And that is EXACTLY what people on your side are doing, saying really harsh and hurtful… and completely false… things about me and others who are asking questions.

              What they’re not doing is answering those simple questions.

              Now. Do YOU have a valid, reality-based, defensible argument for the continuation of denial of equal rights and privileges to same sex couples?

              • thinkforamoment says:

                First of all Mike..not once did I mention the denial of equal rights for homosexuals.. Not once. I did say they want a voice granted. That’s the only thing I mentioned on homosexuals…

                My argument if that’s what you want to call it was on the basis of discrimination… Mainly, discrimination towards preserve marriage..

                You constantly in your lengthy reply kept going back to homosexuals when in actual fact that’s not what my discussion was on.

                Second you say that preserve marriage is denying homosexuals equal rights…. Are you serious with this question?

                The FACT is that Preserve Marriage is just reiterating what the LAW states. They are not trying to make a new law or enforce a new law on anyone. They are simply stating FACT.

                People including yourself have to realize that what they are saying comes from the LAW.. if you can’t see that…well, I don’t know what else to say sorry.

                By the way before there is any confusion.. GOVERNMENT has implemented the law.. NOT preserve marriage.. So if you have a problem with that.. I suggest you go Cabinet Office or whoever else can solve your issue.

                Third.. You say everyone is entitled to their opinion but not entitled to having that opinion affect anyone else’s life..

                OK.. So, do not Homosexuals have an OPINION? Is not their OPINION that they deserve equal rights and they deserve the LAW to be changed to favor them.. Is it NOT their OPINION that the definition of MARRIAGE should be CHANGED?..I mean after all that’s what the whole campaign is about last I checked…

                So… With all that said.. Wouldn’t the result if Homosexuals get what they say they deserve AFFECT people’s lives aka people who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?? I don’t think that needs any more elaboration..

                Lastly.. Do you really want to go on the harsh and hurtful words?.. Really… All you have to do is scroll through the comments to see how much hurtful and hatred things are said about preserve marriage and it’s followers.. People are bashing them everyday all day..

                If they are not biggots they are hypocrites.. If they are not hypocrites they are some other word that is hurtful.. Not to mention they are bashing the Bible and everything else that they believe in.

                Yes, people on social media are harsh and cruel.. That’s a reality that shouldn’t be. It’s unfortunate that people have to name call to get a point across. But, again.. That’s how some people do it.
                I can only speak for myself and that’s not my character to name call.

                You are very passionate about same sex couples having equal rights.. You are on here constantly going back and forth with people.. Why don’t you attend a preserve marriage meeting and voice why you are so passionately against what they are saying.. I’m sure anyone is open to join the meeting as long as they are civil which I’m sure you are..

                Just a suggestion.. No sarcasm was intended.. I know words can get misinterpreted.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Most of that was already addressed… Or nonsense…

                  But this part needs to be addressed…

                  “Wouldn’t SSM affect people’s lives?” (Paraphrasing as I’m on the iPad and can’t copy/paste)

                  No. It wouldn’t. SSM won’t affect anyone’s life, other that the folks that will now be allowed to get married.

                  Or am I wrong? Do you have examples of how SSM will affect the lives of those that oppose it? You say you don’t think it needs any more elaboration. I say there hasn’t been ANy elaboration! Please. I’m dying to hear how SSM will affect other people’s lives.

                  As far as going to a Preserve Marriage meeting?
                  Maybe, if I ever hear one truthful, valid argument from them.
                  I haven’t yet. Until I do, there is no reason to go to a meeting of people who refuse to use honesty and facts and truth to make their point.

                  • thinkforamoment says:

                    Last response as I’m not a social media junkie.

                    I will not elaborate on what has already been said.That’s how continuous dialogue happens.

                    We have differing opinions and that is how it will remain. I’m fine with that.

                    I would suggest again you attend a Preserve Marriage meeting and voice your concerns.

                    You say people can’t answer your concerns or haven’t to the depth you would like so again, I suggest you attend and ask the leaders of the organization.

                    God bless and hopefully people are not continuous with hate speech towards you.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      But… That’s my point! It HASNT been said. I keep pointing this out! And here you are, yet again, pointedly NOT saying it.

                      It’s insane to me. You say nothing, then say “it’s already been said”. How is this level of dishonesty ok with you?

                      If the Preserve Marriage group had ANY valid arguments, they would have been proposed and discussed here. They would have been defended.

                      This has, simply, not happened. Not once.

    • Daylilly says:

      I heart 441 take the number of dislikes as a HUGE compliment! Thanks for pointing out the contradiction.

  9. Mary says:

    Take the church of the poison minds somewhere else ✈️

  10. Edward Case says:

    They won’t allow gambling here yet church folk sell you imaginary tickets to a place that doesn’t exist where you can only go after you die. The biggest con artists of all time. They should be banned entirely not just from princess.

    • Bill Stephens says:

      Religion is the “opium” of the masses and gears itself on the exposures of others.

      And churches do raffles and bingo too so they “gamble” but if you ask them they say it is only OK to gamble in the hosue / name of the Lord (can I get an Amen).

      What a bunch of hypocrites!

      Selling religion is like selling snake oil. If you truly think it will help to cure you then buy it and use it, but remember it is only snake oil and the true ability to heal is in your own mind and soul!

      • Nightlilly says:

        Full quote: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.

    • Ed, One day you may get your wish. Than you will get to see what you are prepared to do to people who do not agree with you.

  11. Edward Case says:

    Basically, religion poisons everything.

    • drd says:

      This comment is a little over generalizing. One could take from it you have something personal to share in regards to your feeling towards religion. One of the things that religion (especially us Christians) teaches us is forgiveness. The facts of this case is Hamilton Princess has historically allowed religious organizations to use their facilities without question. They are now stating that they vet all organizations who request to utilize their property. Any who do not fit “their” criteria of acceptable is not allowed to use their facilities. Do you not see the slippery slope in this statement.
      1. Who is the “they” who get to make this decision
      2. Even if their decision fits your belief system, what happens if their next decision is opposite to your belief system, will you suddenly feel they are being unjust, or will you still be concentrating on the things that you find objectionable about Christians. Don’t loose sight of the bigger picture.

    • HW says:

      Please advise me of one movement or group of people that is perfect and doesn’t have any bad within it.

      Surely you’re not saying all belief systems result in nothing but bad?

  12. Sorry Sir says:

    The irony. It kills me.

    A group complaining about their freedoms being taken away because they want to talk about not giving others freedom.

    Complaining about how they’re being treated disrespectfully while treating others disrespectfully.

    The irony…

  13. jt says:

    “Growing public concern”

    Says who? Prove it.

  14. Edward Case says:

    They should call themselves United in Hate. It would be more accurate.

    • HW says:

      Disagreeing with someone doesn’t equal hate. Bill. It’s unfortunate that you’ve got that perception

      • Mike Hind says:

        As has been explained to you many, many times, it’s not about the disagreement, it’s about the baseless denial of equal rights and privileges.

  15. Verly says:

    The so called “growing concern” is coming from their bigoted members that are finally figuring out their hate group isn’t quite getting the support that they hoped for.

    • drd says:

      Hmm, I count 7 people making statements here that are disparaging Preserve Marriage. You could be legally considered a Hate Group by the UK definition.

      See how easy that was….

      • Mike Hind says:

        Not according to the definition you posted up the thread.

        Also, individuals posting disparaging remarks does not a “group” make.

        You’re wrong.

        • Daylilly says:

          Remember your own words Mike.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I do.

            You, however, have shown, time and again that not only do you not remember MY words, you don’t remember your own!

            Any chance of getting a lucid argument out of you?

            Or will there just be more silly, false misinformation spread?

            Do you have a valid argument against allowing same sex couples to get married?

            Will you please post it?

            • Daylilly says:

              Again, your prevailing argument is accusing the other side of not having one…. Your plan B is to accuse your detractors of lying. Plan C, accuse detractors of hate, etc.

