Decision To Hold Referendum Is ‘Disappointing’

February 29, 2016

[Updated] “The Government’s decision to hold a referendum on an issue which affects the rights of a minority is, to put it politely, disappointing,” said the Bermuda Bred Company and OUTBermuda.

This follows after the announcement earlier today by Premier Michael Dunkley that the Government will table a Referendum Bill so “that the people of this Country can express their opinions on same-sex marriage and civil unions via a Referendum.”

A joint statement on behalf of Bermuda Bred Company and OUTBermuda said, “The Government’s decision to hold a referendum on an issue which affects the rights of a minority is, to put it politely, disappointing.

Bermuda Bred Company & OUTBermuda 160229

“Contrary to what the Premier said earlier today, the Government is not upholding fundamental and basic human rights by allowing an issue which touches upon the family lives of a minority of Bermudians to be decided by way of referendum.

“We had hoped the leaders of our country would demonstrate leadership, and are saddened by the fact that they have allowed themselves to be bullied into inaction. The Government already acknowledges that it has a legal obligation to recognize same-sex relationships. A referendum will not alter that obligation.

“Instead, given the cost of holding a referendum is no different to the cost of a general election, it will simply result in a further waste of tax payer dollars. The Government was elected to #dobetter; we’re still waiting.”

Update 4.42pm: Tawana Tannock, Chairperson of the Bermuda Human Rights Commission, said, “The HRC is bitterly disappointed by the Government’s decision to hold a referendum on a matter of equality and human rights.

“We specifically reject the notion that the opinion of the majority should impinge on the right of equal treatment for minorities. We are also disappointed that the decision to hold a referendum will serve to lengthen the timeline by which the Government can fulfill its obligations to its citizens who deserve equality under the law.

“The HRC hopes that the Government will commit to providing a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign that we can support, on the importance of legal recognition for same- sex couples, not just as a human right that is due on the principle of equality for all, but also the requirement to meet legal obligations, prior to the holding of a referendum on the subject.

“The fact that there has been adamant opposition to measures that would create equality for a minority,  which has clearly, influenced the Government’s decision to hold a referendum, shows that there is public misconception and misunderstanding on the Government’s legal obligations and the concept that all people deserve to be treated equally under the law.

“It is a difficult position that the Government finds itself in and we can only hope that this decision brings about a change in the legal recognition of same-sex couples as quickly as possible.

“We encourage all members of the public to speak to their Members of Parliament and exercise their right to express their concerns and questions on this latest development.”

Update 5.05pm: Tony Brannon, who spearheaded the petition to legalize same sex marriage, said he is “in talks with our team to understand all the various options” and hopes to “have a substantial response soon”. Mr Brannon added that he personally agrees with this article from the Guardian.

click here same sex marriage

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (236)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Man + woman = sanity
    man + man, woman + woman = insanity
    Not only we have to explain to our young ones about the racial social injustice, but now this unatural mandate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Or we could just explain to our children that discrimination and injustice of any kind is just wrong.

      • Daylilly says:

        We must also explain to our children that discrimination is treating same things differently. Same sex relationships can not be consummated and by design they are not reproductive, therefore they don’t share the same social purpose & intent as a marriage.

        According to the UK government, marriages can be annulled if not consummated, this doesn’t apply to same sex relationships because they can not be consummated. SSC relationships are sterile, and require denying the original intent of biological functions of organs. Every consenting adult relationship can not be labeled a marriage because it simply isn’t.

        • whatever says:

          (1) Pretty sure that you can consummate a SSM.

          con·sum·mate
          verb
          past tense: consummated; past participle: consummated
          ˈkänsəˌmāt/
          make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse.

          (2) How would you treat a heterosexual marriage where at least one partner is sterile? Should that marriage be annulled? Should sterile couples also be denied rights because they can’t reproduce? What about those that don’t want children? Should they not be allowed to marry because they don’t have the same “social purpose & intent”?

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          According to the UK government, Same Sex marriage is acceptable and law. And nobody has bothered with that old outdated law in so long that it has even been a bother to amend, but also it depends on how limited your definition of consummation is.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Don’t you get sick of being proved wrong?

          All of this has been addressed and shown to be wrong.
          You’re spreading lies.

          This is all not true.

          And sick.

          And disgusting.

          • Nothing more sick and disgusting then seeing two men swapping spit.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Sure there is?

              Seeing your hate filled, ignorant posts is WAY worse.

              Oh, and we’re talking about marriage. Gay men are already allowed to “swap spit” in front of you.

              Keep up.

            • Nightlilly says:

              I can assure you that the knowledge that you breathe the same air as me and that I might have to encounter you in person one day is a much more “sick and disgusting” thought

            • Ty says:

              But yet you heterosexual men would love to sit and watch two women swap spit all the while your sitting in a room next to a bunch of men with erections.

        • Nightlilly says:

          If you think the only way to have sex is by putting a p—– in a v—– then I’m sorry to tell you but you’ve been missing out

    • Mike Hind says:

      Here you go again, spreading your hate.

      Nothing you say is true.

      • planeasday says:

        So you get to decide what is true Mike? That mindset is no doubt the manifestation of a “closeted” existence where you could not play by the established rules so you just made them up along the way…similar to how you feel a gay couple has a right to marry. It is called a privilege. A privilege that will not be bestowed upon you by God (yes that weird entity you do hate so much) so for you it is back to plan A. Manipulation of words to get the desired effect you seek. And a little help from friends in high places no? I mean how else would so few be given so much consideration?

        DayLilly is right here – the consummation of the marriage in this particular law is considered complete when intercourse is complete – the purpose of intercourse is (believe it or not) – reproduction!! Go figure – a thing you cannot do. Therefore it is not about being allowed to marry like “whatever” tries to build their argument around…it is about the marriage being allowed annulment. Different ends of the rope.

        • Nightlilly says:

          1) I don’t speak for Mike but for me, an atheist, it’s hard to “hate” something that doesn’t exist. Do I “hate” the Ganesha, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Thor or Xenu? No. They are equal in their ineffectuality on my life.

          2) If Marriage was purely religious (and only seems to exist in your Abrahamic religion – but don’t talk about all the polygamy that was traditionally practiced) then why do we have to pay the government for the right to marry? $354 is no small fee.

          3) If you think that the only way to have sex is putting a penis in a vagina then I’m very sorry for you and your sex life.

          4) Sure, lack of consummation is a reason a divorce or annulment can be sought (as is “no fault”) but it not a requirement for the state to recognise a marriage. There are SUPER old people and people with sexual dysfunction who enter into recognised marriages every day.

          We’d have to write some REALLY SPECIFIC laws to make sure we ban all the right people from marriage

        • Mike Hind says:

          Wow… this is a whole lot of not right over here.
          Let’s go through.

          No, it’s not me that gets to decide what is true. Reality does that. When things are proveable and correct, backed up with evidence, they are true. When they are outright lies and misinformation, like what “Daylily” posts, they are not. It’s not a difficult concept.

          The next bit is nothing more than a bizarre, false, completely made up ad hominem, lashing out like a toddler.
          The next bit is incorrect in every way. We’re not talking about God. I’ve defended your right to believe in your God many, many times. I don’t hate your God. I just don’t believe in Him. I can’t hate Him any more than you can hate Superman. We’re talking about the rights and privileges afforded by marriage, which are currently denied to a certain group of citizens of this island for absolutely no reason. God doesn’t bestow these privileges and rights, Government does.
          The next bit is more bizarre, false nonsense, exposing your complete ignorance of this topic.

          Then we go to the next paragraph.
          Daylily is NOT right. That’s a default statement.
          Not only is consummation is not a requirement for marriage, ss couples can, in fact, consummate.

          Then you say that the purpose of intercourse is reproduction.
          Not only is this incorrect (_A_ purpose of it is, but it isn’t the ONLY purpose), it has nothing to do with the subject. Reproduction isn’t a requirement of marriage.
          Then you lash out childishly and ignorantly again, saying I cannot reproduce.
          Are you saying I’m gay? I’m not. I don’t need to be gay to support SSM.

          Then the last sentence… is just gibberish.

          Ok. Enjoy the rest of your day.

    • Loquat Juice says:

      You talk about social injustice of a race of people in one breath and than condemn another group of people based on there sexual preference in the other! Its called equal rights for everyone, ya bletty dreamer!
      Onion juice + blogging = dumb***

      • BermieGirl says:

        It’s not a sexual preference – that incorrectly suggests choice. Your orientation is not a choice. It’s what you’re born with.

        • sage says:

          No one ever decided to change their “orientation”?

          • whatever says:

            When did you decide on your orientation?

            • sage says:

              Fairly early, but the question remains, has anyone changed their “orientation”?

              • Mike Hind says:

                You chose yours?
                Like, there were options for you?
                You actively decided “I could be gay, cuz I’m attracted to men, as well, but, nah. I’ll be straight.”?

                Or vice versa. I don’t want to assume.

          • Nightlilly says:

            Sure, when being homosexual can get you murdered some people might choose to hide their orientation and perhaps even enter into a heterosexual relationship but that still doesn’t change their orientation – they’re just hiding it.

