Video: “Preserve Marriage” Press Conference

February 4, 2016

“Preserve Marriage” — the group behind the petition opposing same sex marriage — held a press conference today, where they said they will be hosting a public demonstration at 12.00pm on Tuesday, February 9th at the Cabinet Grounds.

Speaking at today’s press conference, Bishop Jones said, “We would like the public that is for marriage to remain between a man and a woman to come out to a peaceful demonstration – and we emphasize peaceful – on the Cabinet House grounds on Tuesday, February 9 at 12.00pm.


“We are asking for all to attend who signed the petition, those who are for traditional marriage, people of faith, and those who are not of faith but believe in traditional marriage.”

click here same sex marriage

Read More About

Category: All, News, Videos

Comments (271)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 25 yo Bdian says:

    sigh…Often discouraged when I read about people who still cling to these viewpoints. The good news is that all of these people will be dead and gone in a short time and the world will be better off for it!

    • We the People (1st!!)e says:

      Wow! Because someone holds a different viewpoint from the one you support it is “good news is that all of these people will be dead and gone in a short time.”

      Wow! Ok ISIS.

      • Onion says:

        They’re allowed to have their viewpoint. We have a problem when they try and impose it on everyone else.

        People’s private lives are none of their business.

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          What you said has nothing to do with my comment. I basically said it is wrong that this person is happy – that it is good news that people will DIE, DEATH because they have an opposite viewpoint.

          Are you okay with that?

          • Sarcastaball says:

            I think it was more of a comment on how the generation represented by Preserve Marriage will move along and be replaced by a much more just, compassionate and understanding generation. Nobody is advocating killing anyone because of their beliefs. Totally your choice if you want to be on the wrong side of history and you have a right to free speech, but you don’t get to force beliefs on other people that don’t believe them.

            • Just saying says:

              This isn’t just about beliefs I agree, but with that being said there are studies and evidence that give compelling reasons, that back up the “Godly” view and why it works.


              Center for Law and Social Policy posted this in 2003 (yes its over a decade old) but those kids being profiled are the parents of this coming generation. I can be counted as being one of those kids being profiled. The issues that arise from this are very real and we are dealing with it now.

              I’m not just talking about Same Sex Marriage vs. Traditional Marriage I’m talking about all other forms of children in adult relationships there is a ripple on effect for what ever the situation. With that being said hats off to all the single parents, making it work.

              This is a reflection of the numbers seen. All their sources are cited.

              Just saying

              • hmmm says:

                Did you read it….the report that had a section comparing children of divorced heterosexual coups with divorced same sex couples…it CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.

                The report concludes that being with married parents vs unmarried or cohabiting parent and vs single parent was better.

                If anything the report gives weight to Same Sex Marriage.

                • Daylilly says:



                  ” Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents. Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents. ”

                  “Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment. ”

                  “However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.”

                  This proves the point that government is involved with Traditional Marriage because it reduces the government’s burden and provides a strong foundation for society.

                  Why should we legislate a generation of children at higher risk for poor school performance, behavior problems, early pregnancy, & employment difficulties.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    This is a level of desperate dishonesty that boggles the mind.

                    Your leaps of logic are incomprehensible.

                    How can anyone debate someone like you, who refuses to even engage with reality?

                    • hmmm says:

                      It was not saying that SSM have more divorces.

                      Should read the Williams report. the statistics show less like to divorce…Those are more recent statistics.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Nothing in here has anything to do with what I said.

                      Are you sure you were replying to me?

                      I was talking about the bizarre logic “daylily” was using to get to where they got to…

            • Oscar says:

              Isn’t it amazing how 40 year ago the LBGTQ community were the ones asking for the community a large to respect their views and lifestyle and good Christian folks although t disagreed with their lifestyle and opinions respected them as individuals… now that the shoe . On the other foot, the persecuted have become the persecutors. New doesn’t necessarily mean better people!

              • Mike Hind says:

                How are religious being persecuted?

                How is it any worse than being denied equal access to rights and privileges?

                • Daylilly says:

                  No one is denied the right to marry. Every person is equally allowed to marry.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    This is not even wrong. It’s so far off the mark, it’s not even wrong.

                    With this level of dishonesty, your side has sunk to a low that is unbelievable. I can’t even fathom how this is ok with you.

                • Nightlilly says:

                  Yes, apparently being asked to not deny Rights to people means you can no longer practice your religion

          • Sorry Sir says:

            I think what he’s trying to say is:

            As the world progresses, the ones with old, prohibitive ideologies will pass away and bring forth a new era where the human race will be a better place in terms of human rights.

            • Daylilly says:

              SSM will prove itself to be a social burden on the government. A very sad day for children.

              • Daylilly says:

                In the case of SSM, minority does not equal marginalized or disenfranchised. The SSM agenda makers have the mighty dollar behind them…

                .. Their money has bought the ability to rewrite the bible, rewrite gender, rewrite what it takes to make & raise a human, their agenda is to re-order society.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  None of this is even a little bit true!

                  How is this ok with anyone?

                  • hmmm says:

                    You would think that the churchgoers behind this Bermuda group would look at the LIES HATE and MANIPULATION being used by it’s fellow followers and start to realize that they were not following Gods path at all !

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      “It’s ok when we do it” is the rule of the day, I guess.

                      This pretty much exemplifies what Privilege is.

        • JAWS says:

          The OBA needs to call a referendum over the issue of marriage policy in Bermuda. That will shut everyone up!!!!!!!!!!

          Case Close

          • Onion Juice says:

            They will not have a referendum because they know there are more people that will vote against the UNNATURAL way of living.

            • hmmm says:

              It’s about the minority have basic equal rights….

              It’s not difficult to understand that minorities need protecting and a voice is it !!!!!!!

              I find it incredulous that people want to DENY the minority equal rights and all because of their choice of religion.

              Being gay is not a choice for the minority. Preventing them from having equal rights will not stop them being gay !!!!!!!!!!!! Such HATEFUL PEOPLE in that photo.

              GOD does not approve of this group denying his creation equal rights and because of their judging and casting out of his creation, they will not find their way into the Kingdom of Heaven. You have been told.

            • Sarah Gil says:

              It might serve to remember, for instance, that when the US Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the late 1960s – ruling the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional – almost two-thirds of Americans still supported them.

              If the rights of minorities – in that case, couples of different racial backgrounds – had been put to the majority vote, god knows how long it might have taken for the United States’ most flagrantly discriminatory practices to be overturned.

              At the time Alabama removed its ban on interracial marriage – as recently as the year 2000, astoundingly – 40 per cent of Alabamians openly opposed marriage between whites and non-whites.

          • Nightlilly says:

            If the majority (the powerful) are able to decide what human rights the minority (the weak) are allowed to have then there would still be slavery and women would not have the right to vote.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            Should they have had a referendum on segregation? Civil rights? Voting rights? We ar talking about equality under the law here and upholding one of the core tenants of democracy, freedom of religion; which also means freedom from religious persecution, preventing one group from imposing their belief on anothers freedom. And since no one from this organization has been able to provide an argument that doesn’t involve enforcing their religious beliefs on those that subscribe to them…

        • Why says:

          But yet you’re allowed to have your viewpoint that same sex marriage should be legalized and we have a problem when you try to impose that on everyone else when marriage between a man and woman has been legal for decades.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Not even a little bit equivalent.

            One side wants to deny equal access to rights and privileges to citizens of Bermuda.

            The other wants access to them.

            One side’s viewpoint affects other people’s lives.

            The other side’s doesn’t.

            • Nightlilly says:

              Mike Hind.

              You keep engaging with these bigots and keep explaining the same thing over and over again.

              You are truly doing God’s work.

            • MPP says:

              Marriage is available equally, without prejudice, under the identical terms and conditions, to everyone.

              There is no right for anyone to call whatever arrangement of consenting adults they want a “marriage” though. Stop mislabeling that “denial of equal rights”.

              • Mike Hind says:

                You could not be more wrong.
                I know you hate it that you support the denial of rights to citizens, but that’s exactly what you are doing.

                The restriction, based on gender and sexual orientation, both of which are protected from discrimination, is, in fact discriminatory.
                It DOES deny equal access to rights and privileges.

                To say different is either willfully ignorant or desperately trying to push an agenda.

                • MPP says:

                  Marriage, as currently legally defined, is available to people of any gender or sexual orientation.

                  Some people don’t want what a marriage is, and want it to be something else. If you want to redefine what marriage is, then say that. Don’t say you’re fighting for equal rights when marriage laws are applied equally to everybody. It sounds good for your side but it’s misleading.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Nothing in this is correct.

                    This is just desperate sophistry.

                    All of this has been covered in past conversations.

                • MPP says:

                  Marriage, as currently legally defined, is available to people of any gender or sexual orientation.

                  Some people don’t want what a marriage is, and want it to be something else. If you want to redefine what marriage is, then say that. Don’t say you’re fighting for equal rights when marriage laws are applied equally to everybody. It sounds good for your side but it’s misleading.

                  • Nightlilly says:

                    That’s cute. You’re so wrong and you don’t see it.

              • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                Not in Bermuda, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact remains is that there are consenting adult who wish to make a legal commitment of marriage to the person they love and are being denied that right. Marriage isn’t a religious institution, it is a legal one that religious organizations perform wedding ceremonies to officiate under the law. But those same religious organizations are not needed to officiate them, and any wedding performed by a religious organization isn’t recognized outside of that institution unless it has been legally registered as such. So as I said, marriage is a legal institution that can only be made official under the law… and right now the law discriminates n violation of the Human Rights Act.

            • Janice Battersbee says:

              If you don’t think that the pro-ssm’s viewpoint will not affect other people’s lives, then you have not noted the recent lawsuits in the US in particular against those people who conduct their businesses based on their pro-traditional marriage beliefs and would rather not participate i.e. celebrate a ssm by providing their services. Rather than the ssm couples going to another service provider that would give them what they want, they (or the government) sued those with opposing views who were eventually forced out of business.
              What about the community groups who prefer to provide adoptions couples of traditional marriage who have been forced to stop because of their beliefs?
              What about parents who do not wish their children to be forced to be taught about ssm in schools? They have been been maligned and abused?
              NOT affected? I think not.
              And Bermuda is small for that type of confusion.
              The ssm issue is not going to be confined to the bedroom nor the four walls of their homes. Those who want it and all the rights of traditional marriage want more than just to love each other – they wish to change society. That affects all of us.

              • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                Welcome to human rights… if you operate a business, you are obligated to provide your business without discrimination. Yes there are pastors who have been told they have to perform SSM, but that is because they are operating their services as a religious ceremony but as a business one, so they are obligated to provide that service. Now if they want to form a church and perform weddings as religous ceremonies, then they can say who they can and cannot marry. But if they are only in it for the money…

                • Janice Battersbee says:

                  Providing a service is one thing, and those in the businesses they had did not have a problem serving gays and lesbians as individual customers, but when they were asked to participate in a ceremony that went against their personal beliefs and stated that they could not provide the service, instead of finding a service provider who did not have an issue giving them what they wanted, those who had a different belief were harassed and persecuted to the point that they closed their businesses. Where is the tolerance there? Where are their rights to operate their private businesses in accordance with their God-given convictions? They did not agree with same sex marriage and therefore chose not to participate in them.
                  This is where you cannot say that other people’s lives won’t be affected – everybody’s lives will be affected.
                  And what will happen in Bermuda – with so many who will not fall to the redefinition of marriage – in business, in education….anywhere? Those who will continue to hold up the standards given by God that have been proven to be the best standard?
                  There will be confusion.

                  • Reality says:

                    PROVEN to be the best standard? Where is the proof? You sound ridiculous.
                    You continue to mention God. Doesn’t the bible teach that God accepts EVERYONE; in fact, doesn’t it teach that God created everyone – including homosexuals (Did He make a mistake?)
                    If you want to refer to proof, how about you research gay and lesbian individuals. There have been studies conducted that PROVE that heterosexual men & lesbian women have the same brain responses to stimuli and that heterosexual women & gay men have the same responses. There is also research that PROVES that homosexuality occurs naturally in other species, not just humans.
                    It is individuals with views like yours that cause homosexuals to hide who they really are and cause them to feel bad about something they have no control over. It is really sad; think about how your views are affecting people..
                    Can you not see that the scenarios you referred to were discrimination???? And the fact that homosexuals cannot marry in Bermuda is indeed discrimination???

        • Daylilly says:

          Imposing view points is exactly what SSM proponents want to do. According to Masha Gessen same-sex activist, SSM is a lie and she feels the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist.

          Marriage is not about people’s private lives or else we wouldn’t be having this debate. No-one is banning same-sex relationships. Marriage is about taking your private life and making it a public ideal and then asking that the government sanction it.

          The government is not prepared to sanction every consenting adult relationship, but if SSM is passed, the government had better get prepared. U.S. Federal Courts are already seeing cases regarding various consenting adult relationships. These people feel that now have a right for their relationships to be sanctioned by the government as well.

          I posted the Masha Gessen youtube video but bernews hasn’t released the post yet.

          • Mike Hind says:

            As usual, you are wrong and are desperately trying to push your own religious agenda.

            Nothing you post is correct.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            SSM isn’t about making there private life public, it is about making a commitment under the law and being recognized as such with all the legal rights that commitment entitles. As for one person talking about SSM as a lie, in that same sentence you point that it isn’t SSM that she is against, but the notion of marriage altogether.

            • Mike Hind says:

              This is exactly the problem.

              People like daylily think it’s ok to poke their noses into other people’s relationships because they’ve decided that their religion opposes the relationship, but then get mad that they are exposed to other people’s relationships.

              It’s completely insane.

        • Daylilly says:

          Marriage is a public institution, if this issue were about the totally private lives of consenting adults we wouldn’t be having this debate.

          Everyone on this thread is equally trying to impose their viewpoint on someone else, the proponents for SSM and the proponents for Traditional Marriage.

          SSM proponents want to impose their view of marriage on all the marriages that ever existed and that will exist in the future. No one gets a free pass, we are all imposing opinions that affect others.

          The SSM agenda does not stop at legalizing consenting adult love. The changes and implications are far reaching to the government, education, immigration, and our entire social structure, therefore, everyone has a right to an opinion on the issue.

          • Nightlilly says:

            Literally no one else’s marriage affects mine. My marriage is my business.

            Allowing certain parts of the population certain rights and restricting others is wrong. It’s discrimination. Simple as that.

          • Mike Hind says:

            None of this is even a little bit true, not to mention sane.

            Look at the last sentence: “The SSM agenda does not stop at legalizing consenting adult love. The changes and implications are far reaching to the government, education, immigration, and our entire social structure, therefore, everyone has a right to an opinion on the issue.”

            They say this nonsense, but NEVER actually say what these changes and implications are.

            This is all nothing but baseless, meaningless fear mongering designed to push their religious agenda.

            There is nothing behind it, whatsoever.

      • Cup of tea anyone? says:

        Isis eh? You mean the group that tries to force it’s religious beliefs on people? Ya. Preserve Marriage does sound like isis.

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          But none of these people are talking about death. This person said “Good news is that all of these people will be dead and gone in a short time.” I will NEVER say good news people would be dead because they don’t support the same position as me. It’s just wrong. Debate the issue.

          So I assume you’re okay with this. Preserve marriage whether you agree with them or not is not advocating death.

          • bbs says:

            I think maybe what he/she was referring to age of the preserver-ers. For the most part, I believe younger Bermudians are not as bothered by same sex marriage than the older generations in Bermuda.

    • HW says:

      Are you really that opposed to people who believe that traditional marriage is clearly the best ideal for the betterment of our society?

      • Mike Hind says:

        When they don’t explain HOW it is, when they use lies and misinformation to push their position, when their position is to deny rights and privileges to Bermudian citizens for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

        Yeah. People are opposed to that.

        • Bermuda First says:

          Mike Hind, it is hard to understand how you can see your views as valid but not the views of others. You say “tell me how” but then don’t internalize what is being explained and dismiss the views of those that want to preserve an important and intentional aspect of marriage. That sounds very narcissistic and self defeating. It’s the type of conduct that pushes others away and then blames them for not wanting to engage. Whatever we all believe, i think we should aspire to much more than that.

          • Onion Juice says:

            Why do you need someone to explain when we have the animals as prime examples, waiting for someone to come back with some animals do………………………………..

            • Mike Hind says:

              You’re waiting for someone to prove you wrong again?

              That indicates that you know you’re incorrect… weird.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Not true at all.

            I don’t “internalize” because nothing is actually being explained.
            And I dismiss views because they are factually false.
            I dismiss them because those views are in support of denying rights to Bermudians for absolutely no reason.

            Giving equal rights to same sex couples won’t get rid of this “important and intentional aspect of marriage”, whatever that is… you didn’t actually say during this weird ad hominem.

            I haven’t pushed anyone away. I have been BEGGING for people to engage. They don’t.
            They simply do not. Just like you haven’t here.

            You didn’t explain anything or offer any sort of argument for continuing the denial of equal rights.

            Will you be doing that? Or is it just going to be more false finger-wagging about how I post?

          • Make a new plan Stan says:

            I too would like to know how two people being married corrupts anyone else’s marriage.

            They keep saying that but there is no hue and cry against people who have children out of wedlock (fornicators) and people having affairs (adulterors).

            How do two people minding their own business, living their own lives affect the strength/validity/quality of YOUR marriage MORE than fornicators and adulterers?

            By the way I am a bastard child and I had the nerve to have a bastard child and MANY of the people in the picture above have been shockingly kind to us over the years, not in deeds but in words. I now feel that they were secretly condemning us behind our backs.

            When I saw this on TV last night I felt so sad because more than a few people in the gathering have gay children and other relatives who are not living in their truth. They either go and live away or live here and create false lives to please others; so sad.

            How can people who say they are God’s representatives on earth be so careless……oh I know you don’t hate the person you hate the “sin” but still like I stated above you’ve NEVER gone this hard after any other group of “sinners”.

            Look how many murders have happened in and around Pembroke and look at the heavy concentration of churches in Pembroke I haven’t seen a gathering like this regarding that and in those cases PEOPLE DIED because of someone else’s “sin”

            I could go on and on I’m just so disappointed by this level of “earthly” judgement.

            If my feelings are wrong well I may be damned but only by people like you all above. I’m willing to take a chance with the higher power I believe in, I have no fear that the love that God is supposed to have for me will turn to condemnation because I prefer to let people live their lives as they see fit.

    • Legacy says:

      Quite a few of them did have a ‘one-foot-in-the-grave-the-other-on-a-banana-peel’ look about them.

    • Bermuda First says:

      Wow, how sad is that kind of? It is so reflective of how Bermuda is deteriorating and how we have to do all we can to preserve marriage and ethical and loving conduct. Thankfully there are obviously many many that are standing up to preserve marriage as it is purposefully designed: between a man and a woman.

      • Sarcastaball says:

        Designed by whom?

      • Mike Hind says:

        “Designed” is a religious argument.

        People are allowed to believe whatever they want.

        They aren’t allowed to tell anyone else what to believe.

        If you want to believe that your marriage was designed, then go for it.

        Other people don’t have to.

    • Onion Juice says:

      Now we have got to the point that we have to prove that something that is unnatural is normal.
      I wonder if there are any undiscovered tribes that we can find that have not been polluted by this F!@# up society and see how SANE they are.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You have to “prove it” because… and it seems that you know this… YOU ARE WRONG.

        The only thing “unnatural” in Same Sex Marriage is the Marriage part. We are the only species that does it.

    • itsgettingridiculous says:

      Wow.. 25 yo Bdian.. I support preserve marriage and I’m 26..there were also people there younger than my age.. So, your comment was utterly need to do some serious soul think it is even the SLIGHTEST bit acceptable to praise death to individuals is ludacris…the world HOWEVER will be a better place when people like YOU realize that it is not ok to wish death upon people who have different view points. You took it to the extreme. Ridiculous.

      • Sarcastaball says:

        Must be (definitely eventually will be) very lonely over there on the wrong side of history. I’m sure you wish you were born a few years earlier so you could really be effective in denying people their human rights. The paradigm has already shifted, you’re too late mate.

    • Daylilly says:
      Masha Gessen same-sex activist says:

      “fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there…. We lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change,,,, and that is a lie…the institution of marriage is going to change… And it should change….. I think the institution of marriage should not exist.”

      She goes on to say that she has 3 kids between 5 parents, 1 of which is between her brother and her new partner(who she is currently married to ). Also, she has 1 adopted and 1 that was birthed while with her Russian ex-partner who she had married in Massachusetts.

      • Mike Hind says:

        One example does not an argument make.

        I’d go through and debunk this for you, but you ignore anyone proving you wrong.

        As for lying? That what YOU and your side are known for. Those are YOUR tactics.

        This is glass house debating.

        • Daylilly says:

          Again Mike people can see, hear and read. Just because you call someone a liar doesn’t make you a truth teller.

          Your entire argument is based on name calling.

          • Nightlilly says:

            The opinion of one person (also known as an anecdote) does not proof make that is Science and Statistics 101.