              You offer no real valid arguments, just have inciteful hatemongering.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Completely untrue, as always.

                I HAVE offered arguments. Not once have you addressed them.
                Just because you don’t have an answer to my very simple questions and, thus, ignore them, doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.
                I have made my position very, very clear.
                You have not. Well, now you have, on this page. All of your nonsense arguments are just an obfuscation for your real agenda: forcing everyone to follow the rules of your religion. That’s all this is about for you, isn’t it?

                No amount of glass-house trolling, accusing me of your own behaviour and attempting – weakly. I must add! – to throw my words back in my face is going to change that.

                My prevailing argument, as you know, but keep ignoring, is that the current law, as it stands, specifically 15c of the Matrimonial Causes Act, is unfairly and baselessly discriminatory and, as such, needs to be changed. It is unfair because it denies equal rights to citizens of Bermuda. It is baseless because there is absolutely no valid reason for this discrimination.

                That is my argument.

                Am I wrong? If so, why?

  16. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States of America summarizing the Justice’s majority decision that the Constitution of the United States grants the right for same sex marriage;

    “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con- demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
    Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

    • drd says:

      In this 5 to 4 decision, Justice John Roberts in his dissent, commented about the history of marriage and wrote that other cases that had changed aspects of marriage – like the Loving case – but none until now had changed its core structure as being between a man and a woman.
      The chief justice also suggested that the logic applied by the majority to same-sex marriage might also be employed to defend polygamy, writing, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”
      So if we are denying rights to those who want to have same sex marriage, why are you stopping there and not seeking to apply those rights to all who want it. By limiting it to include just those of SSM, are you not practicing the same bigotry to those polygamist as you claim we are doing to this cause. This becomes more about what one group wants, more than what is fundamentally right .

      • Mike Hind says:

        First off, Justice Roberts was wrong. When polygamy was taken off the books, it did, in fact change the core structure of marriage being between a man and woman. So… yeah. That’s wrong.

        Secondly, as for polygamy, there’s a couple of things…

        One. People aren’t asking for polygamy on a societal level. Therefore, people aren’t “practicing the same bigotry”. SSM activists aren’t saying “Same sex couples… and ONLY couples!… should be allowed to get married”. They’re saying “Within the structure as it stands now, the issue that applies to us is the “man and woman” one.” This does NOT mean they’re demanding the “one/one” part stay in.

        Two. If people DID start a movement to remove the “one/one” restriction in order to allow for polygamy, you have absolutely no evidence that SSM supporters would be against it.

        This argument is false and is absolutely not a reason to continue denying rights to citizens of Bermuda.

      • I am a robot says:

        I have always been a supporter of polygamy. I mean, if consenting adults want to enter into a relationship – why not? There are many people who are polyamorous and that lifestyle works for them. Who am I to tell them: I don’t like this thing. It makes me uncomfortable. It is something I wouldn’t choose for myself and therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

        The problem in polygamy lies in the legal implications of divorce, child custody rights, spousal support, splitting of assets. It would be very messy. Our current legal system has limitations. Maybe someone will come up with a better idea but for now it is much easier for one person to have one legal spouse and then they can divvy up everything else in their will as they see fit.

      • M.C. Beauchamp says:

        Justice Robert’s dissenting opinion is a minority opinion. That’s why it is called dissenting. The majority of the Justices make law, in this and every case that comes before the court. The constitution of the United States is interpreted in final form by the sitting Justices of the day. Your argument is with the established law as given by the Supreme Court of the United States. You may approve of the dissenting members of the Court, but their reasoning did not carry the day.

  17. allinlove says:

    Does anyone not see that that this is a road leading to denying a person their right to practice their faith? If the hotel wants to celebrate diversities, why deny a speaker who has been there many times before who is NOT practicing hate speech? Church groups are not walking around with picket signs at these conferences and they are not forcing anyone to attend their conferences and they are not saying “we hate ___ people”. They are inviting people who WANT to come out of their own will at a place they want to pay for them to be there because of their wonderful services. I suppose the term “hate speech” is now being used towards anyone who speaks about the opposite of what they believe in…

    • Rhonnda aka Blue Familiar says:

      The reality is that a hotel is private property and as such they have the right to choose who they allow to use their property.

      If the churches don’t like this fact, then they’d best be prepared to have their own rights on who can and can’t use their properties taken away.

      • Johnny says:

        I am sure you would have no problems then if people refused to service people because they are gay. I mean what’s good for the goose has to be good for the gander, or should I say goose.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Um. No. Because gay folks are protected from discrimination.
          This group is in support of that discrimination…

          It’s not the same

          • allinlove says:

            This group is in support of keeping the definition of marriage as it currently stands according to Bermuda law.

            • Mike Hind says:

              And that definition is discriminatory. Hence what I said.

              An unjust law is still unjust.

              And no valid reason has been given for keeping the definition.
              Valid reasons HAVE been given for removing 15c.

              So… yeah.

              It’s not the same. This group supports baseless discrimination against Bermudian citizens.

              • allinlove says:

                Then it would seem that you are going against the government and not this group. Have a good night!

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Wait… what?

                  This doesn’t even make a lick of sense.


                  I can’t even…

                  THIS is the level of discourse?


              • drd says:

                Same tune…. And religious beliefs are also protected ..along with sexual orientation.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Yes. They are.

                  And keeping 15c on the books continues discrimination against same sex couples.

                  Therefore, it needs to change.

                  However, no one’s religious beliefs were infringed upon here.

          • Daylilly says:

            This group is not speaking out against “gay folks”. How arrogant to think that all LGBT people think your way.

            Many “gay folks” are not for SSM

            • Mike Hind says:

              Oh, lord. Here we go again with the silly nonsense.

              You really are incapable of offering anything of value to this conversation, aren’t you?

              I mean, all these posts and not once have you said anything even remotely looking like a valid argument.

              And here you are again, arguing about something I didn’t say.

              Come on.

              You have to be better than this.

            • I am a robot says:

              Many straight folks aren’t for marriage either but that doesn’t mean they want to deny the rights to other folks

        • Rhonnda aka Blue Familiar says:

          Personally, I’m a fan of treating everyone, save those advocating or enacting violence, equally.

          However, if Churches can choose to say who can and can’t use their spaces, and hotels can do the same, then yes, other businesses should have the freedom to also make that choice.

          What would be best, in this case, is if people put signs up stating that they don’t serve ‘whoever’ so we all know where to do our business, and then we can see who actually survives being bigoted.

          • drd says:

            I can’t speak for all religions, but Christian churches do put up a sign. Its called the Bible, open to all who want to read it before trying to use a church for an event. If the Hamilton Princess would release an official document on their rules of use of their space then I would love to read it as well. Then I could decide to do what every person in this country has the right to do…. Take my business to the place of my informed choice.

            • I am a robot says:

              The problem with the bible is 1) there are MANY versions 2) they are stories which are open to interpretation

              The bible has been used to defend slavery

              They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, “slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5), or “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9).

              as well as genocide, child abuse, murder, and rape (based on interpretations of verses).

              But what about all the things the bible bans that we do anyway? Where is the justification for these actions? Where are the groups trying to change the laws to prevent us from eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), cutting the corners of our hair (Leviticus 19:27), wearing clothing of mixed materials (Leviticus 19:19 ) and gold/pearl jewellery (1 Timothy 2:9)?

              I mean granted, most of these laws are from the old testament which most Christians don’t adhere to as law but so is the quote (Leviticus 18:22) they’re using to justify denying equal rights for all people to marry.

              • Daylilly says:

                If you really, really, really want to learn the Bible try studying it fully. Also a book called Customs and Manners of Bible Times would educate you as to why your comments are uninformed.

                • I am a robot says:

                  Unfortunately for you I am not uninformed. I understand that the bible is a historical document that talks about the customs of a group of people from thousands of years ago that has since been translated multiple times and heavily edited.

                  I don’t really think a deeper reading of this book will enlighten my life more than reading A Brave New World or Beloved.