        • Loquat Juice says:

          @ BermieGirl. Seems that 50 people LIKED and UNDERSTOOD what I said! Don’t get so hung up on terminology! There’s more than one way to say the same thing! The point of the matter is it should be equal rights for all

    • serengeti says:

      Listening to bigots like you is insanity.

    • Dockyard Lackey says:

      When will the religious haters understand that people, men and women, do not become gay, they are born that way. For generations they have hidden the fact out of fear of recrimination. Do these same haters discriminate those born blind, or with Down’s Syndrome, or mental or physical disability? The referendum is a complete waste of tax payers money. Gays make up a small proportion of our community, but common sense people make up the vast majority, and the haters will be left to select another target if and when a referendum passes same sex marriage. I am not gay, but have many friends who are gay, and others who have disabilities. I support them all in their endeavors to lead what they consider to be a Natural and Normal life.

    • sebring says:

      how can you explain something you know nothing about?

    • In Mark's Opinion says:

      Your right that we have to explain this insanity to our young ones. I was at a five year old birthday party last week and someone asked the boy “What you want to be when you grow up” he answered a man not a woman.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Here’s how to do it.

        “People fall in love. Sometimes it’s with a boy. Sometimes it’s with a girl.”

        Not hard at all.

        • YUCK says:

          DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN MIKEY? THEN EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT 2 MeN ARE DOING IN BeeeeD.

          Regards
          YUCK!!!

          • Mike Hind says:

            What two men do in “BeeeeeD” is none of my business.

            Nor is it any of yours!

            Is that seriously your biggest problem with this? “Yuck!!!”?

            Well, at least your honest about your motivation, childish and arrogant as it is.

          • whatever says:

            You tell them those 2 men love each other and what they are doing in Beeeeeed (wtf? how old are you?) is showing that love. Why do you have a problem with that?

            • Love thy neighbor says:

              @ Yuck.With your reference to men only sounds like you’re saying it’s acceptable for two women to be in bed – sexist comment.

          • Nightlilly says:

            I have a child. I will explain to them about consent and sex in age appropriate terms throughout their life (it’s not just one conversation it’s an open dialogue). My child is 2 right now so we’re pretty much just working on consent, body autonomy, and correctly naming body parts (It’s a vulva not a vagina for pete’s sake).

            I will explain sexual intercourse because it is important to understand what sex is and how you can protect yourself. Penis and Vagina sex requires a condom – male or female condoms, Oral sex requires a dental dam, anal sex require a condom (and lube), always make sure your fingernails are trimmed and your hands are clean because nobody wants any kind of bacterial infection on their genitals. (YUCK!) If you wish to have sex without protection then make sure you and your partner get tested, regularly, and use birth control (if needed).

            It’s pretty darn easy.

            I mean, I had a very basic children’s book about sexual intercourse and reproduction when I was little. I believe it was originally Danish and translated into English.

  2. Bravo says:

    Dunkley is a sellout. He will milk whatever cow he thinks is profitable of beneficial to him

    • hmmm says:

      I think you’ll find they did their research and knew they couldn’t guarantee the vote in the house. A failure to get that vote would end this.

      Putting it out to referendum keeps it alive !

    • R.I.P Human Rights says:

      On one hand the Premiere has the gall to say,”This Government believes in upholding fundamental and basic human rights.”
      Then announces that, ” It is the intention of this Government to table a Referendum Bill on the matter later in this legislative session.”

      Which essentially goes against everything the Human Rights Act is there to Protect, Which is that the majority shouldn’t decide the Human rights of minorities.

      What if We used that logic to decide other minorities future?

      Shall we use it against the Uyghurs? How about Atheists? How about (insert any Minority group)?
      See the slippery slope we are creating, Last time I checked SSM marriage isn’t effecting regular marriage in any way.

      Nothing like using one rights to prevent someone else from getting theirs.

      To make thing easier going forth,why don’t we start a list of people Rights/Freedoms in order of Importance so it is clear to all of us?

      The time is well over due to separate Religion and Politics.Actually Time is well over due for the end of Political Parties.
      It causes more division than helping its People. A Country this small should be Governed by one Person per Constituency/Parish with No Parties that way every individual is accountable.

      • Keeping pace says:

        The issue here is all rights. SSM supporters have rights and so do those who want to PM. It’s about everyone’s rights. Just because those who support SSM are smaller in number does not mean their rights should be consider before or above the majority. This is serious and so many of you are being flip an with your comments. It’s about everyone’s rights.

        • planeasday says:

          Exactly – nail on the head. Well put.

        • Nightlilly says:

          It’s not your right to deny rights of others. How does that make any sense????

          All Marriage Equality supporters want is EQUALITY.

          Let me apply your logic in another way:

          It’s not about not giving the black people equal rights it’s just that it’s my right as a white person to not want to give them any rights and their right to have rights shouldn’t supersede my right to not give it to them because it makes me uncomfortable, right?

        • Mike Hind says:

          This is a misrepresentation of the situation.

          In this case, same sex couples DON’T actually have rights. Not equal rights. They do not have equal access to the rights and privileges afforded by marriage, with the person of their choice.

          No one is asking for their rights to be considered before or above the majority.
          Legalizing same sex marriage won’t affect anyone else’s rights in any way.
          It won’t affect anyone else’s marriage in any way.

          It’s not equal on both sides.

          One side is supporting the denial of rights. The other is supporting equal access to rights.

      • Zevon says:

        And next time the PLP wants to try to defend human rights, it will mean nothing.

  3. Frank says:

    Just say NO to the gay agenda!! No to same sex marriage or civil unions!!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Why?

      Or are we just to listen to you for no reason?

      • Terry says:

        Well were listening to you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Thanks for that wonderful contribution, Rummy.

          You added a whole lot to the conversation, as usual.

          Ooops. I shouldn’t talk back to you, should I?
          If I do, you’ll just falsely accuse me of something horrible again, won’t you?

          I can’t believe trolling is still fun to you. Aren’t you bored of this yet? It’s been a decade you’ve been doing this same stupid shtick.

    • Onion says:

      Ah yes, the gay agenda to live quietly in equally recognised committed marriages. How terrible!

      • hmmm says:

        Frank and Onion Juice are frightened of gay and lesbian people, because Frank and Onion Juice are ignorant.

        It is sad that Onion Juice and Frank are ignorant. I’m guessing Onion Juice is single has an attraction to women, but most think he is a self important ignorant fool.

        I’m guessing Frank thinks that Gay and Lesbians don’t exist in Bermuda. Frank does not realize that his neighbours are gay. If Frank found out he would be scared that they may make him gay, that is how ignorant Frank is.

  4. Triangle Drifter says:

    Sorry but IMO this is a relatively minor issue putting Bermuda in line with the majority of the civilised world. Not much different than the citizenship issue really.

    It is called Catch Up with the rest of the world.

    We elect Governments to make decisions. Referendums are for those rare major issues when the direct voice of the people is needed. To dump this on the people, many of them not knowing the difference between a wedding & a marriage, let alone civil union, is disappointing to say the least.

    It is downright cowardly on Governments part. I say Government because the PLP would do the same thing. Refuse to take responsibility or simply kick the can down the road.

  5. Build a Better Bermuda says:

    This referendum will be a waste of tax dollars. The equal application of rights should never, must never be allowed to be governed by any individual or group, irregardless of majority consensus. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the Human Rights Act. Marriage as granted by law, must not be dictated by religious institutions, as the word/concept of marriage is not exclusive to them. It has been around longer and is employed by more cultures around this world than there are in this country, so for any one group to try and institute their definition as the legal definition, is a violation of our freedoms and rights in a democracy and as upheld by the Human Rights Act. Nobody is changing the definition of marriage for churches, or individuals, you are free to divine it as you wish… but you are not free to deny its legal rights and stands to others. It is time for us to grow up, while same sex marriage is fairly new to western history, sex families have been functioning for long enough to show that they pose no more risk to family values or children than different gender families or marriage. It’s been legal in Canada now for over 10 years, and they are ranked as one of the best countries in the world to live in, no more moral or social fabric breakdown than anywhere else… in fact, it is their model of cultural and social tolerance that eels them in that standing, and maybe there are lessons for us to learn there.

  6. Good move by the Premier. Let the people decide. Each side now has the opportunity, equal opportunity I might add, to convince 51% of voters one way or the other.How could that possibly be undemocratic?

    • Noncents says:

      @ Larry Marshall

      Using equal opportunity is a stretch. One side is battling for human rights, the other side is completely unaffected by the outcome. Hardly a fair fight.

      • But both sides believe that they are fighting for their version of human rights so what’s your point? Mine was that each side has the same opportunity to convince the voters and it is they who should decide not one judge or nineteen politicians.

        • Noncents says:

          @ Larry,

          Your argument supposes that voters are able to be convinced one way or the other. Unfortunately, people don’t approach the issue of SSM with an open mind and in large part already know which way they are going to vote. You claim that both sides are fighting for their version of human rights but I don’t see how voting to suppress the civil rights of one small group is protecting civil rights of the larger group.