            Showing how one person does not respect marriage the way you think it should be respected does not show that every other person who holds one artificial aspect in comma with them acts and thinks the same way.

            There are many heterosexual people who do not “believe” in the institution of marriage but that does not mean that they want to deny the right to get married to other people.

            This is a straw man argument

          • Mike Hind says:

            Pointing out that you are lying isn’t name calling! It’s a fact!

            This victim playing of yours to cover your lies is a silly, dishonest game and it’s not fair.

            There’s nothing fair in the things you post. You move goalposts, post falsehoods and then play the victim when called on it, it’s completely unfair.

            You claim you want discussion, then refuse to engage in it.

            This is bad for Bermuda.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        So your argument against SSM is to cite someone who doesn’t even think marriage should exist at all???

        • Daylilly says:

          I’m not making an argument. People can hear and see for themselves. A representative and same-sex activist who has been in a SSM twice and is for SSM, says the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist.

          Listen to the video…. No applause in the crowd until she says marriage shouldn’t exist and when she says they are lying about what they are going to do with marriage when they get it…. Her words not mine….. Her crowd not mine.

          • Nightlilly says:

            Wow it’s kind of strange how a group of people who have been discriminated against by an institution think it’s stupid. It’s strange how they know that there really is no need for this institution to exist because they’ve been able to have meaningful long-term committed relationships without it! Shocking.

            The reason people want to get married and want those rights for other is because of the LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND RIGHTS given to married couples over those who are cohabiting.

    • KiddGallahad says:

      OH YEAH! Why should we respect a social norm that has been the cornerstone of serving the next generation and preserving the future. It’s only worked for the last ten thousand years! But we’re smarter because our morally bankrupt college professors and gay agenda driven politicians say this is what we should be doing. Your ilk will die off sooner! Homosexuality is not hereditary. It’s a birth defect.

  2. bago says:

    who funds all this and the adverts?

    maybe you should spend your money on helping the starving.

    • Pravda says:

      A millionaires checkbook !

    • HW says:

      I’m glad you’re so committed to feeding the hungry. So are many of the people who support traditional marriage. In fact, I believe many of the problems facing society today are due to the breakdown and disregard of traditional marriage values which has led to the breakdown of the family.

      Undermining the ideal by redefining marriage leads to even further fracturing of the family unit by legislating fathers and mothers as only ‘optional’. Given that fatherlessness is a huge problem in our society, I don’t know how we can in good conscience make such a change to the law and our culture.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Not true. You keep pushing this false narrative.

        Allowing same sex couples to get married will absolutely NOT fracture the family unit.
        And fathers and mothers, outside of conception and carrying the child, respectively, are already optional. This won’t make them MORE optional.

        I don’t know how you, in good conscience, can keep spreading this misinformation.

        • Nightlilly says:

          Mike Hind!

          Don’t you know? As soon as Same Sex Marriage becomes legal then suddenly the virus of homosexuality will infect all the heterosexuals and then no new children will be born and the race of Bermudians will cease to exist!

          Wait, what?

        • Just saying says:

          So if Mothers and Fathers are already optional shouldn’t we aim to make them necessity again?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Because this isn’t a requirement for marriage!

            We’re talking about same sex couples getting married. They aren’t allowed to at this point, because of 15c in the Matrimonial Clauses Act (note: NOT the Marriage Act).
            They are being discriminated against based on gender and sexual orientation.
            There is no basis for this discrimination being offered.

            Children being raised better by mothers and fathers is NOT a basis for this discrimination as it isn’t being applied equally.

            It is nothing more than an excuse and one that is unfair.

            If this was about “making mothers and fathers a necessity again”… if it were TRULY about that, then this group, and all of you, would be proposing legislation relating to divorce, out-of-wedlock marriage and all the other things that ALREADY make mothers and fathers optional. But they aren’t.
            They aren’t even mentioning them. They are ONLY using this excuse to block citizens from getting married.

            Is that clear enough?

      • Just the Tip says:

        Your last paragraph is a lie and has been proven to be such many times before why do you insist on trying to use it over and over again.

        • Just saying says:

          Please tell how it has been a lie. Don’t call it a lie then run away without explaining yourself.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        It isn’t the disregard of traditional marriage that is destroying families, it is the disregard of family values in general. And that is the values of providing and supportive and nurturing environment for children to grow and learn the values that will allow them to better themselves in the face of life’s abundant challenges. It has been shown even single parent families can produce children that are successful in society, so it isn’t a matter of the family make up, but the supportive and nurturing environ that is provided. Though the more there are to provide that support, the better the odds for success. Of this all real studies agree, however there has never really been any real unbiased attempt to study the impact of family make up.

  3. jono says:

    Why are all the people in the pics > 50 years old?

    • CommonCents says:

      Obviously you need an eye exam or a new computer monitor; I see people in their late 20′s and mid 30′s as well as older folk. I don’t see any teenagers though.

      • BLIND SHEEP says:

        Churches once again trying to tell people how to live their lives. Fix you devoice problem first….. until then stop shitting on other people lives cause is see a bunch on miserable religious folks. happy to be saved my ass

        • Daylilly says:

          Blind Sheep.

          You 1st sentence complains that Churches are trying tell people what to do. Then, in your 2nd sentence.. you, yourself tell people what to do…. And your grand finale is a swear.

          Didn’t seem to make a point.

      • Onion says:

        I’ve got young eyes and I spot maybe one person under 40.

        • Why says:

          I personally know two of the speakers who were in their early 20s. fyi

          • Just the Tip says:

            Which two?

            • Just Wow says:

              Hate and Bigotry must have aged them very progressively. The only thing progressive about them! LOL

  4. Preacha says:

    These people would otherwise be fighting amongst themselves. Now they unite for this? Why not unite to help the childRen? Start a scholarship fund for young people? Smh Interesting the lengths the church will go to judge..

    • HW says:

      Please read the literature and the statistics. This IS for the children as marriage upholds the ideal of 1 mother and 1 father being united to stay together and raise any children that may result from their union.

      A huge issue in our society is broken families and how we’ve failed to uphold this ideal. To suggest that we should disregard the ideal, when our failure to live up to it has caused so many issues is counterintuitive.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And yet, as has been explained to you, many, many times, this “ideal” is not a requirement nor a description of marriage.

        Having children is not a stipulation for marriage. Raising children is not a stipulation for marriage.

        Same sex couples getting married will not affect anyone else’s “ideal” marriage.

        Why do you keep ignoring all of this?

        Will you be offering an actual, valid argument against changing the law, or will this be the usual from you?

    • Daylilly says:


      Already done! That is a thoroughly worn out argument. Bermuda was built on Christian & other religious charities. Nearly every night some church is feeding the hungry, clothing, counseling and reaching out to the youth.

      Churches gave before this agenda and long after this debate is out of the press, churches will continue to give to those who will accept.

      • Just Wow says:

        I’m pretty sure that Bermuda was built by people fleeing the UK to have their religious freedom. It was also built on the blood, sweat and tears of enslaved people. Enslaved by Christians. Just because Christians think this is wrong does not mean that they are right. If we didn’t have civil rights activists and people who are more enlightened to the betterment of the whole, how many people would still have slaves? Inter-racial relationships would still be illegal. The world would still be a complete mess. Just because the churches do charitable work does not give them the right to impede on others human rights. ‘Oh we will feed you but you are not equal in the law or in God’s eyes?’
        And please don’t give me the whole family and better for the children argument. Where is the campaign against divorce? Just because a man and a woman are married doesn’t make them good parents. My parents were married and my up bringing was tumultuous at best. I used to wish they would divorce. Christianity is also not the only religion on this island. Why in the heck do they believe that their religion should have any bearing on the laws of this land? What makes them so superior? Some type of privilege?

      • Nightlilly says:

        As long as churches give and don’t take away (human rights) I’m happy for them to exist even though they’re not a part of my life

  5. jt says:

    Wait…is someone trying to ban church marriages?

  6. Mike Hind says:

    And STILL, not one valid argument made for not changing the law to allow for equality.

    • blankman says:

      Mike, you won’t get a valid reason for the simple reason that they don’t have one.

      • Just Wow says:

        Exactly. They believe. Well I believe they are just fearful that their idealistic world will crumble. SSC are already living together. What’s the difference? Will there be less gay people if they are successful? NO! Will there be more if they aren’t? NO! They should have Sarah Palin endorse this campaign so it can be right up there for credibility like the Trump campaign. I hear the words coming out of their mouths and I keep questioning what year I am actually living in.

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      I think you’re arguing semantics with the word ‘valid.’ Again, there will NEVER be a single reason given that would be VALID for you. However, reasons given can be VALID to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You’ve already said this, and I explained why you were wrong… and then you ran away.

        Will that happen again? Let’s see.

        Your point is incorrect, as the reasons given so far, on all these pages, have been invalid.
        It’s not semantics, it’s just facts.

        “Marriage is the ideal for raising children” – Invalid, because it is not a stipulation. People can get married without having kids and people can have kids without getting married.

        When I say valid, I mean “Able to stand up to scrutiny” I mean a defensible argument, backed up by facts and, like, REAL things.

        Not one has been offered. It’s not about my views on this. It’s about the dishonesty of the arguments being offered.

        Let’s see if you can offer one that stands up to scrutiny.

        Or will you run away again?

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          I’ve never argued any of this points. For me, it comes down to morality… My moral standards are different to yours, thus, my position on such moral issues will also be different from yours. That doesn’t mean they are invalid.

          Like I said, my reasons are valid to millions of people around the world. Only 21 countries out of all of the countries in the world have same-sex legalized nationwide. Finland, which is one of those countries, legalized same-sex last year but will not be effective until 2017. Their government is currently considering repealing the same-sex law passed by parliament last year because most of the country is against it.

          It is only right that the people of a nation decide the moral direction of a country on such an issue as this.

          The same reasons you argue that are valid for you in support of same-sex marriage, many countries in the EU have said those reasons are not valid and have recently struck down a move to legalize same-sex in some countries in the EU.

          Again it’s semantics based on who you are asking. Why are hundreds of other countries, and the EU so wrong and you are so right?

          • Nightlilly says:

            The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

            1. We are all free and equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.

            2. Don’t discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.

            3. The right to life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

            4. No slavery – past and present. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.

            5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.

            6. We all have the same right to use the law. I am a person just like you!

            7. We are all protected by the law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.

            8. Fair treatment by fair courts. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly.

            9. No unfair detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without a good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.

            10. The right to trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do.

            11. Innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.

            12. The right to privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters or bother us or our family without a good reason.