            • serengeti says:

              Following the things in the bible is not a prerequisite for using a church hall. I’ve seen plenty of shellfish eaten in church halls. And plenty of divorced people, single parents, you name it.

      • allinlove says:

        A hotel is not private. Anyone who has money can walk in to dine at their restaurants and stay in their rooms because their specific purpose is to cater to the PUBLIC.

      • aas says:

        Someone said it!

    • Mike Hind says:

      No one is denying people the right to practice their faith. This is simply not true.

      The problem isn’t the opinions, it’s about the denial of equal rights and privileges to same sex couples for absolutely no reason.

      Giving people the ability to get married will NOT affect how anyone practices their religion.

      • allinlove says:

        At the end of the day, access to a place that was used many times before for similar purposes was denied. The only thing that’s being denied is the redefinition of Bermuda law that says marriage is between one man and one woman.

        • Mike Hind says:

          This doesn’t even make sense.

          Your last sentence shows a complete lack of understanding of this subject.

          The “denial” of “the redefinition of Bermuda law that says marriage is between one man and one woman”, as you call it, IS the denial of equal rights and privileges to same sex couples for no reason. How are you missing that?

    • blankman says:

      allinlove, if you think the hotel should allow this group does that mean that you believe that the churches should allow same-sex marriage advocates to hold meetings in the church?

      • allinlove says:

        If this was a case in which the hotel never allowed churches to hold events in the first place because of a concern of discrimination, it would be a different story. There is an expectation of neutrality at a hotel, an expectation of a non biased location. A church is differnt. There is a common understanding of what churches will and will not allow. The reality is that someone would not ask a church for their space if they do not agree with what that church practices. If they do, it is most likely out of spite.

        • Common Sense says:

          Allinlove has a good point when stating that there is a common understanding of what churches will and will not allow. It is clear that at this point in time our churches in Bermuda will not allow SSM in their places of worship, and that is their right. To the best of my knowledge no-one is denying churches this right – there is total freedom to do so. In fact, I fully support their right not to have SSM in their places of worship.

          However, I fully support the legalization of SSM which can take place in the Registrar’s Office and has no impact whatever on our churches and their congregations.

          By all means use the power of our churches to support and strengthen marriages, to encourage our young people to marry before having children (who will always be better off having two loving parents) and to provide counselling to married couples who are experiencing marital problems.

          But it’s time to realize that times have changed, that same sex couples are not in any way a threat to those of us who are married, and that at the end of the day same sex couples are actually supporting the institution of marriage – not destroying it.

  18. Edward Case says:

    Where ever they eventually hold their hate event, they will have a collection. They will probably throw the money in the air and ask God to take what he wants. United in Hate will keep the rest.

    Religion. Conning people for millennia.

    • Rhonnda aka Blue Familiar says:

      I don’t think it’s right use the term ‘hate’ . I think it’s more like fear.

      • Edward Case says:

        Nobody is born with hate. The churches Teach people to hate. It is the worst problem the world has – religious hate.

      • Common Sense says:

        Well said Rhonnda. You have hit the nail on the head. The real problem here is fear, or what might be called “moral panic”. It is sometimes suggested that the whole institution of marriage will be destroyed if SSM is allowed, but that is really quite ridiculous.

        The vast majority of us are heterosexual and we will continue to fall in love with, and marry members of the opposite sex. I sincerely wish same sex couples the same level happiness and joy I’ve been fortunate enough to share with my wife of almost 50 years.

    • Ed, You are wrong. Religion is a way that a person chooses to live. They have that right. Does the baker now have the right not to bake a wedding cake for you, or must he go out of business???

      • Mike Hind says:

        If you do business, you aren’t allowed to illegally discriminate.
        That’s what the bakers did.
        So… no. They don’t have that right.

        • allinlove says:

          So Mike, since the hotel does business with people who want to book events and/or conferences, don’t they not have the right to discriminate either?

          • Mike Hind says:

            They are allowed to deny service for reasons they see fit.

            Can you explain how they did so illegally, like the bakers did?

            • drd says:

              You keep ignoring the fact that discussion about maintaining a current law is not illegal. So denying a group who wants to discuss this could be considered the same.

              Would you consider it unjust for the hotel to ban a group that wanted to have the same rights to speed as the police. Or a group who fought to maintain the active discrimination of forced military enrolement of women ?

              • Mike Hind says:

                So… no, then?
                You can’t explain how what they did is illegal?

                Got it.

            • allinlove says:

              That means they are allowed to discriminate based on their opinion of what they think these churches represent which may be very well in violation of the human rights act that prevents discrimination of persons according to their religious beliefs. But that’s another story…

              • Mike Hind says:

                And yet, no one has taken them to the HRC.

                AND they said that it wasn’t a religious thing…

                so… yeah… this is not a real thing.

      • Edward Case says:

        Not sure what you actually think I am wrong about. Again you are not making sense. Stick to buying with no money down.

      • Common Sense says:

        Is it possible that you are wrong Rodney? Did the waitress working in a prominent Hamilton restaurant really have the right not to serve a customer who she believed was gay? Can a parent walk into a school and demand that the teacher of his or her child must not be gay? Should a bus driver be subjected to abuse and ridicule by a passenger who believes that he or she might be gay?

        Yes, “Religion is a way that a person chooses to live”. But it does not give anyone the right to breach the Human Rights Act in any way. At the end of the day this is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.

        • Edward Case says:

          Very well said Common Sense. Religious entitlement is the problem here.

          Religion should give you no more right than anyone else to discriminate. Unfortunately, there are those like mr Smith who believe it does.

  19. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    The following is a list of Countries that embrace Same Sex Marriage and where it is legal for partners of the same sex to marry and receive full recognition under the laws and constitutions of these States:

    Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, United Kingdom (England, Scotland & Wales), Luxembourg, Finland, Ireland, The United States.

    So many countries permit Civil Unions between Same Sex partners that the list is too long to be included in a comments post.

    • HW says:

      Only 21 out of 193 countries have legalized same sex marriage I believe.

      • Mike Hind says:

        So far…

        We will, soon. That’ll be 22.

        • bloopbleepbloop says:

          Unfortunately we won’t be counted that way in the statistics. We are a territory not a “country” as defined by having a seat in the UN

          • Mike Hind says:

            (Pssst! The point I was trying to make was that we’ll have SSM soon and that his point is going to be moot.)

            • bloopbleepbloop says:

              Hahaha I know. But I got in a discussion about this in a different thread on a different article and I didn’t make the point this time but my point was that yes, 21 or so ENTIRE countries have legal same sex marriage but that statistic doesn’t include all the territories, provinces, and states that may also have legalised it.

              • Mike Hind says:


                But, of course, we should ignore that.
                There’s only 21… DONT SAY “SO FAR!”

      • M.C. Beauchamp says:

        The post above states that “so many countries permit Civil Unions between Same Sex partners that the list is too long to be posted in a comments post.” The majority of countries on Planet Earth either have SSM or Civil Union, with many more moving to legislate these basic human rights.

  20. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    President Barack Obama’s Remarks on the Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality, June 26, 2015;

    “…This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. That all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love.

    This decision will end the patchwork system we currently have. It will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face from not knowing whether their marriage, legitimate in the eyes of one state, will remain if they decide to move [to] or even visit another. This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land.

    In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.”

    • Daylilly says:

      President Obama was against the SSM agenda until he the SSM lobbyists/ HRC and the financial power behind them encouraged a change of heart.

      • Zevon says:

        Obama campaigned on the subject of gay rights. In fact he took up the cause in at least one of his Presidential debates. Are you saying he just did it for money? Another lie you’re prepared to spread is it?

      • Mike Hind says:

        You will literally say anything that pops into your head in order to push your agenda, won’t you.

        It’s so sad that this level of dishonesty is ok with you!

  21. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    The former Archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu has said that he fights forget rights because “It’s God catching me by the neck.”