          One side is fighting for equal rights for all. One side is fighting for equal rights for most. It’s not an equal argument, nor a fair fight.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          Preserve marriage isn’t fighting for human rights, they have never made an arguement to justify that their fight is a human rights one, meanwhile, same sex marriage is asking for the same rights as every other committed relationship is entitled under the law. How can you say the both side is fighting for human rights, there is only one definition, that is that the rights afforded to one under the law, must be afforded to all equally.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Not true.

          One side is fighting for access to rights. The other is fighting to continue to bar access to it.

          There is a very big difference.

          • It is indeed true that both sides believe they are fighting for their version of human rights. Please read the comment before posting.

            • Build a Better Bermuda says:

              He did, you are just arguing that the Preserve marriage version of human right is only for some that fit their description, while same sex’s version of human rights is equality for all… do you know what the universal definition of human rights is.

              • “Universal definition” of human rights is in and of itself subjective which is my point. Right now there are far more countries which do not allow gay marriage than do and therefore from that perspective the version of PM is more universally consistent and acceptable. Don’t equate your opinion with a definitive version of human rights. Let the people decide!

                • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                  Quit trying to justify your desire to maintain a status of discrimination and segregation in our laws with the placebo notion of majority consensus. History is replete with the wrongful enforcement of majority consensus of discrimination against minorities, and they are all considered to have been wrong then as they are now. That is why we instituted the Human Rights Act, so that never again could legal rights and services be wrongfully denied to any individual or group, even if by majority consensus. By your argument, slavery shouldn’t have ended, or voting rights or segregation; your argument effectively is that those movements should never have happened as they were against majority consensus.
                  And wasn’t you that argued international standards to be applied in the case of ending conscription…

                  • I have not made any argument only stated that a referendum is the right way to go.

                    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                      But your argument is ‘that a referendum is the right way to go’. Since when should a referendum ever be used to ensure that a minority be granted equal rights under the law as is enjoyed by the majority. It is the legal obligation of any democratic government to protect the rights of its citizens equally under the law… and the primacy law is the Human Rights Act.

                • Noncents says:

                  @ Larry Marshall

                  Human Rights are not subjective. By definition they are “equal” rights which means they are afforded to all.

                  To be against equal rights, or pro-referendum is discrimination. I am sorry but it is that black and white. There is no grey area.

                  • You have now gone from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous! Pro-referendum is equated with discrimination? A referendum is the purest form of democracy and my question is why are so many SSM supporters afraid of this process.

                    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                      Actually, the purest form of democracy is the protection and preservation of rights to be equally applied under the law. Referendums are for deciding matters that don’t impact people’s equality.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  This is an ad populum argument and, thus, is invalid.

                  What kills me is that you actually had the gall to write “Don’t equate your opinion with a definitive version of human rights” after making this argument!

                  • Oh please Mike you can come better than that. At no time did I advocate an ad populum argument as there was no argument mentioned. Conversely your argument appears to be an inverted ad populum one basically suggesting that because the majority of people think something is wrong then it’s automatically right.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Nothing in here is true.

                      You said ” Right now there are far more countries which do not allow gay marriage than do and therefore from that perspective the version of PM is more universally consistent and acceptable.”

                      This is, without a doubt, an ad populum argument.
                      How can you then turn around and say “At no time did I advocate an ad populum argument…”?

                      Trying to twist what I said into a clever “Oh, no, that’s what YOU’RE doing”, especially when I said no such thing at all, ever, is pathetic.

                      At least TRY to be honest.

        • Sandgrownan says:

          Except one side isn’t fighting for human rights.

        • Rhonnda Oliver says:

          Both may be fighting for human rights as they see them, but only one side is fighting for equal rights.

    • mike says:

      Is this the same larry marshall that fought for abolishing conscription at the Bermuda Regiment?

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        I believe among other arguments, he took the stance that it violated people’s human rights.

  7. Question says:

    Can 2 men in a same sex relationship give blood at the hospital?

    • Disappointment says:

      What is your point?

      • Yo says:

        Answer the question!

        • Mike Hind says:

          This is an irrelevant question as it has nothing to do with marriage.

          I can’t give blood at the hospital. Should my marriage be disallowed?

          Giving blood at the hospital as a part of this conversation is ridiculous.

          • OBA voter 4ever says:

            Is the answer (YES)or(NO) Mike?

            • Mike Hind says:

              It doesn’t matter.
              It has nothing to do with the topic.

              • planeasday says:

                wiggle mike wiggle…

                • Mike Hind says:

                  My answer: I don’t know.

                  Your turn: why does it matter?

                  It’s hilarious that you lot get all outraged when someone doesn’t answer one of your leading questions, but when the shoe is on the other foot, y’all disappear like roaches when the light goes on. Why is that?

                • Mike Hind says:

                  wiggle wiggle.

          • Nightlilly says:

            I am a heterosexual female human who has tested negative for every blood transferable disease and am banned from giving blood in bermuda (because I live in Europe for more than 5 years) – yet my marriage is still recognised by the Bermuda government.

        • lalalalala says:

          Have no idea, but does it matter? Everyone’s Blood/Plasma goes through the same testing process to make sure it is safe (if that’s where your coming from).. Why do you not question same sex women?

          • Nightlilly says:

            The hospital board has banned the use of gay men’s blood but not gay women’s blood – this is a common and outdated practice that is being reversed in many other countries (because we need more blood donors!)

        • sebring says:

          neither can anybody that has received a blood transfusion and by my estimates that is a great number of people bike accidents etc.

    • Jus' Wonderin' says:

      Or have babies?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Also irrelevant.

        Having babies isn’t a requirement for marriage, nor is marriage a requirement for having babies.

        This isn’t even a moot point.

    • Koigold says:

      Yes what’s the difference blood is blood no matter where is comes from if you need a blood transfer your not going to ask if it came from a gay person are you??!? No cause that’s not on a question sheet asking if you are gay or not. What a stupid question

      • planeasday says:

        I sure as hell would ask…

        • Mike Hind says:

          Yes, but that’s because you don’t understand how things work and are bigoted against gay people.

    • Nightlilly says:

      I lived in Europe for more than 5 years and am therefore permanently banned from giving Blood in Bermuda, what is your point?

  8. Beep Blip says:

    Just say no! I want to live in a Bermuda divided by race and full of hate. Giving gays equal rights will help bring us together as a nation and into the modern era- AND THIS IS BAD!!!

    • Nightlilly says:

      While we’re at it lets take away women’s suffrage – bloody women with all their hormones and emotions can’t be trusted to make rational decisions!

      And while we’re at it let’s reinstate segregation!

      And slavery!

      Let’s bring Bermuda back to our core founding principles! YEAH!

  9. Kevin says:

    This is disappointing

    They can grant status to non Bermudians without a referendum , but can’t give its own citizens the equal rights they deserve

    Again I say disappointing

    • Kevin, SSM supporters are protected from dis crimination in the law. It is felt that that right is extended to all. The law does not provide for same sex marriage .Society does not want to legalize SSM. You can live together. Hell, I”ll fight to change the visitation hours at the hospital, but I will not support SSM. Can we still be friends ,knowing my stands ?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Here’s the problem, Mr. Smith…

        You have a lot of things wrong in your post.

        “Kevin, SSM supporters are protected from dis crimination in the law. It is felt that that right is extended to all.”

        And yet, this protection from discrimination doesn’t extend to the denial of access to rights that SS couples experience.

        “The law does not provide for same sex marriage .”

        It actually does. Other than a single clause, 15c, in a single act, it absolutely does.
        And that clause is, in fact, discriminatory, both on a sexual orientation basis and on a gender basis. This will eventually bear out. You’ll see. So, other than a single discriminatory clause, the law does, in fact provide for SSM.

        “Society does not want to legalize SSM.”

        Society needs to protect disenfranchised minorities, not continue their disenfranchisement.
        That’s how it works.

        “You can live together.”

        Not if you’re not both from Bermuda, until today. And even THAT is up in the air.

        “Hell, I”ll fight to change the visitation hours at the hospital”

        Big of you. Allow them one single right. You’re very gracious.

        “but I will not support SSM.”

        No one is asking you to support it. All folks are asking for is that you get out of the way and don’t stop other people from finding their happiness and making a family with the person they love.

        Why is that so hard? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do this?

        You’ve never given a reason why your opposition should have any effect on their relationships.

  10. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Democracy in action./Demos-means ,the People/Democracy means the majority of the People.It is the Bedrock on which the Democratic Society exists.These minority groups of people who want to overturn what the majority of the people want are enemies to democracy ,and Democratic Rule.Their rule is based on Demon-ocracy which the Devil has used for Centuries.A few elite members of the society controlling and exploiting the masses or majority of the People.this tiny group of minority same sex People are the heads of this thinking.Come on with the Referendum. Peace.

    • serengeti says:

      Perhaps we should have a democratic vote to decide whether or not Muslims should be allowed to practice here.

    • Noncents says:

      @ Takbir

      You’re full of hate- we get it.

      You’re also a simpleton, incapable of thinking beyond religion.