            13. Freedom to move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish.

            14. The right to asylum. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.

            15. The right to a nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.

            16. Marriage and family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated.

            17. Your own things. Everyone has the right to own things or share them. Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason.

            18. Freedom of thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.

            19. Free to say what you want. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.

            20. Meet where you like. We all have the right to meet our friends and to work together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we don’t want to.

            21. The right to democracy. We all have the right to take part in the government of our country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders.

            22. The right to social security. We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and child care, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.

            23. Workers’ rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union.

            24. The right to play. We all have the right to rest from work and to relax.

            25. A bed and some food. We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children, people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for.

            26. The right to education. Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should learn about the United Nations and how to get on with others. Our parents can choose what we learn.

            27. Culture and copyright. Copyright is a special law that protects one’s own artistic creations and writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own way of life and to enjoy the good things that “art,” science and learning bring.

            28. A free and fair world. There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and freedoms in our own country and all over the world.

            29. Our responsibilities. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms.

            30. Nobody can take away these rights and freedoms from us.

            Morality doesn’t come into it

            • Daylilly says:


              Generally, people agree on most of these viewpoints, however, if SSM is implemented many of the “Human Rights” you quoted would be taken away, just as it has in other jurisdictions. (see – resources)

              ALL people will no longer have the same right to use and be protected by the law – the law will no longer represent people with differing views, freedoms of thought, opinion and the democratic process will be taken away.

              Parents will have infringements on the right to choose their child’s education, etc. Girls & Boys may no longer have the right to be called such.

              Children will no longer have the right to both & mom & a dad. ALL HUMANS have a mom & a dad, that’s not religion, that’s natural law. Who are we to say that doesn’t matter.

              Many people oppose SSM and love their gay friends and family. Just like many people oppose religion and love their religious friends & family members.

              This comment board is full of people calling for tolerance, yet personally attacking the messenger (Traditional Marriage Proponents) vs. arguing the merits of your message (for SSM)

              • Nightlilly says:

                By giving all citizens equal rights you are taking away rights from no one.

                You are still able to hold whichever views you wish – as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. It’s is not your right to discriminate. It is your right to oppose something and hold a different opinion but it is not your Right to withhold Rights.

              • Mike Hind says:

                You have YET to actually argue the merits of your side.

                However – and why you lied about this, I will never know, as it’s such a transparent falsehood I can’t believe you thought anyone would believe you – SSM supporters have, again and again, explained why they support it, why they think the current law is wrong, why it’s unfair and discriminatory, why they think it needs to change and have, time and again, explained that this will, in no way, affect anyone else’s relationships.

                Your side, and you, especially, have done nothing but post falsehood after falsehood, ignoring anything that proves you wrong, repeatedly.

                Remember, the pro-SSM side is simply asking for one thing… that citizens of Bermuda be allowed to marry the person of their choosing. That’s it.
                Your side is asking for them to be denied that, and all of the rights and privileges involved. YOUR side is asking for your will to be applied to others.
                The other side is asking for their will to be applied to only themselves and those that are currently denied these rights and privileges. There isn’t equivalence.

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

              All of those things are based on morals – Right vs Wrong. lol. How you determine what is Right or Wrong may be different. It depends on who or what your moral authority is.

              None of these cover one’s sexual disposition.

              I like when people say number 19. Free to say what you want. Yeah, you can say whatever you want alright, but you don’t have the freedom from the consequence of what you said.

              • Nightlilly says:

                “None of these cover one’s sexual disposition.”

                EXACTLY. Because one’s sexual preferences does not infringe on their rights as HUMANS. We cannot withhold rights from people based on superficial things such as race, gender, sex, sexual preference, idea, political leanings or age.

          • Nightlilly says:

            You cannot say that because xyz isn’t legal (yet) in other countries means that it is wrong and shan’t (and won’t) be legal here. Of course it takes time to change laws. Slavery was legal everywhere until it wasn’t. It became illegal one country at a time – actually it’s still practiced in some countries.

            You are wrong about Finland. The current government is conservative but they are not considering repealing the law despite many of the MPs not supporting marriage equality the bill is still going ahead as planned with 66% of Finns supporting marriage Equality.

            27 of the countries in the EU either have full Marriage rights or something similar (or both simultaneously) an only 13 do not recognise it (and tbh they’re former soviet countries…how many laws are they actually obeying on a day to day anyway? these countries are notoriously corrupt – do you really want to argue about morality with these countries on your side?)

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


              I think you missed my point in your first paragraph. Mike is asking someone to provide one valid reason why people are against it. My point was to show he is only arguing semantics. What is Valid, totally depends on you ask and who supports your position. My point was the reasons that are valid to him and many who support same- sex marriage are not valid to millions around the world.

              For example. Slovenians Deliver Major Setback to Same-Sex Marriage in Referendum

              Quick summary of that article – Slovenia’s Parliament voted to let same-sex couples marry and adopt children. Voters repealed the marriage law by a nearly two-to-one ratio — 63.5 percent against and 36.5 percent in favor, the country’s Election Commission announced on Monday morning. About a third of the 1.7 million registered voters cast ballots.

              It was a stinging defeat for the government, which had tried to prevent the vote, by arguing that marriage was a human right that should not be subjected to a popular referendum. In October, the Constitutional Court disagreed and allowed the vote to proceed. Many courts across Europe have ruled that it is not a human right. The highest court in the EU recently ruled that same-sex is not a human right.

              In Finland, to be exact, it is on the governments agenda this year to discuss potentially repealing the law because according to the article in the below link “A petition in Finland has gathered enough signatures to force the parliament to debate the reversal of same-sex marriage legislation, reports Pink News.” Maybe they are not ‘considering’ but they will be discussing repealing it this year. Like you said, the government is conservative and they are ‘Pro Family.’ So chances of it being repealed is highly likely, according to many news stories across Europe.


              “No you really want to argue about morality with these countries on your side?)” No, because America is a shining example of morals. LOL

              • Nightlilly says:

                Slovenia – Former Soviet Country – still fits in the point I made.

                The highest court in the EU did not argue that marriage equality was not a human right they merely allowed a popular referendum to take place in a country because they cannot overstep their bounds as what is essentially an economic authority and nothing more.

                And to your last line – we were talking about Europe and not America and I was comparing Eastern and Western European ratings on the Corruption Index to compare with Morality. No country is perfect but some are worse than others.

                It is a mistake to let the powerful (majority) rule over the weak (minority) and history has proved me right.

              • Mike Hind says:

                “I think you missed my point in your first paragraph. Mike is asking someone to provide one valid reason why people are against it. My point was to show he is only arguing semantics. What is Valid, totally depends on you ask and who supports your position. My point was the reasons that are valid to him and many who support same- sex marriage are not valid to millions around the world.”

                And here is the problem. You aren’t actually reading what I’m saying.
                I’m not asking for valid reasons to be against it. I don’t have a problem with someone being against it.
                Where, as has been explained MANY times, the problem comes in is where that disagreement starts affecting other people’s lives.
                I’m asking for valid, defensible, ACTUAL, real, factual reasons that we should continue to discriminate against same sex couples and deny them equal access to rights and privileges.

                Is that clearer? You seem to be arguing “People can disagree for whatever reason they want”, which I don’t have a problem with. But that’s not a response to what I’m asking.

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

                  Again you’re still arguing semantics. A person’s reason to why they are against Same-Sex is a very VALID reason to them as to why it is okay to ‘deny’ this to take affect in a public society. Same as whatever reason you support Same-Sex is a valid reason to allow it. But many do not accept your VALID reason for why it should be allowed. That is the very definition of arguing semantics based around the word Valid, Fact, Actual, Real or whatever word you want to use.

                  Basically you’re arguing “Not valid to me, Valid to you” or/vs. “Valid to me, not valid to you.” Who’s right?

                  This is part of living in a democratic society. It is not a ‘do as you please’ society. It is not an ‘everyone gets what they want’ society.

                  Challenge yourself, and think about all the laws that ‘discriminate’ against somebody or a group of people. I think I know your position. For others that support Same-Sex, are they willing to fully and completely relax, change, all laws that discrimante against some people in society. We should change all laws to accommodate all and everything. It doesn’t work like that.

                  The people at the end of the day should have the final say (referendum). That is why across Europe many have taken this to a referendum. The people should set the values/moral objectives for a country not a few electives.

                  • Mike Hind says:


                    If you’re not even going to read my posts and address what I say, how can I have a conversation with you. Everything you say has been addressed, repeatedly.

                    You say you think you know my position on this, then completely misrepresent my position.

                    How is this an honest discussion? I present my position over and over and you refuse to actually address it, instead making up things you CAN pick apart.

                    This is straw man arguing at its worst.

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

                      I don’t think you’re reading my post.

                      You keep asking the same boring question when people are challenging same-sex marriage or giving their reason why they are against and don’t want to allow it.

                      “Give me one VALID reason why what you believe should discriminate/prevent/stop/not allow same-sex. ” Whatever your cry is.

                      Someone can give reasons A-Z and you’ll reject them all. So what’s the point?

                      But you don’t give one VALID reason to opponents of same-sex to why it should be allowed.

                      You can believe whatever you want to believe for supporting same-sex. However, I’ll ask you the same question. Why should your beliefs be forced upon society to accept when there is a good chance the majority of society rejects same-sex marriage? Hmm. It goes both ways.

                      Then you would say, or supports of same-sex would say, can’t discriminate, it’s a human right, etc. This is a valid reason. Valid to who? Not to those who oppose it. Actually, not just those who oppose it, but also the judicial courts in many countries around the world.

                      For example, only two years ago the highest court in Europe said this, “European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples.” The court reaffirmed that the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted “as imposing an obligation on contracting states to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”.

                      That is what you’re trying to do. Impose!

                      But isn’t it amazing that internationally, there is nothing approaching the universal consensus to claim that same-sex marriage is a human right.

                      Fact, fewer than 10% of countries worldwide recognise same-sex marriage legally. Amazingly, only one country in the world (Ireland) has adopted it by means of popular vote. Only one.

                      On the contrary, by popular vote, some countries have recently gone in the opposite direction, affirming marriage as possible only between a man and a woman.

                      The majority of the world rejects same-sex. The majority of America rejects same-sex and that is why people who support it want unlawful governments and a few judges to impose it on society.

                      Still you have not given a single Valid reason as to why we should allow it in society.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      And now with the lies.

                      I have given a reason, many times, why we should change the law: because it is discriminatory, for no reason, against citizens of Bermuda.