    “It isn’t that it’s questionable when you speak up for the right of people with different sexual orientation. People took some part of us and used it to discriminate against us. In our case, it was our ethnicity; it’s precisely the same thing for sexual orientation. People are killed because they’re gay. I don’t think, “What do I want to do today? I want to speak up on gay rights.” No. It’s God catching me by my neck.”

    “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about Apartheid. For me, it is at the same level.”

    • Daylilly says:

      “In 2013, Tutu famously said he would never worship a “homophobic God” and will rather go to hell. At the time, his daughter’s lesbianism was not publicly known.”

      Bishop Desmund Tutu’s quote was the love of a father accepting his lesbian daughter… That’s wonderful! I believe God does want us to treat everyone He created with dignity and respect.

      He also wants us to treat His Word and Laws with dignity and respect. We can love everyone without agreeing with everything they do.
      Some people say they believe God’s Word but deny its application when it becomes inconvenient & no longer politically correct.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No one is stopping anyone from believing or following their religion.

        But your personal choice of religion is YOURS. It’s your choice. It’s not anyone else’s and shouldn’t affect anyone else’s life.

        This is the crux of the whole problem.

        • drd says:

          There is a scientific principle that states that by interacting with another object, you affect that object. Everyone’s personal choices affect someone else’s life.
          The same statement you used has been used by many drug addicts to justify their reason for continuing their drug use. It was their choice and they were not hurting anybody….Until their action hurt somebody.
          Laws by nature are decided by the many coming together and deciding what personal freedoms they are willing to give up for the common good. People with religious beliefs are also part of those decisions.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Annnnd… none of this… makes any sense.

            What personal freedom would religious people be giving up if 15c was removed and same sex couples were allowed to get married?

          • Bloopbleepbloop says:

            I’m really just too frustrated right now with your lack of empathy and basic human kindness and decency to really type anything that will move the conversation forward. Just know that I am very disappointed in you, as a human being.

      • serengeti says:

        But there is no “His Word”. God is a mythical being. If you’re basing your position on SSM in any way related to what you think your version of God would like, you’re just wrong. God does not exist.

      • Common Sense says:

        It appears that Daylily is dismissing the fact that Bishop Desmind Tutu has been an outspoken advocate of basic human rights for many, many years, and that includes speaking out against homophobia and for equal human rights for gays. In fact his country of South Africa was one of the first countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage.

        Daylily seems to be suggesting that Bishop Tutu is denying the application (of God’s word) “when it becomes inconvenient and no longer politically correct.” With all due respect this is really grasping at straws.

  22. Judas says:

    Religion and politics should never mix period

  23. anydeeng says:

    Lol these religous folk wanna follow the bible when its convenient…

    the bible says to kill people who work on sunday… so whens that campaign coming?

    • Mikasa.A says:

      Nitpicking at its finest

      • drd says:

        Can you please give me the part of the Bible where this is written…

        • bloopbleepbloop says:

          Exodus 35:2 “Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”

          Numbers 15:32-41 “While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.”

          Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

          Colossians 2:16-17 “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

          Matthew 12:1-14 “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?”

          So for some the Sabbath is still a Saturday but in the majority of Christianity the day of rest has traditionally been the Sunday.

    • Just saying says:

      Which bible are you reading?

      • Bloopbleepbloop says:

        God, there’s like a million version, right? ugh so frustrating! Which one is the RIGHT one. We need some Highlander action to sort this out.


  24. Coffee says:

    We can all agree that where we spend our money is a personal choice .

  25. Edward Case says:

    The church would be the first to deny anyone from renting their church hall if it didn’t exactly fit their hateful church agenda. This is religious entitlement at its worst. They should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately they are too blind to see their own hate.

    • Happy Onion says:

      I also believe it is about time religious organizations lost their charitable status!

    • allinlove says:

      Can you please explain where any hate is coming from this article? Or can you clarify what you mean by “hateful church agenda”?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Denial of rights. This has been explained to you many times.

        • drd says:

          And as I explained earlier, using your definition of “hate” does not necessarily make it correct either. Calling a turtle a bird over and over again will not make it become a bird.

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, according to YOUR definition of hate, I’m correct.

            Weird that.

            As a newcomer to this discussion (i assume… I don’t recognize your “name”), I’ll ask you…

            Can you provide a valid, real, defensible argument against allowing same sex couples to get married and share in the same rights and privileges that marriage provides?

          • allinlove says:

            It’s not my own concieved definition. I am asking where in this article is there an example of hate and what is meant by “hateful church agenda”? An experince has been shared and it is automatically interpreted as hate without any validation as taken from this article or even a personal experience? The only agenda here is standing by what the law says now about marriage itself, not people.

        • allinlove says:

          Thank you Mike but my comment was directed to the person who used the term “hateful church agenda”.

  26. LOL says:

    Anyone up for booking cornerstone for a “Promoting Positive Partnerships” meeting in favor of equal rights for marriage? Or is that not okay? I think its a growing concern that they fail to realize that restricting same sex marriages will not restrict same sex couples from raising children, nor will it promote it.

    Its funny to see how people come up with their own reasoning for their lack of empathy and being stuck in their ways.

    GROW UP!

    • drd says:

      When you say ” stuck in their ways” do you mean following biblical teaching ?

      • bloopbleepbloop says:

        I see a lot of those people picking and choosing which biblical teaching to follow.

        Eating Shellfish?

        Wearing clothing of mixed material?

        Premarital sex?


        Cutting the corners of their hair?

        Stoning to death those who disobey the laws of the bible?

        Dressing modestly?

        Engaging in sex for pleasure and not procreation?

        Working on the Sabbath?

        You can’t pick and chose which rules fit you most at which times

        • Daylilly says:

          Your comments display your lack of understanding. Perhaps you should attend a Bible study.

          • Common Sense says:

            Perhaps Daylily can point out which of the biblical teachings listed by bloopbleebloop are false or untrue. I’m a little disapponted though that bloopbleebloop was so negligent in not making any reference to adultery which in not only against God’s law, but for which the punishment is clearly laid down.

            • bloopbleepbloop says:

              tehehe we might need to get Daylilly the contact information for the nearest burn unit

      • serengeti says:

        “Biblical teaching…”?

        There’s a paradox for you.

      • LOL says:

        No, I mean removing the rights of others due to beliefs founded on scriptures chosen by old, evil, power crazed men hundreds of years ago. When and if it suits their need to feel important within their group.

        Or am I missing something?

  27. Happy Onion says:

    I find it amusing that the Roman Catholic Church priests are involved in this campaign and their beloved religion doesn’t allow them to marry, so how in the world do they know what marriage is all about! Another thing that makes me laugh is that many couples are choosing not to be married in churches or by ministers now, you would think they would be more concerned about that as after all the the Church is a business!

  28. Johnny says:

    You all trying to force this stuff on us and then get mad when nobody likes your idea.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not sure which side you’re talking about…

      But… for the record, the only people “forcing stuff on us” are the folks forcing the rules of their personal choice of religions onto the rest of society.

      The rest of us are simply trying to not have this any more.

      • allinlove says:

        For the record, it’s already Bermuda law that says marriage is between a man and a woman so really who’s trying to force what on whom?

        • Mike Hind says:

          You. Your side is trying to continue force your religious rules onto everyone else, whether they believe or not.

          The folks supporting same sex marriage aren’t forcing anything on anyone.

          Your life won’t be affected in a negative way by this.

          • drd says:

            Do you mean all religious rules or just the ones you disagree with, I just want to be clear about this. Maybe you can list the religious rules you have a problem with, making sure you define which religious group you are referring to. By the way, I hope coveting thy neighbor’s wife isn’t on the list because that is non-negotiable for me (and you too I hope)..

            • Mike Hind says:

              More nonsense from you.

              You really don’t understand the problem here at all, do you?

              “Coveting your neighbor’s wife” isn’t illegal, therefore it’s not being forced on us.
              I’m willing to bet that any other you list that IS illegal has victims.

              SSM has no victims.

              You’re getting more and more ridiculous as you get more and more desperate.