      When it’s all said and done and your fairy tale turns out to be just that, you will be rotting in the ground as worm meat…just like the rest of us.

    • brain drain says:

      Total nonsense.

    • mike says:

      Indeed… the should also have voted on the abolition of of slavery… let the people decide.

    • Stickbone says:

      Oh wow, you put an n and an extra o and made the word, Demon-ocracy…. Golly, you should write a book, go on tour…

    • Zevon says:

      What would you know about human rights? Some in the muslim faith want to enslave the rest of us using violence. You’re the last person anyone should listen to.

    • Nightlilly says:

      Perhaps the US should have used this democratic process to allows blacks and whites to marry?

      Oh no wait, that law only had 20% support when it was passed and still doesn’t have more than 50% in some states (I’m looking at you Alabama)

  11. Truth is killin' me... says:

    The PLP drove away IB and the OBA drove away LGBT or did the idiots that vote do that…hmmm!

    • Triangle Drifter says:

      You will hardly hear a peep on this one from the PLP. They have run into hiding. They don’t have what it takes to make a stand either. Cowards. Let the OBA take all of the heat.

  12. Peace says:

    A referendum should never be used to sanctify majority oppression.

  13. steva says:

    Despicable. Spineless OBA and PLP. None have the balls to do the right thing. I’m gay Bermudian living in the US(long term partnered). I make several trips a year to visit family and always bring partner and friends. Granted we don’t stay at hotels, but that gives us much more disposable income to spend in shops, restaurants, bars, boat cruises and even grocery stores. If this goes through I will definitely make less frequent obligatory solo trips to family, stop the on island spending, and take my vacations with friends in places that aren’t so damn homophobic. I WILL spread the word.

    • Jus' Wonderin' says:

      Yawn who cares…go hang out on Rosie’s cruise then!

      • Mike Hind says:

        You really are quite nasty, aren’t you? Sitting there, mocking people, hiding behind a fake name like a coward. You must be really proud of yourself.

        • T. Smith says:

          95% of the bloggers on here are using fake names. What is your point? Stick to the topic. Hey everyone mike thinks your all cowards lolol. I’m pretty sure 70% of the bloggers would give you their address and meet you at the front door, but this is cyber space so get over your feelings or get off the blog site. Better yet vote at the Referendum and have your say.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I don’t have a problem with people using fake names, but when they make attacks and take potshots, it’s not fair.

            Try to keep up.

      • HW says:

        Jus wondering: do you expect your posts to prove helpful in this debate? Do you expect to win anyone over or even have anybody respect your opinion? You’re adding nothing to the debate but are just muddying the waters with your trolling. Pease stop. Neither side benefits from comments like yours and they only serve to drive a deeper wedge between those who disagree, but actually want to engage in meaningful discussion.

  14. BdaReally says:

    Quick question. If the Government believes it is such a great idea for a referendum on marriage why not have one on decriminalizing Marjuana? Let the people decide on the future of their country.

    • Paradise Reclaimed says:

      You raise a very valid point! Too much Baron, not enough opening of minds to those of different preferences, perhaps?

    • Triangle Drifter says:

      An issue much more deserving a referendum than SSM.

  15. Sasquatch says:

    These rainbow warriors going round actin proud to be gay are a disgrace. Rights for what? You people should be shipped to a skittles factory! The only place that takes fruity people

    • Stickbone says:

      Hahaha!! You’re so funny and clever.. -_-

    • Peace says:

      Perhaps it is best for a Sasquatch to remain in it’s cave.

      • iabingi says:

        Even Sasquatch can tell the difference between the “Natural and Unnatural Order”

        • Mike Hind says:

          Care to explain? Or is this just yet another “hit and run” little dig, par for the course from your ilk?

        • Nightlilly says:

          How’s this for natural order?

          Homosexual animals species include:

          Bison, Brown bears, Brown rats, Cavy, Caribou, Domestic Cats, Domestic Cattle, Chimpanzees, Common dolphins, Common marmoset, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, Domestic Horses, Human, Koalas, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, Barn owls, Chickens, Common gulls, Emu, House sparrow, Kestrels, King penguins, Mallards, Ostriches, Ravens, Rock doves, Seagulls, Amazon molly, Blackstripe topminnow, Bluegill sunfish, Char, Grayling, European bitterling, Green swordtail, Guiana leaf fish, Houting whitefish, Jewel fish, Least darter (Microperca punctulata), Salmon, Southern platyfish, Ten-spined stickleback, Three-spined stickleback, Anoles, Bearded dragons, Blue-tailed day gecko (Phelsuma cepediana), Broad-headed skinks, Checkered whiptail lizards, Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizards, Common amebas, Common garter snake, Cuban green anole, Desert grassland whiptail lizard, Desert tortoise, Fence lizard, Five-lined skink, Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda), Gopher (pine) snake, Green anole, Inagua curlytail lizard, Jamaican giant anole, Laredo striped whiptail lizard, Largehead anole, Mourning gecko, Plateau striped whiptail lizard, Red diamond rattlesnake, Red-tailed skink, Side-blotched lizard, Speckled rattlesnake, Water moccasin, Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridian), Western banded gecko, Whiptail lizards, Wood turtles, Appalachian woodland salamander, Black-spotted frog, Mountain dusky salamander, Tengger desert toad, Alfalfa weevils, Australian parasitic wasps, Bean weevils, Bedbug and other bugs, Blister beetles, Blowflies, Broadwinged damselflies, Cabbage (small) white (butterfly), Checkerspot butterflies, Club-tailed dragonflies, Cockroaches, Common skimmer dragonflies, Creeping water bugs, Cutworms, Digger bees, Dragonflies, Eastern giant ichneumon wasps, Eucalyptus long horned borders, Field crickets, Flour beetles, Fruit flies, Glasswing butterflies, Hypoponera opacior ants, Grape berry moths, Grape borers, Green lacewings, Hen fleas, House flies, Ichneumon wasps, Japanese scarab beetles, Larch bud moths, Large milkweed bugs, Long-legged flies, Mazarine blues, Mexican white (butterfly), Migratory locusts, Monarch butterflies, Narrow-winged damselfly, Parsnip leaf miner, Pomace fly, Queen butterfly, Red ant, Red flour beetle, Reindeer warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi), Rose chafer, Rove beetles, Scarab beetle (melolonthine), Screwworm fly, Silkworm moth, Southeastern blueberry bee, Southern green stink bug, Southern masked chafer, Southern one-year cane grub, Spreadwinged damselfly, Spruce budworm moth, Stable fly, Stag beetle, Tsetse fly, Water boatman bug, Water strider, Blood-fluke, Box crabs, Harvest spiders, Hawaiian orb-weaver (spider), Incirrate octopus, Jumping spiders, Mites, and Spiny-headed worms.

          • iabingi says:

            Are you saying the “Human Homosexuality” is within the natural order?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Yes. That is EXACTLY what they are saying. And they’re giving examples to prove it.

              That’s how this works. If you’re going to present something as a fact, you back it up with evidence. If not we can dismiss it as false.

              For example: Your nebulous reference to “The Natural and Unnatural Order” was made without anything to back it up. Therefore, especially given “Nightlily”‘s reply with examples that show that your position is wrong and can, thus, be dismissed.

              Unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your position?

              • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                no they are spouting something with no citations of proof. That’s irrefutable proof. Show me that the scientific community have found this proof of some sort of gay gene and you might have a leg to stand on.

                • Come Correct says:

                  I agree with that, where Mike and I disagree. I still believe everyone has the right to be happy no matter their orientation.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  But that’s not what they are saying. You can’t keep moving goalposts. It’s dishonest.

                  What’s amazing is that you’ll post something like this, yet never actually post any sort of irrefutable proof or even the hint of it.

                  Why is it only one side that has to prove anything and not the ones making the initial proposition?

                  Why doesn’t the person making the “unnatural” argument have to provide proof?

                  • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                    simple because they are speaking from an observable truth that gay people are not the norm.. do we need stats or can you agree to that? If you can agree that the gay lifestyle is not normal it is up to them to prove their legitimacy in the world. After all it has been said the scientists are looking for the “gay Gene” I guess we’ll have to wait and see until then they are trying to argue from an unproven position that they are driven by some genetic predisposition and that it is not a lifestyle choice. No goal post shifting here it is there unsure position that infact shifts the goal posts to favor their yet to be proven starting point in their argument.

                    LOL maybe this is some form of “micro evolution” or de-evolution depending on what you believe. All I asked was for information that is provable to formulate or revise if necessary my opinion. So far they have failed to do so. Remember they are trying to convince others of their point not the other way around.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      There is a difference between “the norm” and “normal”.

                      The initial post used “natural order”.

                      You’ve moved the goalposts.

                      That isn’t fair.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Hate-filled nonsense.

      And not one SSM opponent will speak out against this.

    • HW says:

      I don’t find your post particularly helpful. Quite immature and antagonistic actually. Stick to the debate.

    • Nicole says:

      You’re an idiot. Grow up.