                      The rest of your post is a bunch of straw men that have already been covered, most of which aren’t part of my argument.
                      My favorite part is the beginning where you admit you don’t actually read my posts or understand my position (”…Whatever your cry is”) after lying about people giving their reasons… They don’t. They simply don’t. They offer vague fearmongering threats or fantasy-based excuses.

                      The entire point that you are missing is that YES, there are times the we must discriminate against our citizens, as a society, but it must NOT be baselessly. We must ALWAYS have a good reason for doing so. When examples have been given of other discrimination – paedophilia seems to be a popular one – reasons are given… Valid, real reasons, based on reality and actual facts, are given to show why we have to discriminate against these things – in this case, consent.
                      This is why i keep “asking the same boring question”. Because we, as society, if we are going to continue denying equal access to rights and privileges to citizens of Bermuda, MUST do so for a reason based on facts and reality.

                      What’s odd is that, for all of this posting you’re doing, haven’t offered a single one.

                      Why is that?

            • Daylilly says:


              Civil rights and the rights to inter-racial marriage did not require redefining what those rights were.

              They were advocating for being included in existing rights.

              You did not have to change the definition of voting or the definition of marriage to include all people, of all races,religion and gender to be in a marriage of 1 man and 1 woman.

              • Nightlilly says:

                We literally REDEFINED marriage by changing the definition of it as only being allowed to occur between those of the same race to those of different races.

                This is no different.

                Voting was only allowed by those who owned land, then by those who had the right skin colour, then by those who with penises and finally by all people.

                We literally REDEFINED what voting was and who was allowed to do it by expanding the definition each time.


                The definitions that you’re using are the definitions that we, Social Justice Warriors, gave you – by making societal change.

              • Mike Hind says:


                The definition DID have to be changed when miscegenation was ended.

                And WE are advocating same sex couples being included in existing rights.

                Don’t you get tired of lying?

          • Mike Hind says:

            This is an ad populum argument. I don’t know how to explain to you why this is wrong.

            “Everybody else is doing it” is not a real argument.

            You want to know why all those countries are wrong and I’m right?

            Because they support denying equal rights to citizens and I support giving access to those rights.

            That’s why.

            As for your “argument”? “My position on such moral issues…” is NOT an actual argument.

            WHY are you “morally” against changing the law?

            This is what I’m talking about. It’s not semantics. It’s not that I will find the argument invalid because I support SSM, it’s because no one is ACTUALLY offering arguments!

            It’s always these vague, nebulous statements. “I’m against SSM because morals” isn’t a defensible argument.
            You can believe that SSM is morally wrong. That’s fine. You can believe that.

            But when that belief starts affecting other people’s lives and relationships, you HAVE to have a better argument than that.

            • Nightlilly says:

              Mike, you have the patience of a bloody saint! I’m pulling my hair out with these people and their round-about logic.

              • Mike Hind says:

                You are being WAY too kind…

                Calling it logic.

                • Nightlilly says:

                  I suppose if homeopathy can be called medicine then their straw man arguments can be called logic ;)

      • MPP says:

        This. Exactly.

        • Mike Hind says:

          So… “But everyone’s doing it!” is a valid argument to you?


          • Nightlilly says:

            Maybe we should start a rumour that they’re all jumping off bridges too

          • MPP says:

            You realize that, in this comment, you’re committing the exact error he’s accusing you of, right?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Huh? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

              Would you care to elaborate?

  7. Prego says:

    Looks like more people are worried about this than they are about the airport.

    Mind you, both groups need to take their heads out of the sand.

    • thetruth says:

      They’ve been busy this week. Shelley Bay, the airport, prevent marriage. The ‘rent a crowd’ bus is putting on some miles.

  8. Zevon says:

    Prevent Marriage had another meeting?

  9. Coffee says:

    Equality …. Did you know that in the UK , gays and lesbians can legally form a civil union , but straight couples cannot ?

    • Mike Hind says:

      This is one of the most bizarre arguments I’ve see from you.

      People opposed same sex couples using the word “Marriage”, so they had to create something else.
      Those folks got what they wanted. And now you’re complaining that…

      I don’t get it.

      This is just bizarre.

    • Just the Tip says:


      • Coffee says:

        As usual Mike you missed the point that was clearly in front of you . Gays and lesbians have much more rights in the UK than straight couples ! So because you are so up your own ar…s , your response is like that of a total retard !

        • Just the Tip says:

          Just for the record I’m not Mike but besides that your still lying. Straights and gays in the UK have equal rights when it comes to marriage and to be like Mike “Care to back your statement up with proof?”

          • Coffee says:

            You can get married or form a civil partnership in the UK if you’re:

            16 or over
            free to marry or form a civil partnership (single, divorced or widowed)
            not closely related
            You need permission from your parents or guardians if you’re under 18 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

            Only same sex couples can form a civil partnership.

            Source : Gov.UK

            • Just the Tip says:

              Now I remember why I stopped commenting on here so much and why I give Mike so much props for his posts.

              What you are saying is a ‘truth’ but you wrap it round a ‘lie’ which still makes it a lie.
              while yes in the UK only same-sex couples may get a civil partnership the lie is in that it some how affords them more rights then opposite sex couples.

              civil partnerships were the UK way of giving the rights that come with a marriage to same-sex couples without calling it marriage which of course is the whole ‘same but not equal” problem which why the UK then decide to just allow couples regardless of genders to get married. If a straight couple want all the benefits of civil partnership then all they need to do is go get married.

              • Coffee says:

                Yes but many straight couples desire a civil partnership over marriage . Why deny them that right that’s afforded to gays and lesbians ?

                If this is strictly about equality then there shouldn’t be any aurgument against the desires of straight couples .

                • Just the Tip says:

                  Sorry but what right? that they have something called Civil Partnership instead of something called a Marriage?

                  And what does this have to do with equal marriage in Bermuda besides prove that it is better to simple ament or remove an Act then it is to try and create something that that is still unfair to population?

        • Mike Hind says:


          Gay people have MORE rights in the UK than straight couples?

          How is that even a little bit true? Can you show any sort of evidence of this?

          Oh, and the hateful, offensive language at the end? Nice.

          • Coffee says:

            Wow…. I really must spell it out to you .. Here goes , I guess school’s in !

            Under UK LAW , SSM and civil unions are legal and binding to gay and lesbian couples . The same doesn’t apply to straight couples , under law straight couples ONLY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MARRAIGE .
            Therefore gays and lesbians have more rights in society then their heterosexual peers .
            Got it ! Got it !

            Class dismissed !
            Now for the more learned amongst us . What we really need first in Bermuda is equality in pay for man , woman , black and whites with similar educational / experience backgrounds … Now I think we could all agree that is truly worth fighting for as all society benefits …

            But I have a sneaky feeling that Mike will not do any research on the argument before he condemns himself again !

            • Mike Hind says:

              NOT EVEN A THING!

              YOUR side made this happen! YOUR SIDE made it so that they HAD to get civil unions! Now you’re…

              THIS IS INSANE! This is literally crazy talk!

              And I don’t condemn myself. Ever. I know you hate it when I point out that you’re wrong and are desperate to attack me personally by pretending that it’s me that’s wrong, but when you do stuff like this? It’s you that’s condemning yourself.

              But you don’t care. You sit there behind the hood of your fake name attacking people, posting bizarre false arguments… yeah. You don’t fear condemnation because you don’t have the courage to actually say something real, as yourself.

              • Coffee says:

                Stuff it Mike , you are wrong . All the time you ask for a valid reason . Coffee gives you one out of the UK play book …. And … You … Throw .. A … Tantrum !

                Go to England , petition for civil unions amongst loving straight couples , win that battle and come back prepared to demand equality for gays and lesbians .

                • Just the Tip says:

                  they just need to get married thats what the civil partnerships were based off of anyway.

                  • Coffee says:

                    If that is the case then why are the LGBT insisting on legalizing SSM instead of the alternative civil partnership ? Why not leave the institution of marriage between a male and a female ?

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
                      Why should we have to separate but equal things?

                      Why shouldn’t they be allowed to call their relationship a marriage?

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Yeah… It’s me throwing a tantrum, not the guy saying “stuff it” and stomping around and talking in the third person because his weird, twisted argument is falling apart.

                  Well done. You’ve gone off the deep end.

                  • Coffee says:

                    A heterosexual couple have been refused permission to register for a civil partnership.
                    Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle said they want to challenge “discriminatory” UK laws which restrict civil partnerships to same-sex couples.
                    They plan legal action after their application was denied at Islington Register Office, north London.
                    A spokesman for Islington Council said the pair’s request was refused because “the council must follow the law”.

                    Tell me Strummer , we is he equality in this case ?

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      I love how you try to use my profession as a derogatory.
                      What was your profession again? Oh, we don’t know, because you won’t take your hood off.

                      You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper with every post.

                      Your side’s opposition to equal rights caused this to be a thing for same sex couples.. And now you’re crying foul because a separate but equal thing YOU caused to happen isn’t available to people like you? That’s insane. It’s the perfect example of privilege!

        • bbs says:

          Retard is not a politically correct term.

        • serengeti says:

          You’re using the word ‘retard’ now in a pejorative way?
          Is that because it makes you feel good to mock disabled people?

          • Coffee says:

            The term retard in relation to the disabled is both archaic and discrimatory . I used the term as flavor to describe the strummers way of disjointed written madness .

            • Mike Hind says:

              No, you used a disgusting slur to insult someone who pointed out that you are wrong in a puerile lashing out, throwing a tantrum, and then accused that person of your own behaviour.

              You’re trolling, again, and don’t like being called on it.

        • Just saying says:

          Check that offensive language sir.

  10. bluwater says:

    I see a few people who need to get home and tend to their own marriages here.
    First take the plank form your own eye……

    • MPP says:

      “Take the plank out of your own eye” speaks of judging someone without first taking stock of your own personal issues and trying to address them. It’s warning against hypocrisy.

      Preserve Marriage is saying that marriage should be maintained as it has been since the dawn of time as a union between a man and woman for the betterment of society.

      Someone struggling in their own marriage can still affirm what marriage is and should be without hypocrisy. So can an unmarried person or a divorcee.

      Sorry but, I don’t think your comment makes sense.

      • Mike Hind says:

        “since the dawn of time” again? You’ve been shown that this is wrong, like, every time you try to push this.

        Why do you continue to push these lies?

        • MPP says:

          Don’t comment just to comment: that is tangential to the point.

          • Mike Hind says:

            What? What is tangental to the point?

            Your point is false. This is not tangental, it is the ONLY thing.

            You are pushing a lie, one that has been debunked many times, in conversations with you.