        • bloopbleepbloop says:

          One time it was law that people of different races couldn’t marry and that I could own slaves but we forced people to change those laws – I think it worked out pretty well

  29. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Washington Post, December 6, 2013;

    “As we celebrate the life of Nelson Mandela, who died yesterday at the age of 95, I want to make sure he is heralded for doing something no other head of government has ever done. As the first president of post-apartheid South Africa in 1996, Mandela ushered in that nation’s new constitution, which included protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The first of its kind.

    Chapter 2, Section 9 of the Bill of Rights is clear. “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.” This is an echo of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1868. But the South African constitution goes a step farther. “Everyone is equal before the law” is defined in subsection 3.

    The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”

    Too much sophistry from the “Preserve Marriage” crowd.

    • drd says:

      I am all for using complicated words but since the one you used meant to use an argument that sounds true but is actually false, how are you defining the argument to be false ?

      • M.C. Beauchamp says:

        This is a classic “bait and switch”. Do you prefer that phrase over sophistry?

  30. Lois Frederick says:

    I really like that the Hamilton Princess is supporting diversity. I support traditional marriage too, but I also accept that others should have the right to live their lives freely with equal rights.

  31. Edward Case says:

    The indoctrination of young children with this religious rubbish is where it starts. That is where it should be banned. It is nothing less than child abuse. Filling innocent minds with religious lies and threats of eternal fire in hell. It poisons their minds before they are old enough to know any better.

    • Daylilly says:

      Ed Case are you atheist or agnostic? Why? It seems to me that we ALL believe in a God and most of us go to a church. Some people idolize & believe only in themselves, some idolize other people, money, material gain, celebrities, intellectualism, creation, etc.

      We all believe in heaven or hell, our perceptions may differ as to what heaven & hell is and how it looks, but in our hearts we have an ideal imagery when those words are used. Ed, you were told about hell but heaven is just as real.

      Most people get together and have “church” where they sit in groups and discuss their beliefs; and some gather to share their unbelief. We buy books inspired by God and penned by men or books by men denying that God exists.

      We all have a God some of us just don’t know it.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. You’re… I know this’ll be a shocker… WRONG.

        We don’t ALL believe in a God.
        We don’t all believe in heaven or hell.

        This whole post is not true at all.

        • drd says:

          But its true that trying to teach children that a male child should grow up and bond with a female to create children that they should stay together to raise in a unit that humans have historically called marriage is not true. COME ON, now that is what I call sophistry.

          • Mike Hind says:

            This is a nonsense statement. It makes no sense at all.

            And is rather sexist.

        • Daylilly says:

          Some people believe in the gods of self, celebrity, power, money, materialism, intellect, etc.

          Some people believe heaven is living in Bermuda, some people believe hell is having a bad day at work.

          The point is that most people worship something, whether they realize it or not.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Now you’re rewriting your own words! First it was ALL and now it’s some and most?

            You can’t even be honest with yourself!

          • Nightlilly says:

            Your definition of religion is wrong.

      • aas says:

        Who is this “we all”???

        I do not believe in god, religion or heaven/hell.

  32. Keeping Pace says:

    Reading the posts tonight is like watching a bad movie plot play out. Some of you need to go back and slowly read your posts. You are using the very same hatred you are accusing those who are for the preservation of marriage of demonstrating. This is very sad because no one is saying that they hate you. Because they do not see marriage from your perspective does not mean you are hated. It is just a different perspective. Also you are attacking the church but there are atheists, Muslims, and those who want nothing to do with religion or the church who are passionate about preserving marriage yet all we hear is the screaming at the church. If you have an issue with Christians I put it to you that it is not the individual Christian you have a problem with but with what the Word of God says which makes it clear that what you are doing is a sin and because you cannot refute this you attack those who support it. I come to this conclusion because they are the only demographic you are attacking when they are not the only demographic who want to see marriage remain as it is. Stop the hate speech and bring constructive arguments to the table. What you are doing is detracting from your cause. Think before you post.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I keep asking for “constructive arguments” but no one actually ever offers one.

  33. Nova49 says:

    I continue to support traditional marriage…..and yes I do I love my island people, ALL of them!

    • Bloopbleepbloop says:

      Traditional marriage: Where actually liking your spouse wasn’t really of great concern.

      In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as “disgraceful.” In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

      Same-sex unions aren’t a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples’ gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as “spiritual brotherhoods” — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss.

  34. Razor says:

    Diversity consist of hearing two sides. Hamilton Princess seems to only want to promote one side. It’s obvious. No hotel asks for details about what someone is speaking about! That’s ridiculous!

  35. Razor says:

    It amazes me how many for same sex marriage seem to hate the church and religion. when churches in Bermuda have done so many good things for this Island: feed programs for schools, shelters, drug rehab programs, GED programs, mentoring in schools, and the list goes on. Many of you probably don’t appreciate the many things that church does – BUT stick to the debate and don’t hate on the church. Have some respect for people of faith who are all over this Island.

    • Mike Hind says:

      We’re TRYING to stick to the debate!

      But then someone brings up Leviticus or “It’s against God” and then the religion haters come out and talk their stuff and it all gets tangled up in religion again!

      • drd says:

        OK heres the non-religious debate. Male and female genitalia has been biologically adapted to work together in order to best create life. The Uterus is created to support the holding of a fetus until it is able to survive in the outside of the womb on a basic level. The science of behavior showed the more complex the gestation time and the longer the time it takes a baby to fully mature, the more complex and extended the bonding of the genetic parents of the fetus will be. That is called nature, survival of the fittest, evolution, oh, and what we call MARRIAGE.. Sure sex is fun, but the enjoyment of it does have a biologic purpose. There is no guarantee of pregnancy, but there is not always a guarantee that there wont be one.

        • Sabrina says:

          This is a brilliant post!

        • jono says:

          What does creating life have to do with marriage bro?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nope. Not true.

          Procreation and the ability to have children is not a stipulation, requirement nor necessity for marriage.
          Marriage is not a requirement for procreation.

          This argument isn’t valid. It simply just isn’t.


        • aas says:

          Because I do not want to reproduce my marriage is void in your eyes?

        • Not that Stephanie H says:

          The ability and willingness to have children is not a prerequisite of marriage. If it were so then infertile people, those unwilling to have children, asexual people, and post-menopausal women would be barred from marriage. They are not.

        • Common Sense says:

          There is another side to drd’s comments which are never taken into consideration during the debate on SSM. We now know far more about sexuality than our ancestors did because modern science has made enormous strides in understanding the role played by our chromosomes, genes and DNA and embryology in establsihing our gender and sexual identity.

          In is an indisputable medical fact that some babies are born with “ambiguous genitalia” and cannot be clearly identified as male or female at birth. Estimates on the number of such babies range from 1 in 1,200 to 1 in 4,000, and make no mistake we will have babies born here in Bermuda with this condition.

          For most of the past 50 years babies born with very small male genitalia were given “gender re-assignment surgery” which has often proved catastrophic (just read about the John/Joan case to see what can go wrong with gender re-assignment surgery.)

          We now understand far more about chimeric babies, born with two sets of DNA, who can be half male and half female (Oprah devoted a show to this condition).

          And what about babies born in the Dominican Republic commonly referred to as “Guevedoces” who appear to be female at birth in every respect but develop male organs on reaching puberty?

          This is not intended to suggest that gay people in general have some kind of faulty gene, but rather that some of our fellow human beings (created in God’s image) are different from the majority and should not be blamed or condemned in any way for being different.

          Far from it, our fellow human beings should be treated with equal human rights, and should be allowed in this 21st century to marry the person of their choice. Whether it is is one of the Guevedoces who is classified at birth as female, and then becomes male at puberty, or children who were subjected to gender re-assignment surgery through no fault of their own, I firmly believe that those persons who do not fit our traditional definition of being a so-called “normal” heterosexual, should be entitled to exactly the same human rights as the majority and we should amend our law to allow for SSM.