    • Nightlilly says:

      If your Mom found out about the stuff you were spouting on the internet she would take your Xbox away from you for two weeks

      GO TO YOUR ROOM

  16. San George says:

    Great move – should have this on Casinos, Airport, civil service or tax increases, granting of status. This is democracy.

    Quo Fata Ferunt

  17. Cow Polly says:

    I always thought the OBA would do the right thing in the end, they just had to take the people through the process. Now I’m stunned and appalled and quite frankly disgusted. How can you call for a referendum to determine the rights of a minority when it does not affect the majority at all?

  18. Navin Pooty Tang Johnson says:

    Gutless Politicians

  19. Mike says:

    Deciding human rights by way of a vote is appalling and fundamentally flawed.

    What’s next…..deciding if disabled people should have the protection of the HR Act removed?

    Disgraceful.

    • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

      What would you say if the Govt. came back with a vote of “NO”..?
      Would u be so willing to accept that?

      • Mike Hind says:

        It wouldn’t change the fact that – barring the need to change a constitution, as in Ireland – a referendum on equal access to rights is the wrong way to go.

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

          That is not what I asked you…stay focused.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Um… it actually answered your question.
            Learn to read.

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

              Keep all your bureaucratic jargon for the sleepers…It was a simple yes or no answer…

              • Mike Hind says:

                Snow you’re just saying words, hoping their right. “Beurocratic jargon”? “Sleepers”?

                Those things don’t mean anything.

                I answered your question. A positive outcome still won’t change the fact that this was the wrong way to do it. The ends don’t justify the means.

                How did you miss that?

    • No Mike, Having seniors retire at 65 is wrong. That is called age discrimination, but who’s fighting for that?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Lots of people.

        But what does that have to do with this topic?

        The fact that there are other wrongs out there doesn’t make this any less wrong.

  20. Question please? says:

    Why would this be different than what Ireland did and they voted?

    • Rich says:

      Ireland had to have a referendum. Their constitution preserved marriage, and therefore, a referendum was required to amend the constitution.

  21. Coffee says:

    NO!

    • Mike Hind says:

      More sparkling, intelligent, well thought out repartee from “Coffee”.

      • Coffee says:

        And not just NO , but ‘ELL NO !

        • Mike Hind says:

          OOOH! Big words. Maybe you’ll move to two syllables soon.

          Still saying absolutely nothing of substance. As usual.

        • Nightlilly says:

          I think you dropped this: H

      • obasellouts says:

        You are one of the reasons ppl wont give the gays a chance tbh.

        When they read how nasty you are to anyone who is not for your point of view.

        Get over yourself.

        Let ppl who see things different then you have their say just like you and then the majority will decide.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Here we go again. Another internet tough guy poking in with barely intelligible lies while hiding like a coward behind a fake name.

          I’m not nasty to people “who is not for my point of view”.

          I’m not stopping anyone from having their say.

          I love how guys like you always step up and pretend that responding to someone is somehow stopping them from having their say. Like we’re all supposed to shut up when “Coffee” posts his brilliant insight of “NO!” and let that stand.
          He’s allowed to post that nonsense, but I should shut up and “Let ppl who see things different then [sic] you have their say just like you”.

          As has been said, ad nauseum, it’s not about their views. It’s not about them “seeing things different then me”. It’s about the fact that they are pushing to have those views forced onto other people. The fact that they think those views are enough of a reason to deny access to rights to Bermudians.

          Get it?

  22. Reality Check says:

    Why are any of you surprised at this . Our elected members of parliament have long proven they have no backbone . Why expect them to show any leadership now ? Politics is all about doing whatever you think will get you reelected . It has nothing to do with what in fact is right .

  23. Noncents says:

    From the late and great George Carlin…

    Rights aren’t rights if someone can take ’em away. They’re privileges, that’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter and shorter.

    Yeah… sooner or later the people in this country gonna realize the government does not give a &*&* about them. The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety, it simply doesn’t give a &*&* about you. It’s interested in its own power, that’s the only thing, keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.

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

    Take your “Civil Unions” receive the “rights” that you so vigilantly are requesting and leave the word “MARRIAGE” out of your mouth…I mean, you really want the rights afforded to a woman n man don’t you…that is the nucleous of this subject isn’t it..? Why are you so adamant about a word that means NOTHING to you..?

    And for all of you that thinks this Gay Agenda does not have or will not have an impact on others…that goes to show the selfishness of said individuals…If you think there are no hidden undertones to this agenda then I shall say take a look at a young Swedish libertarian group who is now calling for legislation for “Necrophilia” and “Incest” by consenting parties…It is documented and on record…so if you think “Pedophilia” is not next in line for debate…then go ahead and destroy humanity as you know it…Once again I suggest you take your “CIVIL UNION” receive the rights that you want and go on living your life.

    • Noncents says:

      @ Keeping It Real

      You are a %$^& moron. Comparing civil rights to pedophilia? And we are supposed to take you seriously?

      Embarrassed to share 21 square miles with people like you.

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

        The Truth is Rarely Popular…and thanks to you and people that thinks like you for confirming that you really don’t have a clue outside of this 21 mile rock…I wonder if you have ever called anyone closed minded…?? Continue chasing your tail and see where that gets you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          The Truth? What do you know about the truth?

          Given the drivel you posted up there, you are not well acquainted with it.

      • Nightlilly says:

        I think you might be dealing with a Flat-Earther …. just back away slowly or they might bite

    • Mike Hind says:

      You keep trying to bring this nasty, nasty argument up and you keep getting shown how and why you are so, so disgustingly wrong.

      You actually wrote this phrase: “for “…Necrophilia” and “Incest” by consenting parties…” and “so if you think “Pedophilia” is not next in line for debate.”

      Do you seriously not see what’s wrong with this? Here’s a clue… NEITHER CORPSES NOR CHILDREN CAN GRANT CONSENT!

      Incest, as you know, because this has been explained to you repeatedly, is not part of this because… and I have to use all caps again… FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALREADY FAMILY MEMBERS AND ARE ALREADY NEXT OF KIN. That’s what that phrase means!

      This nonsense “slippery slope” argument is pathetic and false and desperate and completely wrong.

      What kills me is that you act like it’s the use of the word marriage that will do all this bad stuff and not, you know, actually giving people equal rights.

      Your entire post here? It’s completely insane. Nothing in it is true or reality-based. It’s just lunatic ranting, desperately lashing out, hoping some of this fear mongering nonsense will stick.

      • Jiminy Cricket says:

        Mike, your respose has really gone from reasonable to little / no substance in your objection. This is actually a real slope that is being played out in European courts right now.
        This topic goes back to the moral basis for marriage and sexuality. Your only argument is for equal human rights but not about the truth of marriage and its purpose. One cannot look at this in isolation or you will get to the point of giving human rights for necropolia and incest, you will just make caveats for consent such as having the person consent before death or stating that animals cannot consent so it’s irrelevant.

        Essentially we need to realize what the point is of marriage and it’s basis in society, religion and nature and then any rights that flow from that will be good and appropriate rather than just something that we want do. We should all know that just because we desire something does not mean that it is good or beneficial.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Here we go.

          My “response” hasn’t changed. I keep getting yelled at for saying the same thing over and over.
          So, that is wrong.

          The next sentence makes no sense. We’re talking about consenting adults entering into a legal arrangement. See the word “Consenting”? That is an integral part of the whole thing.
          Saying it’s not is… well, it’s just wrong. And saying that people can consent before death… to have their corpse get married? Is just… it’s not even wrong. It’s just… not a thing.
          And animals cannot give consent. They can’t. They cannot willingly enter into a legal arrangement. I don’t know how you can argue otherwise. I mean… this doesn’t make any sense.

          Then the last one…
          “Essentially we need to realize what the point is of marriage…”

          As always, the point of marriage is this: To legally create a family with another person outside of your family, so they can share in the same rights and privileges as the rest of your family” That’s it.

          “and it’s basis in society”

          That’s it. Same Sex Marriage won’t change that “basis”. It’ll just create more stable, committed, legal relationships, which, I think we’ll all agree, is good for society.

          “…religion…”

          Won’t affect the religious aspect of marriage in any way. No one is looking to take away the church’s protections. If they do, you’ll find me fighting on your side.

          “…and nature…”

          Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. It’s a man-made construct.

          “…and then any rights that flow from that will be good and appropriate rather than just something that we want do.”

          But marriage is all about “something we want to do”. I wanted to get married to my wife and she wanted to get married to me, so we did. It was something we wanted to do.
          Why shouldn’t our gay brothers and sisters be allowed to do the same?

          Your use of the word ‘appropriate’, as well as the “purpose” stuff and “nature” stuff makes me think you might be trying to make a thinly veiled procreation argument with this.
          I hope not. Because, as has been explained many times, that is not a requirement for marriage.

          “…We should all know that just because we desire something does not mean that it is good or beneficial.”

          First off, being beneficial to society isn’t a requirement either.
          Secondly, are you saying that SSM isn’t beneficial or good?

          If so, why?

          Personally, I think it is. Increased equality, tolerance and respect for each other is good for society. Stable, committed relationships are good for society.