  11. Cup of tea anyone? says:

    I hope there is a waaaaaaahmbulance on site. All i hear from this group is waaaaahhhhhh we cant continue to force our religious bs on other people waaahhhhh god…..whaaaaa jesus….wahhhhhh
    Get over it. Your days of trying to deny people the same rights as you based on your BELIEFs are numbered. If this is the lot that are gonna be in ‘heaven’ then thank “god” im goin to hell.

  12. Unbelievable says:

    So what about all the gay mean and women of his country who have been living together in meaningful relationships for years anyway? How have they impacted Bermuda society?

    • Just saying says:

      If that is the case and they have been living together in meaningful relationships for years why the sudden push to pass Same Sex Marriage? What has changed ?

      Just saying

    • Daylilly says:


      The gay men & women of this country have impacted Bermuda the same way that all other people have. Some good, some not so good. The gay people I know generally seem to have made positive contributions. We are all a part of the fabric of this community gay/straight, black/white, etc. Preserving Marriage doesn’t change that.

      No one is defining people. We are talking about marriage. The government’s benefit to marriage and the social/legal implications of redefining marriage.

      Most of the negative social changes have been when marriage is redefined, not necessarily by private meaningful relationships, unless children are involved.

      • Nightlilly says:

        “Most of the negative social changes have been when marriage is redefined”

        What exactly were those consequences? What exactly was the redefinition of marriage?

        I can think of a few: Changing marriage to only being between 2 people and changing marriage to being between people of different races.

        People were scared of those changes too but the world didn’t burn down.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And yet, you won’t actually say what those social/legal implications are…

        why is that?

  13. Honesty says:

    I love how Christians want freedom of religion when they are intolerant of other peoples’ beliefs. It is absolutely ok for someone to be against gay marriage, however it is not ok to enforce that belief on someone else.

    • MPP says:

      You don’t see that your statement cuts both ways?

      • Mike Hind says:

        It really doesn’t. As you’ve been shown, MANY times, it doesn’t go both ways.

        Your side’s position affects other people’s lives in a negative way.
        The other side’s position doesn’t.

        See how simple that was?

        • MPP says:

          I believe your side’s position affects all of us, ultimately, in a negative way, for reasons I’ve spelled out to you before.

          See how even what you’ve said also cuts both ways?

          • Mike Hind says:

            NO! YOU HAVEN’T!

            You HAVEN’T spelled them out before!

            That’s EXACTLY the problem!

            You guys keep lying about this!

            Why? Is your position THAT weak that you have to lie about it?

            You haven’t actually “spelled out” how allowing same sex couples will affect all of us in a negative way. Not once.

            It CAN’T cut both ways if one side is a lie!

            I can, and HAVE, shown the negative ways that denying same sex couples equal access to rights and privileges affects people.

            You haven’t done the same for your side.

            How can we expect to take you seriously and listen to you when you’re being THIS dishonest? If you’re going to lie about this, why should we believe you about anything?

            PLEASE try to be honest. It’s not fair.

    • Daylilly says:

      SSM is the belief that is being enforced on others.

      • Nightlilly says:


        Must be a hard pill to swallow

      • Mike Hind says:

        No. It’s not. You’ve been shown that this is wrong many times.

        SSM will not affect anyone else.

        Stopping SSM does.

        Get it.

        Please stop lying.

  14. Bevis says:

    narrow minded blindfolded bigoted bunch of self serving a** *****they should read and understand their own bibles. i am not religious but do seem to remember a few verses does not your god say FORGIVE, turn the other cheek, who did Jesus eat with, who did he help? You lot are all welcome to my liquor filled strip club for your next service

  15. I am NOT Gay but says:

    A great picture of HYPOCRITES that spread falsehood against their own LORDs teachings. Keep your crap inside the 4 walls of your own homes or churches and don’t try to enforce YOUR beliefs on me. 85% of you pictured need to look in the mirror and fix your own transgressions

    • Daylilly says:

      I am NOT Gay.

      I agree that everyone should work on their own transgressions.

      However, you should re-read your own statement, one might say your message applies to you as well.

  16. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Rome burned because of licentiousness,Sodom and Gomorra,were punished for their filth and wickedness,down through the ages ,these ******** ,new name Perverts Gays and Homosexuals Lesbians and same gender loving people or whatever you call yourselves.The Holy Books say,they are bold for the fire.Bermuda and America and Great Britannia and its outlying areas and Colonies will suffer the same fate.The hand of G-D is against this aberrant and aborhent behaviour.They went to the rock to hide their face ,the rock cried out ,,,,no hiding place,there is no hiding place down here.Peace.

    • thetruth says:

      There is no such thing as god.
      And if there were, he’d have to be the biggest stupid jerk if he stopped you from writing his name because it’s dog spelled backwards. That’s just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
      What kind of a vindictive psycho must he be?

      • mj says:

        thetruth? YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!WHo do you think was in the beginning, who do you think breathed Life into us!!THE MOST HIGH!. I guess you think scientist are in a lab making it rain also..Just because some weren’t given the covenant(genesis 9:13–”I do set my bow in the cloud , and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth, and it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud)of the bow they make up their own “rainbow” of colours adapted from the beginning covenant between Noah and God…hmmm so whether the name “GOD” is correctly the Most Highs name , it is the title given to the Creator in the “Holy Bible” which even the people (above article) are not following the commandments given to the children of Israel! They are not for everyone but Judgement is for everyone! And we are living in the times of ‘Sodom” as Prophesied! No other person on earth can claim to be the Creator of ALl things and to not acknowledge the existence of Earth, Wind, Fire and Air is just plain stupid!

      • Daylilly says:

        Your statement about God does a poor job of representing your argument.

        • Mike Hind says:

          All of your statements, ever, do a poor job of representing your argument…

    • Mike Hind says:

      Here’s the usual religious argument, ignoring tha ton one has to follow the rules of your “Holy books”…

      Oh, why bother. There won’t be a reply.

    • Balanced Facts says:

      Takbir sums up the position of the kool aid drinking lunatics that lack any critical thinking or independent thought, following blindly the words of a book, translated through at least 5 languages written during the Iron Age, when the World was flat, slavery was endorsed, snakes talked, a big boat took all the animals two by two and people lived to be hundreds of years old. Walking on water and raising from the dead…good support for homophobic rhetoric!

    • Ride says:

      @Takbir Karriem Sharrieff,

      Please provide evidence in support of your claims.


    • Prego says:

      You do realise that those holy books are no more real than Harry Potter, right? Use the brain you were born with, not the one which you’ve had brainwashed.

      • Nightlilly says:

        yo Harry Potter is legit though, right?

      • Pepe says:

        I Don’t know I saw The Wizarding World of Harry Potter it looked pretty convincing.

        • Nightlilly says:

          If L. Ron Hubbard can start a religion because of a book he wrote I’m pretty sure we can start one in the name of her Holy Highness J.K. Rowling

    • Mary says:

      No sign of Bermuda burning unless our kids do it

    • Nightlilly says:

      You have a poor understanding of history and the bible.

      Rome fell for many complicated reasons. It was too big to manage (it was no longer united at the end and had two capitals); bad leadership (Caligula, Nero, Commodus); the death of Flavius Stilicho is often pointed out as a major turning point because it led to a vacuum of power (there was lots of infighting anyway) which mean the Visigoths were able to swoop in while Rome was very weak; Economic problems: too many imports not enough production, two capitals are expensive, and massive migration along with massive death (a plague) mean Rome was not very stable in this regard either.

      Sodom and Gomorra – yeah so you look up to a guy (Lot) who wanted to give his daughter up to be gang raped? Nice.

    • aceboy says:


      Takbir the alarmist says ‘peace’….lol

  17. Mary says:

    You have to wonder about our Bermuda people our youth are shooting each other getting drunk on Hennessy and gang banging the neighborhood ,and with the recent spat of local straight sex porn circulating and our efforts are trying to stop folks who love each other marrying each other are we really that stupid or is this a planned diversion to take our focus of the real issues , remember ther is only one God who we all answer to no human can take that role .

  18. Mary says:

    Also for you bible thumpers you need to get out and campaign against lobster eaters and folks wearing synthetic clothes etc etc if you can read you know our are we so blinkered …. like sheep

    • mj says:

      Mary—-Mary Mary Mary, if you took time to read and study the Bible you would know that it is a history book containing all nationalities of people from the beginning and also which people are chosen for what reasons, what land belongs to which nations and what blessings and curses exist for certain people.. You obviously have HEARD a little and not studied for your self YOUR CREATOR.. It is obvious simply from how and what you write that you do not apply critical thinking and are probably one of the lost sheep, that’s right all we like sheep have gone astray and we need to find our way back, and it is certainly not up the mountain with any Goats!The signs of the time are quite evident to those of us who CHOOSE to seek the truth and not foloww traditional hypocritic lies, and no I am not a Christian, but yes I do read ANY and All history books pertaining to my existence on this earth and my condition that I can because calling right wrong and wrong right is a woe unto us from the Most High, and since so much of history has been hidden we call it distorted but the truth reveals to them that seek it with a spirit of truth and righteousness!

  19. Legacy says:

    Did anyone else find it funny the way they kept handing over the podium to someone new every few minutes? I was like “Good grief-just have someone do all the talking!” It was like “I’ll now hand it over to xyz”…then they’d say “I’ll now hand it over to xyz”…that drove me nuts more than anything else!

  20. Mary says:

    All folks in Bermuda above need to stop having gay children , why is their perfect opposite parenthood not working ???

  21. Mugatu says:

    The speaker is wearing my piano key necktie. He must be taking crazy pills.

  22. blowmyfish says:

    What is the point of ‘preserving marriage’ when everyone has/is a long lost brother or sister?

  23. Larry Scott says:

    Just a few salient points from the judgement of Dr. kawaley CJ in the Bred case about which so much unbridgeable has been taken by some.
    At paragraph 78 , form the case that binds our courts Petty v United Kingdom (2000) 35 EHRR 137 at 65-
    “………..Finally, it is a purpose of all human rights instruments to secure the protection of the essential rights of members of minority groups, even when they are unpopular with the majority, Democracy values everyone equally if the majority does not”
    Than at paragraph 79 the CJ quoting Lois Brown Evans MP as she then was, who said this.
    “……Human rights, they are for all people…We must realize that every human being, however, formed , shaped or colour or whatever sexual origin of sexual preference has the right to the same rights and privileges as anyone of us…..”