  36. Daylilly says:

    SSM is not fostering diversity. Enforcing SSM often strips away parental rights, rights to free speech and beliefs. See the September 2015 articles in the Toronto Sun. I

    This curriculum was forced on parents in the name of “diversity”, even though the parents/tax payers overwhelming voted against it. Parents could not opt out of the curriculum and did not have the right to keep their children home.

    Education & information = Great. “Diversity” – Parental Rights – Free Speech – Free Religion – Freedom of Beliefs = Not So Great.

    Bermuda’s Future?
    Wondering what’s new in the sex-ed curriculum? Here’s a quick rundown of what students can expect to learn.
    Grade 1 — names of body parts, including the correct names for sexual organs.
    Grade 2 — basic stages of human development.
    Grade 3 — lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation.
    Grade 4 — different types of bullying that can take place online and in person (including homophobia) as well as descriptions of the physical changes accompanying puberty.
    Grade 5 — parts of the reproductive system.
    Grade 6 — discussion of negative gender stereotypes and masturbation.
    Grade 7 — risks of early pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the concept of consent are introduced.
    Grade 8 — contraception, sexual intimacy, and decisions about sexual activity.

    • Mike Hind says:

      You are, as per usual, wrong.

      The parents did, in fact, have options. And many exercised those options and kept their kids out of that class. They DID have the right to keep their kids home.

      Also… what is so wrong with that curriculum?

      This is just more false, homophobic fear mongering from you, as usual.

      (By the way? This has NOTHING to do with Same Sex Marriage. At all. But you keep pushing that false “slippery slope” argument. See how well it works when you get shown to be wrong, every time.

      It’s really sad that this kind of rationalization of discrimination is ok.)


      You STILL haven’t given a single valid, defensible argument for not removing 15c, the opposite gender restriction on our books.

      Will that be happening any time soon? Or will you just spread more disinformation?

      • drd says:

        And you STILL haven’t given a defensible argument as to why only 15c makes this discrimination and not the limitation of marriage to 2 people. Face it, you are just as discriminatory as you accuse those who want to preserve marriage of being.

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’ve explained this many, many times.

          You’re desperately lashing out with lies now. It’s sad.

          Not once have I expressed support for the restriction against multiple partners.
          No one has. This is a fabrication that your side makes up to attack SSM advocates and it is an outright lie.

          Do better.

      • Daylilly says:

        Mike you keep reading half the story and speaking like you know the whole picture. I already said education and information is important. The biggest issue was that parents did not have a right to opt out of “diversity” education which included SSM.
        My comments are directly quoted from the Toronto Sun, September 2,5,7 2015.

        Check my other post, last paragraph.

        “So, if parents request an exemption from discussions that are related to protected grounds within the human rights code we will not be able to provide that accommodation,” Pontes said.”

        The history in Canada is that SSM was passed in 2005. 5 years later, the sex-Ed curriculum was revamped and introduced to include among other things, SSM/families. The parents vehemently fought it in 2010 by 2015 the parents still vehemently fought it, but the “human rights/diversity agenda” overruled parents rights, religious rights and rights to free speech.

        The point being that the SSM agenda is bigger than free love and “marriage equality”, it has been about muzzling anyone who disagrees with the SSM agenda.

        • Mike Hind says:

          More desperate misinformation.

          This is all not true.

        • The other Hollis says:

          How is letting children know that Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality exists a violation of rights?

          It’s not like the education is tell them this is right and this is wrong – it’s just letting them know that it EXISTS.

          I do not believe in God. I am not religious or spiritual. Yet my child will know that religion is a thing that exists and I will do my best to offer no judgement when explaining that different people believe in a lot of different things – none of them better or more right than others. The only thing that is wrong is if you impose your views on others.

        • What?? says:

          How many times do you need to be told that this is false. Parents in the public education system in Ontario have had and still have multiple options. The can have their children attend private school or publicly funded parochial schools or they can home school. They have always had, in the 50 years of sex-ed, the option to have their child sit out the class because of religous objection to the class. Recently this option has been extended to any objection to the class.

    • Pastor Syl says:

      I think this is a very timely and important curriculum. I wish it had been available for me as a young person, and for my children. Young people pick up so many inaccurate ideas when they aren’t taught the facts, and it often leads to major problems. If you think your children aren’t talking about these things amongst themselves, you are deluding yourself. I am for informed decision making every time.

    • The other Hollis says:

      That sounds like a pretty good start for a well rounded Sexual Education Curriculum although I would argue that body autonomy and consent should be taught much, much earlier – I’ve already begun with my 2 year old; as well being able to correctly name body parts (it’s a vulva not a vagina people!)

      The Netherlands has a similar Sexual Education Curriculum that was implemented in the 1980s (which is mandatory) – they also have one of the lowest teenage pregnancy and STI rates in the world.

      • Daylilly says:

        The Netherlands health system is socialized and that is a leading contributor to their health outcomes. As said in my posts age appropriate education and information are important. Letting parents make decisions for their own children is critical. The greater problem is the removal of parental rights and discretion.

        • Mike Hind says:

          “The greater problem is the removal of parental rights and discretion.”

          … which doesn’t happen. So…

          you’re wrong again.

        • Not that Stephanie H says:

          I would say, as a person with a Dutch passport, that the culture of the Netherlands not the access to healthcare is a bigger contributor to the low teen pregnancy and STI level. People are taught very factually about sex. Sex is talked about in families in the context of relationships and with no shame in seeking pleasure and owning your sexuality. Sexual health is taught alongside emotional health.

          Yes it is wonderful that Dutch citizens also have excellent access to birth control but the amount of abortions is very low. Why? Because of proper education.

          Why should the parents have discretion over this one class? I’m more concerned with the way my child is taught about slavery, colonization, and the civil rights movement?

          I’m WAY more concerned about what kind of religious messages my child will be receiving at school.

          We all have to deal with the fact that our children will get exposed to outside forces, outside opinions, views that differ from our own – views that we may not agree with. It is our duty as parents to be aware of what information they are receiving and talk with our children at home about how to deal with this information – not avoid it and stick are fingers in their ears.

          • Daylilly says:

            Not that Stephanie H. great perspective, but those are your own beliefs. My argument is that other parents should have the rights to exercise their own beliefs too.

            • Mike Hind says:

              They still have the right to exercise their beliefs. No one is trying to take that away.
              You are lying when you spread this nonsense.

            • Not that Stephanie H says:

              Presenting factual information is not a belief.

              The belief part is what I will be teaching my child at home.

          • Daylilly says:

            Also Stephanie, Having a Dutch passport doesn’t make you an authority on all things Dutch.

            • Not that Stephanie H says:

              You might not be aware of exactly how difficult it is to possess a Dutch passport. I may have phrased it in a confusing way so let me try again: AS A DUTCH NATIONAL I can say that yeah, I’m pretty familiar with MY OWN CULTURE – thank you.

              Having a bible doesn’t not make you a religious scholar and yet you seem to be making claims up and down this thread of being some sort of authority on Abrahamic religious theory.

            • Not that Stephanie H says:

              Having a bible does not make you an authority on all things biblical.

              Let me state this in another way: as a DUTCH CITIZEN (not just an expat who lived in the Netherlands or a person who married into a Dutch family) I think I am pretty familiar with my own culture.

        • What?? says:

          “The greater problem is the removal of parental rights and discretion.”

          Continued repetition is not going to make this true!

    • aas says:

      Daylilly, what is your purpose for posting “Bermuda’s Future?”

      These children who want to “act grown” (I honestly hate that expression) need to know about body parts, reproduction, STD/i as SOON AS POSSIBLE.

      • Daylilly says:

        Please read the entire post. I’ve said several times that age appropriate education and information is important. The issue is that in the name of diversity parents rights were taken away as to when & how their own child could be educated on sex-ed and SSM issues.

        Also, we all know that an education is only as good as the person giving it…. And will be taught with a preferred slant, e.g. the Native American’s view of American History may have been quite different than the pilgrim’s version of events.