          How would it be bad?

          • We the People (1st!!) says:

            Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. It’s a man-made construct. LOL LOL LOL.

            Right and Wrong, Morals, doesn’t exist in nature either.

            As always, the point of marriage is this: To legally create a family with another person outside of your family, so they can share in the same rights and privileges as the rest of your family” That’s it. lol your discrimanting…why limit it to people outside your family. As long as it is two consenting adults why does it matter if it’s family or not. You’re discrimanting.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Are you even a little bit serious?

              This is complete gibberish.

              Why limit bringing people in to your family to people outside your family?

              BECAUSE THE PEOPLE INSIDE YOUR FAMILY ARE ALREADY INSIDE YOUR FAMILY!

              How can you not see that?

              I mean, I know you’re desperate to rationalize your desire to discriminate against gay folks, but this is a breathtaking level of idiotic.

              Accusing someone of “discrimanting” for… I can’t even figure out the level of stupid that this made sense to.

              • We the People (1st!!) says:

                What does marriage have to do with family. As you say, having a family is not a stipulation for marriage.

                When you say family how far are you going. So why can’t a same-sex couple two first cousins marry than.

                What does that have to to with marriage? Two consenting adult want to marry. Your condition of them being family of not being able to get married is irrelevant.

                Why does being family matter for two consenting adults. You are discriminating.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  First off, you are lying. I have never said that having a family isn’t a stipulation for marriage, if you’re going to try to have a discussion about this, please try to be honest and discuss things I actually said. What I have said is that having children and the ability to do so isn’t a stipulation for marriage. There is a difference,

                  Next bit… You’re talking about family members. I’ve explained this. They already have the rights.

                  The next two bits are just bizarre ranting, showing your complete lack of understanding of what I said,

                  Maybe try reading again and really trying to work it out.

                  The point is that family members have rights together. Marriage grants those rights to someone outside the family. People already in the family already have those rights and, thus, don’t need to get married to get them.

                  Or are you being willfully ignorant about this, pretending you don’t get it because it doesn’t fit into your agenda?

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

    What the Bermuda HRC fails to recognize is that Same-Sex access to marriage is NOT a human right. One of the HIGHEST courts in the world for human rights have EXPLICITLY declared Same-Sex Marriage is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT.

    So, please would the Bermuda HRC explain how Same-SEX is a human right. What is it they know that the highest court for human rights does not know?

    Equality – lol. That’s a funny concept when it comes to Same-Sex. This kind of Union does absolutely NOTHING for society as a whole. NOTHING! Male to Female union provides a few benefits to society. These two are NOT EQUAL! Are not, cannot, and will NEVER be equal.

    This is what the European Human Rights courts say about my last paragraph.

    In Article 12 of the Convention (dealing with marriage,) it says, “(marriage)…secures the fundamental right of a man and a woman to marry and to found a family (if wanted). Article 12 expressly provides for regulation of marriage by governments, is given as a right to people to marry someone of the opposite sex/gender by national law.”

    In other words, the two are NOT EQUAL.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nothing in here is true.

      Access to equal rights is a human right.

      Oh, wait. You know this because this entire post has been debunked and shown to be false several times.

      If your position is so strong, why are you guys so afraid to use honesty to defend it?

      • HW says:

        Mike are you denying or simply disagreeing with what the European court has said on the subject? Thanks

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’m saying it’s irrelevant.

          You keep bringing it up as though it’s some holy grail of evidence… yet never actually explain HOW it is.
          You just keep saying “European court” over and over and expect us to go “Oh! European COURT, you say. Oh, well, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish!”

          Nowhere in our current laws is “and found a family”. This is not… as you know, because you’ve been told this time and again and have NEVER shown it to be wrong… a requirement for marriage.

          “We The People – 1st” says “This kind of Union does absolutely NOTHING for society as a whole. NOTHING! Male to Female union provides a few benefits to society. These two are NOT EQUAL! Are not, cannot, and will NEVER be equal.”
          Which is simply nonsense. There is nothing reality based in here.
          “A few benefits to society” can ONLY mean procreation… unless this person would care to explain what else it means, which I doubt will happen, given past experiences with you folks… which, as mentioned, isn’t a requirement, stipulation or restriction from marriage.

          I know your entire wagon is hitched on this star, but it’s time to start coming to the realization that it isn’t gonna stick. This “Men and women can have babies and that’s why they can get married” thing isn’t real. It just isn’t.

          • HW says:

            Firstly, It’s not irrelevant because we signed on and are subject to the European Convention. There’s no getting around that.

            Secondly, I HAVE explained this. You just didn’t see it perhaps. I’m not in the habit of restating my entire position over and over. Furthermore, if you really desire to know what I’m referring to, how about reading up on it? It would be most beneficial and educational for you and I mean that sincerely.

            Many are under the false assumption that access to marriage is a human right…the European Court says it is NOT. Oliari and others versus Italy 2015 restates this.

            The Court also has said that the government should test the prevailing community interest (will of the people, essentially) and balance that against the interests of the gay community. ONCE this has been done, then you have a measurable margin of appreciation, meaning you have a basis for determining how the European Convention law fits into Bermuda law. The court has previously indicated that a referendum is a perfectly acceptable way to accomplish this.

            Only after we’ve determined what people want for marriage in Bermuda should any legislative changes be made.

            • We the People (1st!!) says:

              Exactly!

              The Court also has said that the government should test the prevailing community interest (will of the people, essentially) and balance that against the interests of the gay community.

              Maybe Mike doesn’t understand law that is why I encouraged him to read the recent EHRC rulings and go to a lwayer to get an understanding. I’ve basically pointed out the position of the EHRC and he says it’s not true lol.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Or maybe you just didn’t read my reply. At all.

                But then you never actually do, do you?

            • Just the Tip says:

              felt like reposting this

              Well lets see if this helps you

              http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265#{“itemid”:["001-156265"]}

              16. The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in Europe, the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by Parliament, in the exercise of its full discretion. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.

              This says that they should have the same rights as staight couples but leave it up to the country’s government on how they define it but they must provide that right.

            • Mike Hind says:

              I just noticed you did it again!

              You CLAIMED you had made your case without actually making it. AGAIN!

              You do this every time!

              Amazing.

      • We the People (1st!!) says:

        It’s all true. In previous post I provided a direct link to the EHRC position on same-sex marriage. Even in recent cases.

        Their position is CLEAR!! Civil Unions are good enough. Not saying that I even support this but this is what the EHRC has said when it comes to a recent case in ITALY.

        You tell the EHRC that is not true. This is their position.

        So you please stop the LIE, and rushing to say ‘not true’ crap when it is clearly true. Stop!!!!!!!

      • We the People (1st!!) says:

        Also, this is what I said on another post which is 100% true.

        The ECHR Oliari v. Italy, is that Italy should pass a civil partnership law. HOWEVER, the EHRC SAID, but there is NO RIGHT to MARRY for SAME-SEX couples. I don’t know how to spell this out any clearer for you than that.

        The fact is that the judgment was framed in terms of a right to some material benefits, which are obtainable via civil partnership.

        All that ECHR case is saying to Itlay is that the lack of recognition of Same-Sex relationship, and that civil partnership fixes this problem. Having reached this conclusion, THE COURT (not me) felt that there was no need to make a finding on the additional ground of DISCRIMINATION (in terms of marriage).

        Look it up, read it, and take it to a lawyer for translation if you need to. To most people in LAW (those that are not in this discussion to make money) this is how this ruling is understood.

      • We the People (1st!!) says:

        And I like how you say “You know this because this entire post has been debunked and shown to be false several times.” Several times lol lol lol.

        I’ve only posted about the EHRC on one other post and it wasn’t debunked or proven false. How in the WORLD can a comment and ruling directly from the EHRC be proven false?

        LOL LOL.

        Why don’t you please explain how Same-Sex is a Human Right then. You haven’t clearly explained your position on this. Quick to call out others. Explain yourself. What do you support, why, how is this a human right? How is same-sex moral? How is it equal to opposite gender marriage, does gender mean anything? “Equality” – in order for two things to be equal, one must first define what they are; so, what is marriage and why should it be defined that way? Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

        If you have explained this before, please provide a link, I’ll be happy to read it.

        • Just the Tips says:

          Well lets see if this helps you

          http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265#{“itemid”:["001-156265"]}

          16. The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in Europe, the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by Parliament, in the exercise of its full discretion. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.

          This says that they should have the same rights as staight couples but leave it up to the country’s government on how they define it but they must provide that right.

          • We the People (1st!!) says:

            Thanks you’re basically confirming what I said.

            The ECHR Oliari v. Italy, is that Italy should pass a civil partnership law. HOWEVER, the EHRC SAID, but there is NO RIGHT to MARRY for SAME-SEX couples.

            “Could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals.”

            Again there is no HUMAN RIGHT for Same-Sex couples to have access to marriage or the institution of marriage.

            What you pointed out is the case for Civil Unions. Which is clear this government is pursuing Civil Unions rather than marriage partially based on this very recent ruling in Italy.

            Again there are no rights to access to marriage. Also to clear something up…this ruling is not about given Same-Sex couples the SAME RIGHTS of opposite sex marriage. It’s about given recognition to these couples. Not SAME RIGTHS because civil unions do not provide the SAME RIGHTS but some.

            Now if you want to have a debate about civil unions we can do that.

            • Just the Tip says:

              ‘Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties.’

              So what does this part mean to you? Or are you choosing to ignore this part?
              The ECHR is say that same sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples but they chicken out by saying that so long as the governments provide the legal frame work it doesn’t matter if its not called marriage.

              ‘Not SAME RIGTHS because civil unions do not provide the SAME RIGHTS but some.’ So you admit then that civil unions do not offer the equal rights, and so are rather pointless.

              • We the People (1st!!) says:

                It doesn’t mean marriage. ‘juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties.” Like I said it’s about recognition not same rights. I do not see, and I have read the entire ruling, anywhere in the ruling where it says same-sex must be given equal rights to marriage. In fact the ruling by EHRC says civil unions are good enough for recognition.

                You tell me, does what you quoted translate to same rights? I don’t see it.

                • Just the Tip says:

                  I’ll get to my response in a moment but just out of curiosity what rights are you looking to stop same sex couples from having?

                • Just the Tip says:

                  It does mean marriage, what other rights and duties would they be talking about?

                  and this is how i base my view on this.

                  ‘intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions,…’
                  this tells me they are talking about marriage/ partnerships what ever you want to call it. as it states it is talking about enabling and encouraging the develop of people through relationships i.e. marriage, it clearly states that that homosexual unions are included in that intention.

                  ‘…understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple,obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties.’
                  they are going on to further explain what a homosexual union is and then state they have the fundamental right (isn’t that another way of saying human right?) to express themselves as a couple and to have rights and duties of a couple under the law, just like opposite sex couple aka married people.

                  The bit squeezed in between obtaining and juridical as i understand it is reference to the requirements by the law that need to be met before some one can be coupled/married. this would mean in Bermuda posting Notice of intended marriage for 14 days (which would fall under time I would assume), need to over 18 years old or having both parents/guardians consent. This done gets you a marriage licence from the Registrar General which is valid for 3 months ( limit as was mentioned in the blurb) then you need two witnesses which have to sign the marriage certificate which of course is another limit.

                  All of this is about marriage and the rights and duties that go with it, which means this all translates into same rights because if the rights and duties were equally applied to same sex couples as opposite sex couples there would never have been the need for this court case in the first place.

                  Also I do see where they talk about all this being achieved in other ways and yes you are right that is talking about civil unions but what i think your missing is what comes after all that;
                  ‘Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.’
                  This EHRC say that if the rights are given to all that the cases could be brought before them again and they would make the decision that the Parliament couldn’t. An example I would imagine would be, if same sex couple were not given rights at the hospital such as being able to make decisions for an incapacitated partner. This could be brought back to EHRC and they could make a ruling if Italy had done nothing. And the said could be said of Bermuda if things get pushed that far.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You’re not the only person posting this nonsense.

  26. Guy says:

    Allowing an abnormal thing can trigger to others to ask for rights that my heart other individuals.

  27. DC says:

    Now a days what people consider is wrong is what is considered right and what has been considered right all along is considered wrong! What a confusing world we live in….If this civil union or Marriage goes through man with man and woman with woman it goes against what has been right all along…Please Know that It is never right for a man to be with a man as it is un natural and the same goes for a woman with a woman…Somewhere during upbringing something went wrong…either an absent father or domineering mother..a child wounded and stunted emotional growth. There isn’t a gay gene and no one is born gay…This is a choice..Human Rights says they protect the minority…The majority have human rights also to view their concerns and shouldn’t have this forced…Next people will be asking to marry 2 people or 3 people and have more than one wife or husband? Is Human Rights going to allow for this as well? After all its everyone’s right if they so desire right??

    • Noncents says:

      @ DC

      Please provide evidence that being gay is a learned behavior. You are an expert on the subject after all.

      The polygamy argument is pathetic and unworthy of refutal.

    • Mike Hind says:

      None of this is true.

    • Cow Polly says:

      DC imagine for a minute, if you can, that the roles were reversed and it was “never right for a man to be with a woman or a woman to be with a man, that this is what has been right all along”.
      Knowing how this repulses you, how would you feel if you were forced by society to accept the norm and marry the same sex partner? That if you followed your attractions because you loved someone and wanted the security of a recognized union with that person instead you would be ostracized from society and deprived of Government benefits even though you pay your taxes and keep on the right side of the law?
      Now come back to reality? Does this in any way, shape or form help you understand what being a same sex minority actually feels like?

    • Nightlilly says:

      Freud want’s his pseudo-psychology back

      In case you’re out of the loop: most of his work has been disproven. But that’s for trying. You get 2 more chances!

    • Nightlilly says:

      Naturally occurring homosexuality:

      Species which display homosexuality: Bison, Brown bears, Brown rats, Cavy, Caribou, Domestic Cats, Domestic Cattle, Chimpanzees, Common dolphins, Common marmoset, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, Domestic Horses, Human, Koalas, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, Barn owls, Chickens, Common gulls, Emu, House sparrow, Kestrels, King penguins, Mallards, Ostriches, Ravens, Rock doves, Seagulls, Amazon molly, Blackstripe topminnow, Bluegill sunfish, Char, Grayling, European bitterling, Green swordtail, Guiana leaf fish, Houting whitefish, Jewel fish, Least darter (Microperca punctulata), Salmon, Southern platyfish, Ten-spined stickleback, Three-spined stickleback, Anoles, Bearded dragons, Blue-tailed day gecko (Phelsuma cepediana), Broad-headed skinks, Checkered whiptail lizards, Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizards, Common amebas, Common garter snake, Cuban green anole, Desert grassland whiptail lizard, Desert tortoise, Fence lizard, Five-lined skink, Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda), Gopher (pine) snake, Green anole, Inagua curlytail lizard, Jamaican giant anole, Laredo striped whiptail lizard, Largehead anole, Mourning gecko, Plateau striped whiptail lizard, Red diamond rattlesnake, Red-tailed skink, Side-blotched lizard, Speckled rattlesnake, Water moccasin, Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridian), Western banded gecko, Whiptail lizards, Wood turtles, Appalachian woodland salamander, Black-spotted frog, Mountain dusky salamander, Tengger desert toad, Alfalfa weevils, Australian parasitic wasps, Bean weevils, Bedbug and other bugs, Blister beetles, Blowflies, Broadwinged damselflies, Cabbage (small) white (butterfly), Checkerspot butterflies, Club-tailed dragonflies, Cockroaches, Common skimmer dragonflies, Creeping water bugs, Cutworms, Digger bees, Dragonflies, Eastern giant ichneumon wasps, Eucalyptus long horned borders, Field crickets, Flour beetles, Fruit flies, Glasswing butterflies, Hypoponera opacior ants, Grape berry moths, Grape borers, Green lacewings, Hen fleas, House flies, Ichneumon wasps, Japanese scarab beetles, Larch bud moths, Large milkweed bugs, Long-legged flies, Mazarine blues, Mexican white (butterfly), Migratory locusts, Monarch butterflies, Narrow-winged damselfly, Parsnip leaf miner, Pomace fly, Queen butterfly, Red ant, Red flour beetle, Reindeer warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi), Rose chafer, Rove beetles, Scarab beetle (melolonthine), Screwworm fly, Silkworm moth, Southeastern blueberry bee, Southern green stink bug, Southern masked chafer, Southern one-year cane grub, Spreadwinged damselfly, Spruce budworm moth, Stable fly, Stag beetle, Tsetse fly, Water boatman bug, Water strider, Blood-fluke, Box crabs, Harvest spiders, Hawaiian orb-weaver (spider), Incirrate octopus, Jumping spiders, Mites, and Spiny-headed worms.

      • HW says:

        And many of those animals also eat their own babies and kill the weakest among them. I’m not so sure we should be comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom.

        • Mike Hind says:

          But… it was YOUR side that brought up the “It’s unnatural” argument!

          You can’t say “It’s unnatural” and then go “We can’t compare ourselves to nature”

          That’s just not fair.

  28. Coffee says:

    “[T]he opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. ‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.’ (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

    “Rights, we are told, can ‘rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.’ (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

    “And we are told that, ‘[i]n any particular case,’ either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause ‘may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,’ than the other, ‘even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.’ (What say? What possible ‘essence’ does substantive due process ‘capture’ in an ‘accurate and comprehensive way’? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses ‘converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,’ that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.)”

    • Coffee says:

      What ! Nothing from the hater Hike Mind ?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Couldn’t understand a word of this, it was so poorly written and poorly thought out.

        And I don’t hate you, “coffee”. I just think you’re pathetic.

      • serengeti says:

        It’s a load of gibberish. Where did you cut and paste all the bits and pieces from?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Also, who wrote this for you?
        It’s completely unlike every other post you’ve put up.

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

    It’s hard to communicate with the ones who don’t even know why they exist. ..I guess it’s a right, to be on Earth.

    Life is HARD!….wear a HELMET!!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Um. Yes. It IS a right to be on Earth. This is where we live. We all have an intrinsic right to life.

      How do you not understand that?

  30. ALIEN VOTYER PRO OR NO says:

    sick bunch of bigots. one registered voter equal 1 vote for or against. 51% or higher wins the choice losers shut up winners carry on but quietly. BUT NO church / anti or pro groups should solicit their OPINIONS 2 months prior. Let me make up MY MIND and mark my yeah or neigh.

    • Peace says:

      Why should the rights of a minority be decided on by a majority in the first place? Why should you have a right to decide if someone can see their partner in ICU? Why should you have the right to decide who marries who? Loser just shuts up and accepts the violation of their rights?

      We the people ought not to have those kinds of rights.

  31. Curious says:

    I walked away and contimplated my thoughts because this is serious business. An hour has passed since and here it is. From this moment on, I will not give the OBA any support whatsoever. It’s quite simple for me now. I actually have more respect for the “Preserve Marriage” members because I know they are ignorant, but for elected Government members who I know have intellect but act so blatantly ignorant is inexcusable. Most of us have the “fine line”:that should not be crossed. They crossed my line! Unfortunately I cannot cherry pick the good they have done as it is now so terrible tainted. There is zero integrity, zero strength, zero anything. You are invisible to me now after seeing your true colors,but your true colors will not fade from my mind nor hide behind my lips. When I am speaking with my family, my friends or any other human kind person I come in contact with I will speak to them about your true colors and that’s my promise to those who you discriminate against.

  32. Same ol says:

    Homosexuality and religion have clashed for many years. The first mistake the gay movement made was the symbolic use of the rainbow, while knowing that religious ppl also attribute that symbol as being a promise from God…thats disrespectful. You also took the word gay, which means happy as your own…that’s disrespectful. You also started a smear campaign against religious Bermudian mom, dads, cuzzies, grannies, publicly disrespecting their religion. You keep talking about you’re the minority but you won’t humble yourselves and act like it…maybe the hostility isn’t the fault of the “Bermudian” religious community..maybe you all are instigating hostility. Man plus man equals 1 man and his reflection, the man in the mirror. Take a look

    • Mike Hind says:

      Wow.

      Nothing here is true. Like… nothing. This is, like, not even wrong. It’s just fabrication after fabrication, false arguments and… wow…

      “You keep talking about you’re the minority but you won’t humble yourselves and act like it…”?
      Are you SERIOUS with this? Humble yourselves and act like it?

      Instigating hostility by asking for equal rights and standing up to oppression?

      Are you even remotely serious with this?

      You can’t be. This is crazy talk.

      • Same ol says:

        Quite the contrary, everything I said was indeed true, please point out any falsehood and if you can not then you yourself are fabricating false arguments….which is disrespectful

        • Mike Hind says:

          Your entire post is false because it’s privileged, straight-supremacist nonsense, treating gay folks as less than you.

          Acting like gay folks made a mistake in choosing the rainbow…

          no, you know what? Here’s why it’s false. Why everything you wrote is false…

          Your position is that the gay community instigated this and religious folks are innocent victims.

          The reverse is true. Religious people have persecuted and oppressed and – as we’re seeing now – denied equal access to rights to gay people for years.

          “Homosexuality and religion have clashed for many years.” you say. You’re right. But it’s not “homosexuality” that is instigating these clashes. Gay folks just want to get on with their lives. It’s certain religious folks that keep stepping in and treating gay folks like they don’t deserve equality.

          THAT is why your whole post is wrong.

          And disrespectful.

    • Peace says:

      The rainbow flag has been a universal symbol of the LGBT movement since the 1970s. I really don’t think the Bermuda LGBT community has any intention of disrespect. It seems to me that you are trying to find some way of undermining the moral standing of an entire set of people. Even if the movement itself did have some rotten eggs that were disrespecting something or other, it does not mean that that individual rights should be forfeited.

    • Nightlilly says:

      MINORITIES need to HUMBLE THEMSELVES!?!?

      That sounds like some seriously privileged oppressive sh*te right there.

      WOW

      Now imagine a white American is saying that about Black Americans with the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

      NOOOOOOPE

  33. HW says:

    If you understand what the ECHR has said on the matter, You will understand why a referendum is needed in this particular situation.

    Additionally, the Chairperson of the Bermuda Human Rights Commission is mistaken- the obligation is to FIRST test the margin of appreciation with regards to the European convention. In this case, that will be done via a referendum before any legislative changes are made.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Odd that you don’t actually explain.
      Par for the course.

      Any chance of you finally offering a valid, defensible argument for not getting rid of 15c?

      Or will you just keep posting these nebulous “If you understand, you’d understand…” bits of nothing?

  34. Roger says:

    Cowards! Human rights to be decided by referendum so those in power don’t have to do what they privately will admit is the right thing. Sad. Very sad.

  35. Mike Hind says:

    “maybe the hostility isn’t the fault of the “Bermudian” religious community”

    It’s not! Not at all.

    It’s the fault of that specific subsection of Bermuda’s religious community that think that they have the right to demand that their definition – that they cherry picked out of the bible of their personal choice of religion – be the ONLY definition of marriage. That they should have a say in other people’s relationships.

    It’s that specific subsection that thing that their desire to discriminate trumps other people’s right to access to equal rights.

    It’s not the religious community that is causing the hostility, it’s the specific group of people that are being hostile towards same sex couples.

    • Same ol says:

      Ok it’s a specific subsection of religious ppl being hostile towards the gay community…please explain which specific group of religious ppl are being hostile towards same sex couples? There is no one being hostile, they simply disagree, stop lying on Religious Bermudians….it’s disrespectful.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No, what is disrespectful is using misinformation and lies to promote a continued denial of equal access to rights and privileges to citizens of this country. That is what is hostile.

        I’m not lying. They are.

  36. Tom Cooke says:

    Well… I don’t care… I really don’t. .
    I do…
    I WILL vote for equal rights…
    Or however they pose the question. .

  37. Lil David says:

    This is crazy. We are fighting over sexual immorality. Two men can love…..but not be in love. The misconception……confusing love and lust. Even man + woman relations, they confuse love and lust. We are all equal from birth. We are all human and have equal rights at birth. No one can give another person rights…..we all already have them.
    We can give additional rights to people to control us, manipulate, seduce, and deceive us.
    I feel we are all being seduced into accepting sexual immorality. To be ok with it. To change our natural ways, to change our natural thinking…..to accommodate the unnatural because it seems politically correct.

    Our God has instructed us to …give no place to the devil. In other words, do not relinquish the dominion He has placed in our hands. When we relinquish our God given right to have dominion……the tomorrow we walk in will be the one we create.

    I guess this whole situation boils down to who walks with a Holy God…..His way VS who choose to change the truth into lies. Who sides with the Alpha and Omega God vs who sides with all that is against God.

    Choose this day whom you shall serve……God or the god of sin.

    • Nightlilly says:

      Your God isn’t my God so why should I care about your arbitrary rules?

    • True Lies says:

      I respect your right to walk with your imaginary friend. However, I don’t want the book about your imaginary friend to influence public policy or law. We are discussing civil and political rights, which you are not usually born with (most don’t kick in until you’re 18.) These are not instructed by your imaginary friend, rather by our elected officials and enforced in the courts.

      You don’t have to change your thinking, or accommodate anyone. You just have to mind your own business.

  38. JUNK YARD DOG says:

    What is being discussed here is all about justifying a mental disease of the brain, if they are not normal and cross the line then are they are sick.

    • Mike Hind says:

      This post is what is sick.

      You are truly disgusting.

      • JUNK YARD DOG says:

        That which is an insult to the human race.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Now you’re just spewing hateful nonsense.

          Please try to make sense.

  39. Kathy says:

    Why is it that we can hold a referendum (and pay lots of money to do so!) on same sex marriages but we CAN’T hold a referendum on the most pressing issues this country faces:

    ENERGY REFORM
    RENEWABLE ENERGY
    IMMIGRATION STATUS REFORMS

    !!!!!!!!

  40. just wondering says:

    the Human Rights Commission and the Centre for Justice have both released statements condemning the use of a referendum in this type of situation – they are both very well written and objective statements made by persons/groups with a strong knowledge of issues of human rights – so given their sensible and objective position why is Government pressing this awful decision?

    • sage says:

      Do they have a position on women and blacks being paid less for the same job or people being imprisoned for a plant when tobacco smokers/growers suppliers are considered to be upstanding citizens?

  41. What ??? says:

    “The Government’s decision to hold a referendum on an issue which affects the rights of a minority is, to put it politely, disappointing,”
    This statement shows the thinking of a lot of people. The disabled are a minority, so, to give them any rights is also disappointing? Get a life. Bermudians make me laugh.
    Just like they don’t want gambling here but whenever I go Vegas I see Bermudians.

    • Mike Hind says:

      That’s not what they said.

      The disabled are a minority, so to have a referendum about whether we should give them rights would be disappointing. Not “to give them rights”…

      You completely misrepresented what was said.