    Now is it any wounder that the CJ found as he did. He merely interpreted what is the law that binds and governs us, he did not make laws or change the law he simply stated it as it is as to governs us in Bermuda and which successive governments have had to enact as well to keep us compliant with our international obligations.
    My own view is that like a surgeon with a scrapple in hand Kawaley CJ cut the majority prejudice from the bermuda cancer that has long infected many in the Black family in particular and championed the rights of the minority in the tradition of enlightened Bermudians who have gone one before and confirmed Bermuda’s existence in the enlightened western world best tradition for which many of us have laboured.
    To. Now begin undoing takes us back to very dark times, inhibits our growth stunt our imagination and limits our great potential as a loving caring people, and thrust us back in time to when our deepest fears made us impervious to our own innate humaneness. Such as move would be a retrograde step. Rights are right are rights are rights, and human rights have always been our our Faith’s calling. ALL of our people as Dame Lois said deserve that much

  24. It's about LOVE says:

    Those who oppose love oppose their God. I thought God was love?!? The world cannot heal when we walk closed-off to each other. Is it that scary to open our hearts and live as a community supporting each other? And yes, same-sex marriage WILL affect us…how important to have any opportunity to have loving couples amongst us. The more love the better. The world can’t survive without it.

  25. TwentySix says:

    I love how a lot of people are commenting on how old the people on the video are.. Or in the’s funny because I personally know people from the group and they are definitely well under 40.. .even 25 and younger.There are a lot of people BEHIND the scenes that support preservation of marriage that are 40 and UNDER.. I’m being generous with 40..there are also a lot of people who DO NOT support any religion group.. Ignorant people believe it’s only religious people..seeing 20-50 people at a press conference does not define the WHOLE group.. Common sense on that part.. Just like it’ll be ignorant to believe only HOMOSEXUAL people believe the law should be changed.

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      Very good point. This is my exception to the first comment, saying these people are so old it’s good news they will be dead soon. Like really.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Given that most of the reasons given boil down to religious ones, it’s not a stretch at all to think that the vast majority of folks there are religious.

  26. No says:

    straight up, i’m leaving this island and giving up my citizenship because it’s embarrassing to be associated with people like this.

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      Sure you are! (Being sarcastic) I hate to tell you, WHEREVER you move there will be a group of people opposed to same-sex. Even in anything goes Netherlands and Canada.

  27. Mary says:

    Yes twenty six we all agree all old and plain for the world to see modern day haters and narrowminded

  28. Dr. The Hon Edward N.Case. BMF hons. says:

    These people obsession with sex is nothing less than creepy. They need help.

  29. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    In his ruling, Judge Friedman recognizes “New Family Structures Study,” a research project conceived and mostly funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute, as a horrendous piece of anti-LGBT propaganda.

    He wrote:

    “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

  30. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Prevent Marriage’s website states “we will not tolerate…”, and of course, they do not tolerate. Bermuda is not a theocracy, much as their insistence that their self-defined “moral minority” desires. It’s understandable that Prevent Marriage fears being called bigots. A faith-based insurgency that invokes morality on the issue of SSM will always be sensitive to their portrayal. But we are governed by Laws, and Bermuda is still a Secular state. An insurgency doesn’t have to win to be successful. It only need cow the politicians into inaction. But the politicians are not the real target in this crusade. It’s the Law, and it will be decided by the Supreme Court. And the Court is immune to all of this. Thank God.

  31. Daylilly says:

    Masha Gessen same-sex activist says:

    “fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there…. We lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change,,,, and that is a lie…the institution of marriage is going to change… And it should change….. I think the institution of marriage should not exist.”

    She goes on to say that she has 3 kids between 5 parents, 1 of which is between her brother and her new partner(who she is currently married to ). Also, she has 1 adopted and 1 that was birthed while with her Russian ex-partner who she had married in Massachusetts.

    • Nightlilly says:

      There are lots of straight people who also do not believe in Marriage and do not believe in monogamy but that does not mean that they want to deny the rights of people to be able to marry or be in monogamous relationships. Not wanting something for yourself does not mean that you get to tell everybody else that they don’t get that thing either.

      I am allergic to Dairy therefore I will make all Dairy illegal! MUAHAHAHAHA

      • Daylilly says:

        Masha Gessen wasn’t speaking solely for herself she referred to what “we” are going to do with marriage and the “crowd” applauded in agreement.

        Apparently, many other people advocating for this agenda feels the same way that she does, or they wouldn’t have applauded.

        • Nightlilly says:

          Like I said there are LOTS OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE who don’t believe in marriage. I’m one of them. Why did I get married? Because it affords me extra legal rights. If marriage was nothing but a religious institution then I would have not participated it in – but since one can have a Civil ceremony and enjoy the legal benefits it is just a regular contract like anything else.

          One person speaking to a group of her supporters doesn’t mean that every single person who holds one tiny aspect of their person in common with her agree.

          Look at this thread: Heterosexual Bermudians (TWO THINGS IN COMMON – maybe our races too? THREE!) who don’t agree on Marriage Equality.

  32. Jay Maloy says:

    There’s a lot of repressed homosexuality in that room. They never got to be open about the way they are, why should future generations?

    If you want to see who the closeted gays who hate themselves are, always look to the people protesting gay rights. Because very few straight people give a damn or spend thins much time thinking about what gays do. You usually haveto be gay to be anti-gay enough to make an anti gay organisation.

    • Nightlilly says:

      Actually studies have shown that those opposed to homosexuals and marriage equality are probably not homosexuals themselves but are most likely misogynists

    • Daylilly says:

      Preserve Marriage is pro traditional marriage, not anti-gay. According to your logic, all people who belong to an atheist or agnostic group are really believers in God.

      • Nightlilly says:

        How can it not be anti-something if you don’t believe in treating them like equal human beings?

        “I’m totally not racist but black people should not be allowed to marry white people!”

        “I’m totally not sexist but women shouldn’t be allowed to vote!”

        “I’m totally not homophobic but homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry!”

  33. Hmm,, says:

    Well funny i dont see any young folk there. Seems like that tells you something. Most of these folk wont even be around for the future of marriage! I dont see the point in taking away anyones happiness. What does being married to someone have anything to do with other people. I bet you if u was to travel and the only seats was near an openly gay couple you would have to sit there wont you. Deal with it its life! We all deserve to be happy!

  34. Starting Point says:

    Can the preserve marriage group please let us know their stance on single parents in the community and what policies they suggest we enact to censor those members in the community who continue to chose the immoral and shameful practice of having children out of wedlock?

    Oh and also release the statistics on their members (I assume ex-members) who are either single parents or divorced so we know they are consistent in their ethics and morals.



    • Nightlilly says:


    • Daylilly says:


      Traditional Marriage has been around for centuries…. All of a sudden it’s hateful to believe in it…. That true hypocrisy.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Yet another dishonest misrepresentation of what’s going on.

        It’s not that these people believe in traditional marriage.
        It’s that they are trying to force everyone else to have only traditional marriage.

        If they were saying “we still want the ability to have a traditional marriage” then there would be no problem.
        It’s the fact that they are saying that EVERYONE has to have a traditional marriage.

        This is unfair.

      • Nightlilly says:

        I’m not really sure exactly how you define marriage – but if you define it as an equal union/partnership between a man and women then it’s only been around since around the 1970s. I’m using this date because this is around the time Marital Rape became illegal in most places (it’s still legal in some parts of the world) and when most women were able to open up credit cards and bank accounts in their own name (because more women started working outside the home – but again, not so in every part of the world…because it seems that there isn’t just ONE definition of marriage…strange).

        The Church didn’t become involved in Marriage – which has been going on for thousands of years (literally predates history) – until about the 5th Century CE. Even then marriages needn’t take place within the church; it was an agreement between families and the church took everyone’s word for it – no witnesses needed.

        Traditionally, Polygamy has been the preferred method of marriage amongst humans. Keeping money and alliances within the family is often preferred so marrying siblings and first cousins was quite common until very recently (again, still practiced in some places).

        In fact, traditionally a marriage could be dissolved if the wife was deemed “infertile” until the early Christian church decided to BLOW EVERYONE’S MINDS and say that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring(!)

        Sometime between the 6th and 9th Centuries CE monogamy became the norm….sort of…it wasn’t really until the 19th Century CE when laws and society started becoming a little more strict about recognizing bastards and frowning upon adulterers.

        Civil Marriages began taking place in the 15th Century CE and were common place by the 19th Century CE.

        About 250 years ago, in the west, love matches became a thing…about a century ago it became the norm…although the acknowledgement of sexual attraction in women didn’t really become acceptable until within the last 50 years (some would argue it still may not be accepted by modern society)

        The definition of marriage which I use: any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities. (

  35. Nightlilly says:

    1st speaker:
    “All people should be respected” – except we won’t give you equal rights
    “Traditional marriage” – treating women like property

    2nd speaker:
    “represented by those of faith and non-faith” – yet all of our reasoning for denying equal rights come from the Christian Bible “marriage is a special union ordained by God” (where do the non-faith people fall on this definition?)
    “the necessary natural differences between a male and a female to procreate” except procreation is not a necessity in a marriage nor is that something that can be legislated
    “the few should not decide for the many” with this logic there would be no women’s suffrage and there would still be slavery and segregation

    3rd speaker:
    Basically said that the reason for marriage so that people can be parents – ignoring the infertile and the unwilling
    Social Science has shown that children do better in loving and supportive two parent homes (because an abusive two parent home is worse than a single parent home) and there haven’t been enough studies on children in two parent same sex homes because it hasn’t been around long enough (yes everyone can site anecdotal evidence but we need studies with thousands of participants over many decades not 1 or 2 people’s stories)

    4th speaker:
    Government’s greatest burdens are antisocial behaviours – yes, EDUCATION SPENDING is directly correlation to a positive trend in Social behaviors and a fall in crime regardless of the parenting in the homes. Social spending and government support to all parents (married, single, or cohabitiating) i.e. affordable healthcare, childcare, housing, education, and employment has shown to make a society stronger, healthier, and safer.

    5th speaker:
    Civil Unions didn’t end the matter of Same Sex Marriage because people were not afforded the same rights as married people. If all people were awarded equal rights with a Religious Marriage and a Civil Marriage then I’m sure many Different Sex Couples would be opting for a Civil Marriage (as there are many people who are not religious).
    The regions which he listed that do not have marriage equality also tend to have terrible human rights records. Not really something Bermuda should be striving for.

    6th speaker:
    Straight up lies and misrepresentation of studies about children in single, cohabiting, or married parents homes. Not to mention there haven’t been enough studies on children of homosexual couples.