        This agenda has been used not only to crush religious freedoms but any freedom that conflicts with SSM.

        • What?? says:

          “parents rights were taken away as to when & how their own child could be educated on sex-ed and SSM issues.”

          Simply not true.

  37. Daylilly says:

    Bermuda’s Future?

    Toronto Sun, September 7th 2015

    As children head back to school it is worth asking to whom does the school system belong? Is it the unions, the Ministry of Education, the politicians, the education professionals? No, it’s the beleaguered taxpaying, child-raising public who own the system, but you wouldn’t know that by how parents are treated by all of the above.

    As many parents protest the Ontario government’s new sex-ed curriculum which starts being taught this month, the director of the Peel school board, Tony Pontes, said last week he won’t exempt kids from learning about gay families and gender issues. He added the board is willing to lose students over its stance.

    Pontes said on my NEWSTALK1010 radio show, “We respect parents and parents’ rights, however we have a moral obligation to ensure that all children learn about issues related to inclusion, particularly around issues of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) family structures.

    “So, if parents request an exemption from discussions that are related to protected grounds within the human rights code we will not be able to provide that accommodation,” Pontes said.

    • Mike Hind says:

      So… you’re against even EDUCATING kids about this stuff?

      If your position is so strong, surely just discussing sexuality won’t threaten it.

      Oh, and, again… this has nothing to do with SSM.

      It’s sad.

      • Not that Stephanie H says:

        Education is the antithesis of Bigotry so yeah, I can see why Daylilly would be against it

  38. Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

    That statement, and not one mention of Jesus…. False prophets?

    • drd says:

      Come on cuz, don’t make an argument for the sake of arguing. When Jesus is brought into it, people complain, when they don’t use his name then they complain. Which one is it ?

  39. Navin Pooty Tang Johnson says:

    it would be nice if this Preserve Marriage Group just goes away…..the majority of people do not care..go thump your bible somewhere else please….fools

    • Daylilly says:

      Navin, apparently you cared enough to voice your opinion. Plenty of places that don’t have Bibles that also do not have SSM, religious or non-religious.

      Nice job name calling. Do you even live in Bermuda.

      • Navin Pooty Tang Johnson says:

        I most certainly do live in Bermuda……this should not be a religious issue in my view as the bible is all about interpretation and not fact and more lives have been lost in the name of religion than anything other than disease…..and as an aside Daylilly why bring in someone from overseas to push the marriage issue if you question where someone lives? hypocritical perhaps or is that name calling?

    • allinlove says:

      There are non religious people who are members of Preserve Marriage. I encourage you to see for yourself what their stance is.

      • Mike Hind says:

        I’ve been asking, over and over and over, what their stance is.

        No one has ever answered with anything remotely akin to reality.

        Why is that?

        • Not that Stephanie H says:

          OMG do not google secular arguments against same sex marriage (I was curious) it is SO SEXIST and disgustingly bigoted and misleading. It was horrible. Ruined my morning so I had a cookie and I feel a bit better.

  40. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    “Preserve Marriage” states that Ryan Anderson has spoken at the United States Supreme Court in their release. This isn’t true and is a complete falsehood. Anderson’s pitiful book was cited as a source in one of the Justice’s dissenting opinion when the court ruled by a majority that the US Constitution permits Same Sex Marriage in the USA. Anderson was a footnote, not a speaker, and a footnote for the losing side. Let’s get the credentials correct. It is now the Law in the USA that Same Sex Marriage is a right enshrined. Anderson lost his war in the USA, and “Preserve Marriage” brought him to Bermuda to peddle his fundamentalist message here. It has no audience anywhere else. The next thing “Preserve Marriage” will be calling for is Covenant Marriage. Can’t wait.

  41. Edward Case says:

    Religion continues to be a vehicle to manipulate the vulnerable, who are deluded and brainwashed into believing fairy stories. People are told that God will send you to burn in hell forever if you don’t follow his rules – because he loves you.

    Honestly, it is the biggest con ever – you are forced to pay a tithe even when you have uncontrollable debts. Just ask mr smith. It is true evil.

  42. acegirl says:

    The audactiy of these people speaking out against an institution that is prohibiting discrimination when all that group are associate with is organised discrimination. These people really dont understand the double standards they hold or how hypocrytical their behaviour is. I have had it with groups and organisations forcing their beliefs on other people. And the fact that this group have the nerve to request that “Hamilton Princess and Beach Club stop and reconsider their new policy and treatment of those who support traditional marriage” when they have no respect for the beliefs of other member of their own society is disgusting. People can beleive whatever they choose but forcing those beliefs on other people is wrong and inconsiderate and honestly it is the source of a number of the issues occuring around the world at this time. And also if you expect to recieve your “own religious entitlement” or in other words the freedom to practice religion ( a basic human right) than who are you to deny others of their basic human rights. Bermuda is one of the only western countries that does allow for same sex marriage or civil partnerships and i think that as an island we should stand back and re-evaluate our legislative system and who is influencing it.

    • sage says:

      Just like those who drink, smoke cigarettes, pop viagra and xanax then spread their hateful ganjaphobic lies, endorsing the hypocritical criminalizing of good people for no good reason. This human rights atrocity is infinitely more damaging then the popularised “causes”.

  43. Torian says:

    I just don’t like that their biggest concern is that allowing this will somehow stop straight people from procreating. Like dude, the world is overpopulated as it is. El Nino was the Earth telling humans to stop mating and polluting.

  44. Lets just get this straight says:

    The requirements for getting married in Bermuda:

    1) Completing a notice of intent to marry
    2) Choosing a wedding location (Civil Ceremony in the Registry General’s Marriage Room or a Religious Ceremony held anywhere else)
    3) Ensuring you have two witnesses
    4) Paying $354
    5) Being over 18 and freely able to marry (so not currently married and you have to provide divorce or death certificate for previous spouse)
    6) Different gendered people entering into the marriage (although I’m not sure what our definition of gender is when it comes to people who have undergone gender reassignment therapy and have legally had their gender changed)


    • Mike Hind says:

      I’m trying REALLY hard not to say “Why do these anti-SSM people keep trying to redefine marriage?”!

      But that would be facetious, wouldn’t it?

    • Not that Stephanie H says:

      I love all the dislikes like grrrr you just copied and pasted the actual requirements for marriage and I’m aannngggrrryyyy

  45. Vernon says:

    Preserving marriage by such means, seems only to have become of tremendous importance since the advent of the gay marriage agenda in Bermuda. Was marriage not in need of preserving to this extreme previously? Did a combination of local assemblies ever see the urgent need for such an initiative in the past when Christians were getting divorced just as quickly and easily as those outside of the church? Or is it simply that the homosexual agenda holds its own special place of disdain within the Christian community, which makes it far worse than committing adultery, leaving your wife for a more attractive woman, or just plain not wanting to be married anymore? If preserving marriage has suddenly become THIS important, then all threats against it, from here on, should be confronted with the same passion and resolve that brought about this current initiative.

    • Daylilly says:

      Vernon, you are correct, the SSM agenda is not solely responsible for the current dissolution of marriage. And yes, most churches offer free counselling to assist families/marriages. And yes, marriages that are destroyed by adultery, no-fault, etc. should be, have been, and are being addressed.

      • Mike Hind says:


        The “SSM agenda” is not responsible at ALL for the “current dissolution of marriage”.

        In any way.

        • HW says:

          On this point we are in agreement Mike. Heterosexuals are the ones who have messed marriage up in all kinds of ways.

          • Mike Hind says:

            But where we differ is that marriage is messed up.
            Some people’s are, but the “institution” itself?

            It’s just fine, other than a couple of restrictions that bar consenting adults from sharing in equal rights…

      • Vernon says:

        Excellent. I would hate to believe that a preserve marriage initiative of this size and scope has suddenly become necessary, simply because the gay community have an interest. To minimize the seriousness of all other blights against traditional marriage prior would be a grave contradiction.

        • HW says:

          Vernon please read the release in full and note Heart to Heart marriage ministries. They are one of many who have been working to preserve, strengthen and promote marriages for many years.

          Additionally, many churches offer free counseling to couples. The truth is that much is being done but it just hasn’t been broadcast. No doubt though, more can and will be done.

  46. Dr. Ernest Peets Jr says:

    I am very encouraged regarding the positive stance Preserve Marriage has taken, especially its commitment to be respectful and transparent. Whatever your views are regarding this topic, please take time to visit preservemarriage and read the information with an open mind. Marriage as it is already defined in law in country needs to be fortified and encouraged. It’s benefits are both private and public and are irreplaceable.

  47. Livid Lesbian says:

    “Same-Sex Marriage is against God/my religious beliefs!”
    When you say that you’re implying that:

    1. your beliefs are more important than my freedom and rights.
    2. that there isn’t such thing as separation of Church and State in Bermuda.
    3. that because you believe in something, everyone else should and abide by it.

    Marriage is not exclusively Christian or religious in any way. If it was – then why would Atheists and people who aren’t Christian get married? Marriage licenses aren’t religious – only some weddings are – and people don’t have to get married by the churches and no one will force the churches to marry Same-Sex couples (even though I’m sure there will be churches willing to do so).

    So, c’mon. It’s 2016, Bermuda needs to stop being so behind the times. I’m gay, and I should be able to marry someone in my country, Bermuda.

    • Pepe says:

      I wish I could give you more likes for this comment

    • Not that Stephanie H says:

      Ssshhhhhh don’t try to infuse logic here – it won’t end well

    • Daylilly says:

      “Same-Sex Marriage is my belief!”
      When you say that you’re implying that:

      1. your beliefs are more important than my freedom and rights.
      2. that separation of Church and State in Bermuda is separation of church from State in Bermuda.
      3. that because you believe in something, everyone else should abide by it.

      Marriage is not exclusively Christian or religious in any way, that is why Atheists and people who aren’t Christian preserve the definition of marriage all over the world.

      The argument can adjust to both sides, we just want the right to be heard… Just like the SSM proponents.

      • Mike Hind says:

        This entire post is poorly written, poorly thought out gibberish, followed up by more outright lies.

        You don’t want the right to be heard, you want the right to stop people from getting married based on your personal choice of religions.

        SSM proponents just want their friends and family members and other citizens of Bermuda to be able to get married. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else and won’t affect your relationships or lives in any way.

        Please stop spreading lies.

      • Nightlilly says:

        Hey Daylilly! How you be?

        1) Freedom to believe and Right to believe are different than Human Rights and Freedoms.
        2) Separation of Church and State means separation of Church from State. That’s exactly what it means.
        3) Believing in fundamental inalienable rights is not the same thing as believing those Rights should be denied to others.

        I don’t understand what you mean by Atheists preserving the definition of marriage other than most Atheists who have a Civil Marriage abide by the current laws of their country meaning that they only marry one person at a time (and depending on that country also marry someone of the same or different gender)

        Obeying the law is not the same as “preserving [a] definition”

  48. sandgrownan says:

    So, a discriminatory group is complaining about being discriminated against because they won’t be allowed to discriminate anymore!

    What a bunch of chuckleheads.

  49. Mike Hind says:

    At this point, we have almost 260 posts on this story.

    And not ONCE has any of the anti-SSM people explained why we shouldn’t change the law with anything resembling a lucid argument.

    • The Hon Edward N. T. Case. ABF Hons. says:

      As I said at the beginning, religion poisons everything.

    • This is what you sound like says:

      “it huwts my feewings!”

  50. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    When the inevitable occurs and Same Sex Marriage in Bermuda is formalized after a Human Rights challenge, let’s see if the new chapel at Morgan’s Point accepts SSM bookings….

    • Mike Hind says:

      When it happens, I will be applying to the Goverment to become an officiant to allow our friends and fellow citizens to have a gorgeous wedding wherever they want on our gorgeous island.

      (And no, before the anti-SSM folks latch onto that, we won’t be forcing churches to perform weddings. That fallacy that you made up has already been debunked.)

  51. Navin Pooty Tang Johnson says:

    since the majority of anti-ssm people bring religion into their view it would seem that one of Bermuda’s many many churches would be more appropriate to hold their meetings than a hotel that caters to all.

  52. TMI says:

    I look at these comments and see the dislikes out number the likes for a statement that is positive to procreation (unity between and man and a woman) It is truly sad and scary that people believe change to be something negative. I am appauled at the amount of people in this island who are for SS marriage. No one has any morals anymore it is all about how bad the world is becoming and how much we are welcoming it here in our little island just for the sake of getting more money. The book of Revelation is so true it is all here, I just hate that most people see nothing wrong with it. Smh.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Again, this is a religious argument.

      Unless you believe that people’s personal choice of religion should apply to others, your post is moot.

    • Common Sense says:

      Let me get TMI’s comments straight. Anyone who supports SSM has no morals? And the number of dislikes for a statement that “is positive to procreation …. is truly sad. ”

      I have yet to read a single comment disliking or being negative about procreation! I believe you will find that a substantial number of people have stated categorically that marriage is all about procreation, but some of the posts point out that procreation is not in any way a requirement of marriage. In fact it’s rather the opposite – procreation more often than not has absolutely nothing to do with marriage because we have many babies born here in Bermuda out of wedlock.

      What is truly sad and scary is the suggestion that allowing SSM will in some way diminish the state of marriage. I’ve been happily married for almost 50 years and allowing SS couples to marry in the Registrars Office will not effect my marriage in any way shape or form. I just wish anyone getting married whether their marriage is same sex, or oppositte sex, the same sort of happiness and contentment I’ve been fortunate enough to have over all these years.

    • Daylilly says:

      TMI… Please don’t be fooled or intimidated by the comments or the number of dislikes regarding preserving marriage.

      Bermuda wants to Preserve Marriage.

      The negative and derogatory comments do not represent the majority of Bermudians. These comments only represent the number of people who have an agenda so they make the time to comment & get their friends to comment both in Bermuda and overseas.

      A lot of people are intimidated and “in the closet” about being for God’s truth on marriage. The more that people come out of the closet and say: I am not hateful, I am Bermudian and I want to Preserve Marriage in Bermuda, the more other people will stand with you.

      Have not I commanded you? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be you dismayed: for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go…. Isaiah 1:9 NKJV

      • Daylilly says:


        Have not I commanded you? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be you dismayed: for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go…. Joshua 1:9 NKJV

      • Mike Hind says:

        And here we have it.

        All of these lies and misinformation from “daylily” boil down t one thing… Religion.

        EVERYTHING posted… All of it… Is an excuse to push their religious rules on to other people.

        This is the worst kind of dishonesty.

        You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Nightlilly says:

        I think your paranoid delusions of being persecuted are getting to you

  53. No laughing matter says:

    Wow! Look at all these pro SSM comments. After all that has been said, how many of you can actually vote in Bermuda’s next election or in a referendum??? Yeah, that’s what I thought…Bermuda, preserve your culture and traditions, cleave to it! Don’t let others come here and change your moral values and fundamental beliefs. Your forefathers will be turning in their graves if they see what this island is coming to. Sounds like you need to do more than Preserve Marriage, you need to PRESERVE BERMUDA. #preservebermuda

    • Mike Hind says:

      I can vote. Is that what you thought?

      I’m born and raised Bermudian.

      But let me ask you…

      Do you have a valid argument against allowing same sex couples getting married?

      Or will you just leave this bizarre, xenophobic post where it is?

    • aceboy says:

      “how many of you can actually vote in Bermuda’s next election or in a referendum??? ”

      I can, I’m a gay, born Bermudian….everything you hate!

    • Nightlilly says:

      Born and Raised Bermudian and I support Equality!


    • not that Stephanie H. says:

      I’m Bermudian as far back as we can go. I can vote and I can assure you I will be voting to support SSM because I believe in Equality and Human Rights – that is the culture of my Bermuda