    7th speaker:
    The few deciding for the many argument again. Morality and Human rights should not be a popular vote. “Redefining marriage, restructuring the family unit, and radical cultural change” were all arguments used against Interracial marriage. There was only 20% popular support for the movement to repeal the anti-miscegenation laws in the US at the time they were repealed; by 1990 there was only 80% support. Something does not have to be popular to be right. Equality and Human Rights should be implemented regardless of what certain people’s religions believe.
    The European court is not saying that courts cannot decide the laws for people and that people should decide laws. The European court is saying that it is an outside authority and cannot make decisions for the individual governments. It is not the United States it does not have a Federal law that it can impose over member states – it is an Economic Federation so it makes decisions about the European Economic region not Civil matters.

    8th speaker:

    9th speaker:
    Single mothers for Traditional Marriage? LOL

    10th speaker:

    11th speaker:

    12th speaker:
    Bermuda already makes Moms and Dads optional – that has nothing to do with marriage but is a cultural problem. Bermuda needs comprehensive sex education. Bermuda needs better education opportunities so our youth aren’t forced overseas to complete their education.

    13th speaker:
    I respectfully reiterate my point about interracial marriage having a 20% approval rating when it was legalised.

    Questions Segment:
    It seems that the Traditional Marriage act is again Sperm/Egg donation?
    Documenting and Citing bad studies doesn’t make it right.

  36. thief says:

    the OBA needs to intervene. railroading this through the court system will create higher levels of spitefulness and bigger Human rights issues. I personally believe 85% of the issue is semantics – there is a win win option.

  37. ? says:

    Marriage is a state sanctioned contract between two people. The Church is where you religiously pledge your marriage/love/faith between you, your finance and god.

    Does the traditional marriage argument suggest that those who are/were not married in a Church are in fact not “traditionally” married?

    • bigga says:

      and if you wanted to go “more traditional” most of you would be marrying [[selling]] your daughters for land and live stock!

  38. Pastor Gary Simons said: “We want to ensure that the few do not decide for the many.”

    I believe that government is there to help all in society. Not just the majority opinion but, also that very minority that is oppressed or excluded no matter who they are.

    Marriage and matrimony are different. Get a dictionary.

    If Preserve Marriage want to actually preserve marriage then look to to banning divorce, cheating on your spouse, beating your spouse or child. Fix the problems within.

    I tire of the hatred shown by people who claim to be religious.

    Everyone who is working and contributing to this island has a right to be granted their individual rights.

    • Just Wow says:

      And one of the speakers has daughters who have been divorce…twice!

      • Daylilly says:

        Some say the best addiction counsellors are the people and their families who have suffered through it.

        • Just Wow says:

          Then you argument seems to suggest that ex-gay people should be the ones leading this ludicrous Preserve Marriage Campaign. You know…gay people who have repented their sins and made the correct choice to be attracted to the opposite sex.


    “Secular” Arguments against Marriage Equality


    1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

    Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Children of IVF often ask their mothers about their fathers, asking questions like the following:”Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?” “Can I write him a letter?” “Has he ever seen me?” “Didn’t you like him? Didn’t he like me?” Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.



    2. Children need fathers.

    If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

    What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children; a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.



    3. Children need mothers.

    Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence.



    4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.



    5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

    Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.



    6. Same-sex marriage would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

    One of the biggest threats that same-sex “marriage” poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.




    7. Same-sex marriage would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

    Marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline.



    8. Same-sex marriage would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

    The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.



    9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

    If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like “partners” and–more importantly–more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

    But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion’s share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.



    10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

    Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services (HOW IS THIS A SECULAR ARGUMENT?), and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.


  40. Bermuda: Land of the Bigots says:

    As a young Bermudian, I love how these bigots tried justifying their stance by stating that “Only a minority 21 of the 193 countries have re-defined marriage. Including Africa, The Caribbean, the Middle East and Far East.” Because all the countries of these areas in the world are apparently progressive and admirable bastions of human and civil rights, right? WRONG. 100% wrong.

    And as for the whole ridiculous “protect the children/family values” spiel, it is better for any child to have two parents, whether it’s two mothers, two fathers or a mother and father than to grow up having to struggle having a single parent and growing up in a broken home.

    Truly ashamed and disappointed to share the place I call home with bigots who share these dogmatic and prejudiced stances. Setting a terrible example for the youth of this country by supporting intolerance of views outside your own opinions.

    • Daylilly says:

      Everyone on this thread is intolerant of views outside their own, but we are all entitled to have them.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Yet another dishonest misrepresentation.

        People have said, time and again, that they ARE tolerant of the views held by preserve marriage.
        They just have a problem with those views being forced, through the continued pressure to keep the law as-is from this group and others, to follow those views.

        As has been explained to you many times, it’s not about the views, it’s about the fact that you all expect the rest of us to obey them.

  41. Boston Baked Bean says:

    Interesting how all you “bible thumpers” are so very concerned about what other people do and condemn those that don’t ascribe to the same religious beliefs. And yet the issue of single women having multiple children with multiple partners WITHOUT the benefit of marriage, promiscuity and adultery seems to be the norm in Bermuda. What gave ANY of you the right to decide who has what rights in this world? Looks like a lot of you forgot where you came from. It was not so many years ago that women and people of color were denied human rights. So now you feel that it’s acceptable to turn the tables on some other “minority”. I feel so sorry for all of you.

    • Daylilly says:

      Boston BB

      “Looks like a lot of you forgot where you came from” …. :) Now that’s PRICELESS…..So, not only are your comments Christophobic & Anti-Christian, they are also sexist & racist….

      Tolerance at its best…..

  42. FYI says:

    I support marriage remaining between a MAN and a WOMAN and I am a young Bermudian (24), with many other friends who feel the same. A press release of a few does not show all those in support.
    For those who seem so angry by everything going on, I hope you really see that none of these people have spewed a word of hate towards anyone in support or involved in a homosexual lifestyle. But we understand that children are our future, most of the issues in society today are due to a missing parent in the home. A father’s input in a child is different from a mother’s input into a child, and a child needs both of these in their life. It is evidenced even in our society today! People say why not let people live their lives and do as they choose, well how about you have a conversation with a person raised by one parent, or two mothers as I have. Nothing beats having both a mother and father who love God, each other and their children.

    • Nightlilly says:

      Are you saying atheists shouldn’t have children?

  43. Torian says:

    Loving all the people saying that allowing homosexual people to marry would sink this island. Like seriously? Look at Bermuda now with straight couples, we’re already sinking! More violence than we can shake a stick at on the daily!

    • Flattsboy says:

      homosexual marriage can sink an island ? perhaps that’s what caused Atlantis to vanish *sarcasm*

  44. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Preserve Marriage prominently insists that “only” 21 of 193 countries permit SSM. Let’s examine how this tacks up.

    USA – Yes! Saudi Arabia – No!
    Canada – Yes! Russia – No!
    UK – Yes! Iran – No!
    Ireland – Yes! Pakistan – No!

    Is a pattern emerging here?

    This from Amnesty International web page on LGBT Rights:

    Human Rights Don’t Discriminate

    Amnesty International believes that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be able to enjoy the full range of human rights, without exception.

    Preserve Marriage calling for revision of the Bda HRA to enshrine discrimination under the Act has cooked their goose. Neither the government nor the courts can legislate or decide that. This battle is all over but the shouting.

    • Nightlilly says:

      M.C. Beauchamp FOR THE WIN

      • We the People (1st!!) says:

        So what is wrong with all of Africa (besides South Africa), or all of Asia, Australia, Pacific Islands, Israel, Germany or Italy?

        Listing the US and their sidekick the UK as some moral standard of right and wrong is laughable.

    • Daylilly says:

      All people have the right to marry in Bermuda, and all laws are discriminatory in some manner because they permit one thing, yet prohibit another.

      If having sexual complementarity is not a condition for marriage, then why is marriage limited to just two people?

      If responsible procreation is not an inherent component of marriage, then why are more & more SSC wanting to exercise their natural innate desires to have offspring?

      Are children human?

      Every human ever born has a mom & dad… That is the most fundamental human right.

      It is selfish and arrogant to believe that nature required a mom & dad to make a child, but we can somehow circumvent that natural law in raising the child in a responsible manner.

      We have Genetically Modified food, etc and now we are expected to legislate GMO families. This will have very far reaching health and social implications….

      • Mike Hind says:

        Good heavens… All of this has been explained to you!

        You continue to push these falsehoods! It’s sick!

        • Nightlilly says:

          GMO Families might be the funniest thing I’ve read in awhile…and I’ve been up and down this thread for days LOL

  45. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Sadly, most of Africa is mired in poverty and corruption. South Africa is the first. Asia? Are you referring to the less than democratic People’s Republic of China? (More executions for capital punishment than all the other countries on earth combined in any given year). Or perhaps the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia? Where possession of even a trace amount of marijuana results in the death penalty. (Problematic for all our local weed smokers). Australia, well, yeah, they are limping towards full recognition, with the support of the Labor Party. (No relation, clearly to the PLP…). Israel has “unregistered cohabitation status” laws. Anyway, no one would call Israel a Liberal Democracy. They’ve got bigger problems. Germany; equal rights for same sex partners. Just a question of time until same sex marriage is recognized. Italy; More than 250 Italian municipalities recognize Civil Unions – the slippery slope to full recognition according to the local propaganda.

    Vilifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the world’s greatest democracy may make you feel better, but they are paragons of liberty in the annals of man, and rightly seen as such. The UK’s parliamentary democracy has a long and distinguished history on which many of our legal concepts are built. Your nihilism is unimpressive.

  46. Daylilly says:

    It’s interesting that now that the U.S. has passed SSM, it is being lauded as the world’s greatest democracy.

    Well, most Liberal democracies have been heavily influenced by the same God many people on these threads disregard.

    It is that belief in The God of Grace and compassion that leads to freedom and the democratic process.

    Any country/person who doesn’t shape up with the SSM Agenda is labeled and ostracized, yet tolerance is demanded in return.

    How double-minded. Do you believe in democracy or not? …

    • Mike Hind says:

      And here it is, boiled down.


      Daylily thinks that their God and their belief in that God supersedes anyone else’s rights.

      Therefore they are more than ok with lying, misrepresenting truth, spreading complete and utter falsehoods, as long as it pushed their religious agenda forward.

      Bottom line: Religion is a personal choice and no one else should be expected to believe what you do.
      If you would not be ok with anyone else denying you equal access to rights and privileges afforded to others based on their religion, why are you ok with it when it’s your religion doing it?

      This is unfair. This is privilege at it’s worst.

  47. Flattsboy says:

    It wasn’t that long ago that people were arguing for ‘Traditional Marriage’ to keep marriage between whites and blacks with no race mixing. People used the argument that it was against the will of god and had no place in a traditional christian society. It’s really easy to draw comparisons to that argument and the one over gay marriage , both are wrong.

Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters